robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:You raise an interesting point, Robbo, about what to do with about people like Bob Howes (who favours small-scale co-operatives and circular cities) and Dave McDonagh (who is an anarcho-capitalist) who use a forum set up by somebody else to propagate their own views so frequently and over so long a period of time (years) as to virtually take it over and turn it into a forum discussing their ideas not those of those who set up (run and pay for) the forum.Party opinion was divided on this and still is, but in the end the decision was taken by the moderator to ban them. Previously, a decision had been made to set up this forum here, as one with separate threads, which would mean that those who wanted to discuss with the likes of them could do so on a separate thread of its own. As far as I know, Bob Howes is a registered member of this forum but has not contributed much since nobody replied to him.This of course is only a problem for open forums (ie forums open to anybody) like this one and the still extant WSM Forum. It's not a problem that we have on our own member-only forums. Nor is it a problem for your own forum which (I maybe wrong on this) is not open to everyone but only to people who broadly agree with a non-market anti-state position. In other words, McDonagh would not be admitted in the first place. I'm not quite sure why Bob Howes isn't (or perhaps he is, if not why not?). I believe also that, at one time, you did run an open forum like this one but changed its nature to a semi-closed one precisely to avoid problems like those posed by Howes and McDonagh. Incidentally, have you ever had to ask someone to leave your forum because it became evident after they joined that they were not part of the broad non-market, anti-state sector? Or is there perhaps a test to join?The point I'm making (and it's not intended as a polemical debating point) is this: is there any difference in principle between not allowing McDonagh to join in the first place and allowing him to join and then excluding him for trying to take it over and turn it into a forum discussing anarcho-capitalism, not socialism? Either way, McDonagh does not get to express his views on the forum (though on our forum someone else can and I think still does, but can't on yours). Can in fairness those who have chosen the first option accuse those who have chosen the second of "censorship"?Let's see if we can have an intelligent, reasonable and polite discussion on this question/problem.
My response to this is simple and straightfoirward. I accept fully the case for having restricted forums where this is warranted. So for example there is nothing wrong with having SPINTCOM restricted to members of the SPGB only. Afterall it is about the internal business of the SPGB and, quite rightly, it is for the SPGB membership to have a say in this, not outsiders In World in Common there have been 3 forums – the COMMONER forum for members of WIC only (equivalent to SPINTCOM), WORLDINCOMMON forum restricted to people in the non market anti-statist sector and WICOPENDEBATE a public forum. This last forum was NOT changed to a semi closed forum but was simply closed down because it had been more or less dead as a forum for quite a while and was also becoming vulnernable to SPAM (sex sites) which is a sure sign of terminal decline if Im not mistaken. It was agreed by the group to close down the forum as it served no real purpose anymore which is a pity in some ways since in the early days it was quite a lively place with all sorts of ideas being tossed around. As far the WORLDINCOMMON forum is concerned there was one individual who was expelled from the forum for expressing views contrary to the nonmarket anti-statist sector – I think it was for supporting the American regime in the Iraq war. The explusion was carried out democratically and by poll of WIC members if I recall correctly So I have no objection in principle to restricting the membership of a forum, according to certain criteria – PROVIDING these are made explicit and justified at the outset and constitute as it were the basis of kind of contractural understanding involved in joining a forum in the first place. I dont even mind the idea of altering the criteria later on so as change a forum into a semi closed one PROVIDING this is done democratically in advance and made clear to the members of the forum in advance What I strongly object to is the arbitrary use of power to expel 2 individuals from a supposedly completely open public forum in the case of the WSM forum and the binning of posts by a member of this forum . In the former case , the justification advanced by the new moderator (unilaterally it would seem) for expelling the two individuals concerned was that the forum was not the place to discuss the ideas these two individuals advanced since they were not relevant to the case for socialism. That is bullshit. They were completely relevant to the "case for socialism" even if in the case of McDonagh this meant trying to demonstrate that socialism was an impossiblity . How on earth could this NOT be relevant? (I believe a similar argument was advanced for binning Bob Howe's post on this forum) The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum , That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.
SocialistPunk wrote:Editorial – the Case Against CensorshipOur answer to all censors is to reaffirm that workers are quite capable of judging for themselves, quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and working out which ideas accord with their interests – and which do not. The best condition for the emergence of socialist understanding remains free and frank discussion. May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.I absolutely agree. Yet on this forum what do we find but the thread of one individual – Bob Howes – summarily dispatched to the bin. Why? Because it was deemed by someone that such ideas are not appropriate for discussion on a socialist forum. Now I have had many arguments with Bob on his pet theory that workers setting up capitalist businesses on their own is the way to go and that this will give them the sense of empowerment that will enable them to make a revolution and also provide the necessary funds for socialist propaganda. Mistaken though this argument may be in broad outline, I defy anyone to show how it is not appropriate for discussion in a socialist forum Over on the WSM forum, this same individual – Bob Howes- and another – the anarcho-capitalist atheist, David McDonagh (see where atheistic ideas can lead to) – were actually booted off the forum altogether. I think that was an absolutely outrageous thing to do. I agree that particularly in McDonagh's case he has the irritating habit of uttering the same old insufferably repetitive mantras which add nothing of substance to the debate but more effective moderation could easily have dealt with this. However, stylistic considerations aside, the ideas that McDonough was advancing were absolutely relevant to a socialist forum. He wasn't talking about knitting patterns for a sewing circle. He was putting forward an argument – the so called economic calculation argument – which purports to show that socialism would be impossible. How anyone can say that is not relevant beats me. Instead of tackling these arguments head on what did we have but a shrill chorus of complaints from certain members about the antics of McDonough and one or two others – like his sidekick , Tet – calling for their expulsion . Apart from anything else this is so so shortsighted. Some members don't seem to understand that McDonagh was doing us a favour. The ECA is an excellent heuristic tool for developing our ideas about a socialist society. So rather than deal with this argument head on these same members simply ran away from it , reinforcing the impression that they simply had no answer to it , some leaving the forum altogther, and so allowing it to appear to have been "taken over" by a triumphal McDonough and his cronies. It was a classic example of a self fulfilling prophecy, For me personally the annoying thing is that just at the point where I had forced McDonough to look for empirical proof to back up his outlandish claims about the distribution of wealth and he had agreed to do some research and come back with the evidence – thus breaking the habit of a lifetime – he and Bob Howes were summarily banned! For me this was the nadir of Party democracy. This is the kind of stuff your would expect to see in some outfit like REVLEFT which some time ago initiated a mass clear-out of many active users on that forum to whom Admin had taken a dislike for one reason or another. This is not the kind of thing you would expect to see in a socialist forum and particularly not one run by a socialist party which claims to be the most democratic and open organisation of all Now we see talk on this forum the idea being raised of the possibility of "permanently" excluding certain users and of the need for "responsibility". Responsibility towards whom or what for chrissakes? What sort of language is this? It is the language of the thought police, of a kow towing rank-and-file membership overseen by its handpicked minders , and of Orwellian double speak. – even if it is hedged about with qualifying "ifs" and "maybes" No – if this is supposed to be a public forum open to all and sundry then the ideas of all and sundry should be allowed an airing – however uncomfortable they might be to socialists – providing they are not about knitting patterns or taking a personal swipe at some other forum user. The editorial from the Socialist Standard which Socialist Punk has pasted declares "We have always practised what we preach" Really? Always?
I said a few days ago that I was leaving this forum and explained my reasons for doing so (post 235). I would have left it at that but for the fact that I ve been alerted to the existence of some pretty distasteful tittle tattle going on behind my back about me and my contributions to this forum on another list which is open to SPGB members only. Since I'm not a member and therefore have means of redress to counter this underhand and sly attempt to blacken my name, allow me to refute those charges here since they relate to my contributions specifically to this threadI refer to several posts on SPINTCOM and one in particularhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/13687 Apparently I am guilty of "shit stirring" according to ALB and then having "lit the fuse" decided to "run away". Well if ALB wants his nemesis to return in the shape of ex comrade Cox, I will happily oblige him if it is a scrap he wants. I don't "run away" from arguments, ALB, and you of all people should know that since you've often enough felt the pain of my rottweiler teeth clamped around your lily-white ankles. I decided to leave the forum because I despair of the SPGB ever changing , ever realising that there is something fundamentally wrong with its whole approach. Its like banging your head against a brick wall, eventually you tire of it And is there not something a little ironic about the accusation of shit stirring anyway?. When people accuse others of engaging in this sort of activity what they usually mean is that they don't like to deal with robust criticism because they find it upsetting. Who exactly is running away from the argument in that case, huh? I am accused of painting a "relentlessly bleak and black picture of the party" Well thats not quite true either, is it? The "bleak" bit maybe but not the "black" bit. Even the execrable Mr "Copy and Paste" Gnome who saw fit to warn against posting comments regarding the personal integrity, intentions, character, reputation etc of another forum member and has taken every opportunity to do just that in my case, has conceded that I have been one of the fiercest defenders of the SPGB on forums like REVLEFT. Thats hardly a case of relentlessly painting a black picture of of the Party is it now? As for the bleak bit well yes that is true. The outlook of the SPGB is grim. Its numbers are falling steadily and there seems to be no let up in the decline. When I joined the Party back in the 80s the SPGB was twice the size it is now And its not just the numbers on the book. What proportion of the membership is active in any sense. After 108 years what exactly has the Party achieved with only 332 members at last count. Anyone who thinks this does not call for a fundamental rethink has seriously got to have their head read. For telling the plain truth of the matter, ALB gets in a tizzy and declares that I am engaging in positively the most "venomous and vicious attack by one individual or organisation on another individual or organisation " he has ever encountered. Come off it ALB – you have obviously lived an extremely sheltered existence if you think my post was that. You need to get out into the big bad world a bit more and engage in some real rough and tumble like I have THEN you will know what venomous and vicious is all about, you old drama queen, you No, this is clearly a case of wanting to shoot the messenger who brings bad tidings. Far from saying the SPGB "deserves to die", I have said on many occasions it would be an absolute tragedy if it did die. Yet still, after all this time, you and others who have been slating ex comrade Cox for all its worth, have no idea where I am coming from. ar all. So we have puerile comments that I am waging some sort of "vendetta" against the SPGB. For fucks sake – how stupid can you get Get this straight and get this once and for all. I'm not waging any sort of vendetta against the SPGB . It would be a strange sort of vendetta that I would be waging if it involved taking the side of of the SPGB against others on a numerous issues and on many occasions. I actually would like nothing more than for the SPGB to prosper and grow but this is not happening. Of course I have own views as to why this is so and what needs to be done to address this situation . Yes, scrapping the absolutely crazy policy of not allowing religious minded socialists into the SPGB is part of the answer; there are many other things wrong with the party besides this. Of course I believe these ideas Ive been putting forward will help the reverse the plight of the party. Whats wrong with that? Don't you similarly believe your ideas will do the same? So don't be such a hypocrite ALB I wont go on except to say that I detect within the party certain disturbing trends of late which signify to me a closing of minds and a hardening of attitudes. No doubt when things get worse you cling all the more firmly to the old certainties . I come back to the point I've made again and again. The party is in denial about the irrational side of its being. Thus it bars religious socialists from the organisation on the grounds that religion is irrational even though the the party itself is no less irrational . If the most erudite thing you can say on the matter is that the Party should on no account admit "religious nutters" well then that really sums it all up. It explains precisely why the party is in the state it is in and why this is not getting better, but decidedly worse. Rather pathetic when you think about it
SocialistPunk wrote:Ed wrote:If they are idealists then they may stay faithful to their ideals.How utterly futile and void of any meaning to the debate. I could just as easily state, if they are psychopaths they will relish the bloodshed, and on and on, back and forth, blah, blah, blah.I wasn't going to bother with this any further, but the reason I jumped into the discussion was to try and bring peoples attention to what it looks like to non socialists.The party looks like a ridiculous historical caricature, stuck in the past, using outdated language and references. From a non socialist perspective the party looks dogmatic, tired and lost in the 21st century.When I left the party some ten years ago, the internet was taking off. You would expect, due to the nature of the internet, (its global communication possibilities, millions of surfers seeking answers to all sorts of issues, random encounter possibilities, imaginative uses etc) that the party would have grown somewhat. I wouldn't expect it to be big by any means but I would expect it to have more members now than when I left ten years ago?Instead it has 332 members. Less if I am not mistaken?Why?The party is on its knees, at this rate the end won't be far off.It saddens me.
It saddens me too, SocialistPunk.Reading the contributions of some members on the list , i fear your words might well prove prophetic. The words, "ostrich", "head" and "sand" spontaneously spring to mind.After this brief dalliance with this forum, I am now more and more coming to the pessimistic conclusion that the SPGB will never ever change. It will stick stubbornly, rigidly, tenaciously and, above all, utterly irrationally to its ultra-conservatism and its laughable pretence to be …what is it ?…a "scientific socialist" organisation, as its heads slowly but inexorably towards the exit door of history. A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB. Oh Boy! Never the SPGB! There is just no point in thinking things could be done differently because "by definition" the SPGB is always right. There are none so blind who do not want to seeSo the SPGB will, I'm afraid, go the way its kindred spirits in the Ashbourne Court Group – only it will take a little while longer and, in the meantime, there is the tempting distraction of all that lovely legacy lolly to fritter away on utterly pointless gestures getting exactly nowhere. They will never ever want to look at themselves straight in the mirror and ask – "how hell did we get it so badly wrong?. If our approach is so correct why are we hemorrhaging members like water through sieve. Why is the working class showing not the slightest hint of ever being interested?". A turnout of 5 members and 2 visitors on a wet Wednesday night in Manchester or Glasgow to listen to a talk about the labour theory of value does not constitute evidence of such an interest. What an incredible waste that after 108 years it should come to this. I too cannot see it lasting much longer. In ten years time the SPGB's numbers will probably be halved again. The pity of it all is that there are some good people in the SPGB . I just hope their emotional ties with the organisation won't drag them down into the pit of political disillusionment as they see the organisation fall apart and disappear – not so much with a bang as a whimper, only to be reincarnated as an obscure footnote in some forthcoming academic book on 20th century politics For my part, I've had enough of this and the snotty carping comments from the SPGB's very own Praetorian Guard mustering under it tatty banner and trying to keep its flickering flame still burning even if it means having to improvise with a cigarette lighter. Sod 'em. I say. They will be relieved that i shall be leaving the forum but then that relief will most assuredly be mutual. Sheesh! What the hell was I ever thinking of, fondly imagining the SPGB could change. "Free at last! Free at last!", as Mr King once eloquently put it
ALB wrote:robbo203 wrote:if you even bothered to read what I wrote.I just have again and this is what you wrote:
robbo203 wrote:These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to. It needs to do that if it is to make its whole electoralist strategy more credible in the eyes of skeptics.To describe the issue as "hugely important" and making our "whole electoralist (!) strategy" less "credible" is a gross exaggeration. It's an interesting subject for speculation, I agree, but having a definite policy on this, at this stage, is not that crucial.
No, you are confusing quite different things here. We can speculate about some things such as the extent of spatial imbalances in the growth towards socialism. I have already suggested that there would be a number of factors that would tend to work towards it being reasonably balanced – telecommunications , convergent economic developments and, of course, the pro-active interventions of the worldwide socialist movement itself to help promote such balanced growth, However, with the best will in the world, it is pretty inconceivable that every socialist party in the world would grow exactly in lock step with every other to be in a position be able to capture political power simultaneously; there are inevitably going to be lags, perhaps quite significant lags. There are, in other words, other factors that work against balanced growth such as global inequalities and cultural legacies. It would be naive to just assume that the growing socialist movement would be like some great tidal wave that removes all obstacles in its pathFrom here on – once you accept there is going to be some degree of spatial imbalance – the discussion shifts from the realm of speculation to a question of having to make a definite choice and formulating a definite policy . Assuming some socialist party somewhere in the world is the first to democratically capture political power it has basically only two options and about this there can be no "speculation": it is a matter of simple logical deduction1) Does it establish socialism straightaway in the area in which has just captured political power? This would mean this initial socialist region (ISR) having to come to some kinds of arrangement with the surrounding residual capitalist states.2) Does it wait until other socialist parties elsewhere have also captured so that together they can all simultaneously introduce socialism? This would mean this first victorious socialist party having to assume the role of a government of some sort to administer capitalism in the meanwhileI repeat again – there can be no "speculation" about this, There is no third option, Assuming you have captured political (there is one other possibility which is NOT to capture power even though you are a majority though I don't think this is plausible for reasons already explained) you HAVE to choose one or other of these two options. There are no ifs and no buts here. Refusing to come to some kind of decision in principle as to which one of these is the best option to choose does indeed make your electoralist strategy less credible for the very obvious reason that workers are naturally going to ask what is the Socialist Party going to do when it democratically captures power . What could you and the SPGB say in response? Absolutely nothing it seems. How is this going to enhance your credibility?Talking of which – what counts as a majority as far as the SPGB is concerned? Here too all is vagueness with the SPGB and vagueness is the enemy of credibility. I've come across statements to the effect that what is needed is a "significant majority" but what exactly does that mean? Perhaps this is implying the possibility that socialists will not capture power even though they are a majority and that they need to be more than must a simple majority of 51%. But have you even begun to figure out the consequences that would result from allowing a capitalist government to keep hold of reins of power even though you are a majority? Nope. I don't think so. On this as on so many other things the SPGB remains silent where even a smidgeon of healthy speculation would help raise your credibility a little
ALB wrote:You've just gone over the top again in your reply to Steve:robbo203 wrote:If you cannot do that then there is no hope for socialismI don't agree that it "over the top" at all. I was making a general point about the importance of going beyond a pat formulaic responses – not just specifically to this question but about the nature of socialist society in general. You need for instance to be able to demonstrate how socialism could specifically utilise existing resources to produce for the needs of the population in practical terms – not just utter ex cathedra type claims about the merits of socialism, People will quite rightly just dismiss you as daydreamers otherwise. To be fair, the SPGB has made some effort in this direction but still you get this silly argument being rolled out that it is "not for us now to speculate" which is to totally miss the point. You need to put meat on the bare bones of your model of socialism and if you cannot excite peoples imagination and get them to think of socialism as a realistic and solid empirically-grounded proposition rather than just an collection of cosy sentiments that brushes aside any probing question on the grounds that you cant write "recipes for cookshops of the future" – Marx's famous gaffe – then there is indeed no hope for socialism. So I fully stand by my statement
ALB wrote:In any event, as the extract from the Questions of the Day pamphlet shows, we have faced and discussed the issue and come up with something, ie (1) that it's not very likely to happen, (2) that if it was going to, the decision would be up to the World Socialist International to decide. What's wrong with that?The Questions of the Day pamphlet did not answer the question at all, It was a complete and utter fudge. All it could come up with was this lame piece of waffle:"the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time"This is just so wishy washy. Its a cop out and people are just not going to buy it. It did not even outline the options (see above ) that would need to be looked at before such such a decision could be made
ALB wrote:No need to go into details about ISRs and RCSs or whatever which anyway begs the question by assuming that it is likely that the socialist movement would win political control in just one minority part of the world while the rest will be unaffected. More useful to begin by discussing whether or not this is a realistic assumption. So why do you think that the socialist movement will be more advanced in one part of the world than the rest, and where and why?Why? For the reasons stated above. Personally, I'm not too concerned with which part of the world would be more advanced – this is indeed the subject of speculation – but rather with the fact that are almost certainly going to be some spatial imbalances and if the SPGB or any other socialist party is to appear more credible it has to work out well in well in advance what it would do under these circumstances if it captured political power when the rest of the world was somewhat lagging. You cannot just irresponsibly palm this question off to some time in the indefinite future when hopefully the global movement is much larger. It needs a long term vision now of what it would do under these circumstances.
ALB wrote:robbo203 wrote:I could just as easily retort the Party's insistence that political power needs to be democratically captured is an equally "hypothetical" matter which we should not really make a fuss about now but wait till the socialist consists of tens of millions of people rather than a few thousand to decide. But does the party think that the need to democratically captured political is something best left to when socialism is more or less on cards? No it does not . To the contrary I believe that one of the questions on the current membership application form is "Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievement of socialism?Good debating point, I concede. But surely that socialism can only come about democratically is a basic socialist principle and that if there's not a majority in favour of socialism then socialism cannot be established. That's the key point. Yes, it is theoretically possible that once a majority wants socialism they could decide democratically not to try to take political power out of the hands of the ruling class and set about trying to establish socialism while leaving them in control it. However, this would be such a stupid decision that I can't see it being decided: any dogmatic anarchists proposing it would simply be ignored.
Though I think it is unlikely that the state will simply die out as the socialist movement grows, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that statist institutions will tend to weaken considerably – possibly even to the point of irrelevance – as the socialist movement reaches the stage where globally it can count on literally billions of members and supporters. Who is to say you could not have a kind of dual power set up somewhat analogous to the situation with the Bolshevik Revolution in which you had soviets alongside the constituent assembly. I'm not advocating the soviet model but all IM saying is that you cannot just dismiss the idea.The point I an making is that it is inconsistent on the part of the SPGB to insist that the political power needs to be captured democratically by parliamentary means and to elevate this principle to a criterion for membership of the party and yet to dismiss all that follows from this as mere "speculation". There is nothing speculative about the fact that once a Socialist Party has captured power somewhere and ahead of socialist parties elsewhere, it will definitely have to face the two basic options which i gave set out above. The implications that stem from either of these are hugely important – despite what you say – and IM just astounded that you cant seem to figure this out for yourself. For example, the option of not introducing socialism immediately means in effect installing some sort of dictatorship of the proletariat to administer capitalism which, in turn, mean seriously reassessing the parties entire relationship with the Leninist Left. It means that the Party in some respects though not all obviously, would be adopting a position not far removed from that of a Leninist type organisation.
ALB wrote:Incidentally, this principle (and question) does not say that parliament must be used, but only that political power must be won, democratically. This leaves open the possibility that political power could be won by some other means, as long as they were democratic. This is in fact a hypothetical situation that we have faced, eg in the event of the ruling class suspending political democracy. Once again, what to do has to be left to those around at the time to decide in the light of the precise circumstances. It is not something we can lay down now, though we can speculate about what they might or could decide to do. But would it help our case or add to our credibility if we decided now that the answer must be, say, a general strike?.Well what other means are "other mean"s are you talking about by which political power could be democratically won? Spell it out. Don't just leave it up in the air. Vagueness, I repeat, is the enemy of credibility. Be more willing to risk speculating which is far better than saying nothing at all. You come up with the same old lame excuse "what to do has to be left to those around at the time to decide in the light of the precise circumstances" but you don't explain what the choices might be out of which a decision might emerge. This is sloppy and unconvincing and conveys the impression that you haven't really thought much about the mechanics of achieving a socialist society. Do you accept my point above about there any two options which the first triumphant socialist political party will have to consider if other parts of the world are still some way off from achieving socialist majorities. In which case which option would you chose and why?
ALB wrote:But, surely, you don't want to include in the membership questionnaire, a question like this: Why do socialists maintain that an initial socialist region must be established if the socialist movement is in a position to win political control in just one country?" Do you?No, quite the opposite. I think the membership questionnaire needs to be whittled down not expanded upon and some of the questions in my view as you know – like the question on of religious beliefs – is quite redundant from a socialist point of view I accept that fundamentally socialism has to be introduced democratically but I would leave out any reference on questionnaire form on how this is to be achieved or even whether it would involve the need to capture political power since its a moot point whether the state will even exist as a relevant institution on the eve of the socialist revolution.However I draw a sharp distinction between what to put in a membership questionnaire and what the socialist movement needs to decide on a matter of such fundamental importance as this. It needs to come to some kind of collective view – even if only provisional – about what it would do under these circumstances if only to show that it has at least acknowledged there is a problem and is thinking about it. Saying nothing does nothing to enhance its credibility but on the contrary diminishes it…
zundap wrote:The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.Let me ask you this Robin, you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?The problem, Danny, lies not with the concept of morality but your understanding of it – and that of a number of other comrades here. In rejecting the concept they don't understand what they are rejecting. They are rejecting a caricature. It's very simple really. Morality is about one's motives. Whether a moral decision makes you happy or unhappy does not in any way alter its nature as a moral decision. Such a decision is motivated by a concern for the wellbeing of other individuals – whether they be your family, your class, humanity as a whole – and by the belief that these others have value in themselves and are not simply a means to your own selfish ends. Morality by its very nature is "other oriented" What you are doing and others here are engaging in is what the moral philosopher James Rachels calls the egoistic strategy of "redefining motives". Everything is made to appear as if it is motivated by self interest. Someone who dives into the sea to save a drowning child is only motivated by the praise that others will heap on him. This is manifestly false. Do you you care for your family? Of course you do. Why do you care for them? Because they are the means and instruments to enable your happiness to be realised? . Stop for a moment and try and figure out how deeply insulting such a view is for the people concerned. If you were truly "amoral", which I know you are not, you would be saying that members of your family only matter insofar as they advance your own happiness Is this what you believe? Surely not
zundap wrote:The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn’t exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest.And there M’Lud I rest my case….The witness has just admitted that in “identifying” with others and being concerned with the wellbeing of these others in the working class who he would feel bad about exploiting (it “would make us miserable”) he is adopting a moral position and that such a moral position is fully compatible with, and runs alongside, his self interest. Just like I’ve said all along as a matter of fact
steve colborn wrote:For Socialists, who have to operate in the current environment, where the movement is small, to then set hard and fast strictures of what could, or could not pertain in the future, when the movement has grown to SIGNIFICANT proportions is, I must say, and would be perceived to be, merest navel gazing and an exercise in futility.As ALB has stated, it will be up to those socialist who inhabit this future to decide, in light of THEIR CIRCUMSTANCE, who must make any decisions. We cannot circumscribe their actions, nor should we.We can merely work now, to put these people in the situation where Socialism is and is perceived to be, a viable alternative.In which case it is illogical to insist now that that socialists must work to achieve socialism by capturing political power through parliamentary means which is in fact what you are required to uphold in order to be a member of the SPGB. …. You cant have it both ways. If you think it is not for us in our minuscule numbers today to determine what could “pertain in the future ” then you cannot stipulate as the Party, let me remind you, does now that political power needs to be captured in the first place before you can have socialism. According to your logic we are nowhere near the point where we might even be able to capture political power and hence we should not be stating definitively that such power needs to be captured. I say this because there are some socialists who argue that the state should be simply bypassed or that state will wither as the socialist movement grows and capturing it will become irrelevant by the time the movement consists of tens of millions of individuals. The implication of your argument is that anarchist communists should be welcomed into the SPGB and yet the SPGB has recently produced a pamphlet claiming to show that the parliamentary approach is indispensable Quite apart from that, I object to the term “navel gazing” on principle. I thought the SPGB had overthrown this silly attitude that thinking about the future – whether it be about the nature of a socialist society or the means to achieving it – is to be avoided. If you cannot, or are unwilling to, produce some kind of intelligent and half-plausible response to probing questions that people might ask of you then you are inevitably going to be dismissed as mere daydreamers, not a serious political movement. This applies even to those more “detailed” aspects ALB was on about not simply the far more important general principles I was concerned with – like whether or not the socialist movement in one country should install a dictatorship of the proletariat and continue running capitalism there until socialist movement elsewhere had captured power as well. Anyone who thinks this is not a fundamental strategic matter upon which a clear decision needs to be made has absolutely no idea of the basic logic of the socialist case.and what is important to it. Its akin to saying we cannot know whether socialism will be based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production because thats way off into the future and who are we to determine what socialism will be Some things – it is quite true – we cannot determine will be be the case in a socialist society. But that does not invalidate the process of speculation . This is the point that is overlooked. If you don’t strive to put meat on the bare bones of the socialist alternative, the very goal of a socialist society becomes less substantial , a vague abstraction , a kind of religious dogma or a mere verbal formula to be recited like some catechism in a Roman Catholic pamphlet. . Substitute “I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” with “Only Common Ownership and Democratic Control of the Means of Production will solve the world’s problems” and you are still left with same kind of basic mindset. The kind of mindset that craves comfort and certainty in the reciting of formulaic dogmasThe point of speculation is not to say what will happen but what might happen. It is to excite the revolutionary imagination. If you cannot do that then there is no hope for socialism
ALB wrote:I was in fact trying to make a serious point in a light-hearted way (even though we were warned in speakers’ class not to employ irony as it is likely to be misunderstood). There is something a bit ridiculous in the few thousand of us in this country who are socialists trying to lay down a detailed policy as to how the future mass socialist movement should react in a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise. We can speculate of course but at this stage it can be no more than that, so to claim that not having an answer to some hypothetical situation is a serious theoretical inadequacy that reflects on the creditibility of our whole case is to go right over the top. Our “answer” can only be to say that it is up to the future mass socialist movement to decide what to do in the light of the actual situation and in accordance with its democratic procedures. All we can do is stick to generalities and insist that whatever is decided should be decided democratically.First point – this is not some “detailed” policy I was talking about if you even bothered to read what I wrote. What is was dealing with precisely the kind of general point or principle you say we should stick with – namely, what happens when a socialist majorly captures political power somewhere? Does it introduce socialism then and there or does it wait for socialist parties elsewhere to capture power and install some kind of “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the meanwhile and continue operating capitalismJesus Christ, I would have thought that you of all people would have realised this is hardly some trivial nitpicking point to be sniggered at . If the SPGB wants to be taken a little more seriously then it could do without the kind of attitude you have displayed, frankly. There are very significant implications that flow from either of the above options which need to be faced up to Secondly – yes, the situation is “hypothetical” in the sense that we might not ever arrive at it . Socialism, after all, is not inevitable, But that does not mean the questions I raised can be ignored. It actually cuts the very heart of the SPGB case. I could just as easily retort the Party’s insistence that political power needs to be democratically captured is an equally “hypothetical” matter which we should not really make a fuss about now but wait till the socialist consists of tens of millions of people rather than a few thousand to decide. But does the party think that the need to democratically captured political is something best left to when socialism is more or less on cards? No it does not . To the contrary I believe that one of the questions on the current membership application form is “Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievement of socialism? Why is my question dismissed is being concerned with only a a hypothetical situation best left till later on but this question on the membership is assumed to be of such vital importance even to the extent that ones membership depends on it And thirdly no I m not calling into question the credibility of the SPGB’s whole case. There are large chunks of the case I have absolutely no problem with. It’s not the SPGB’s case that concerns me which barring the silly nonsense about religion and one or two other things is fine with me . Rather it is the credibility of some SPGBers who refuse to deal with a serious issue in a serious way even to the point of seeking to belittle and poke fun at those who raise such issues in the first . ” Lighthearted hearted way ” my arse. This doesn’t reflect well on the organisation to engage in such smart arse put downs and you shoould know this
gnome wrote:robbo203 wrote:I’ve got no free will in the matter.robbo203 wrote:The notion that we have no free will whatsoever is just as ridiculous as the notion that we have absolute free will, in my view.Some people just don’t have a sense of humour. I was trying to take the P+++ or didn’t you get that?
ALB wrote:Lighten up, Robbo. Why is it always you who introduces an element of acrimony into these discussions?Incidentally, I’m not sure you can call the late Pieter Lawrence to your aid, at least not by what he wrote in 1988 about your ideas:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/19536?var=1I’ll tell you what, ALB – you stop with your irritating habit of interjecting snidey little comments into the conversation and I’ll stop being acrimonious. OK? Can’t say fairer than that, huh? Afterall its all cause (snidey comment) and effect (acrimonious put down), innit? I’ve got no free will in the matter. As for that other little irritating habit of yours of dredging up stuff from years ago, I will only say this with regards to Pieter’s response – that he was way off beam in his arguments and in fact his arguments were subsequently soundly demolished. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that just because someone has been my opponent in a political debate that anything he or she must says must be deemed wrong or unsound. I can recognise a valid point when I encounter it – even in your case if I might say so
ALB wrote:robbo203 wrote:These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to.I propose that this hugely important theoretical question be referred to the Crystal Ball Dept for report nearer the time of the socialist revolution. Is there a seconder?
This cynical and snidey remark is unworthy of you, ALB. Speaking of crystal balls, there was a time when the SPGB had the balls to face up to the big questions. Perhaps those balls have lost some their lustre now or have simply dropped off and are merrily rolling down Clapham High St as we speak. I remember when the Production for Use Committee was first set up and I remember also the reasons advanced for setting up that Committee – that we needed to put more meat on the bare bones of the socialist alternative and to demonstrate , amongst other things how in a practical manner it could address the big problems of today like world hunger. The point was to show the vital relevance of socialism in the here and now not some indefinite remote future. Pieter Lawrence, as I recall, made the rather memorable point along the lines that if you are not prepared to discuss the future then you surrender it to our opponents, or words to that effect. Well, it seems there are some in the Party – what I call its Conservative wing – are clearly not prepared to do this and clearly prefer to withdraw into the comfort zone of nostalgia and Party reminiscences, Nothing could be more ironic for a Party claiming to be “revolutionary ” that it should so terrified of the prospect of the slightest change within. What ever became of Marx’s dictum to “question everything” . It seems to have been replaced by another – “turn a blind eye to everything” The questions I asked in my post earlier where made in good faith and they’re far from trivial or something to be sneered at or patronised over. They actually cut to the very heart of the SPGB’s whole electoral strategy for the democratic capture of political power – which strategy, I will say now, I have always supported, even though i consider it grossly incomplete and one sided. Outside the cosy little insular world inhabited by the likes of ALB and Gnome, people – or at least politically active people – are talking about precisely these sort of issues . Go to sites like Revleft where I have been ploughing the SPGB furrow for some time with no thanks from the backstabbers on this forum and you will see for yourself. These are important issues to discuss and if ALB cannot see their importance then I’m afraid he is a fool. You can’t just brush such things under the carpet like this and if he doesn’t want to discuss it well then fine – i hope there are more rational comrades in the SPGB who will
This discussion of which socialist organisation is currently the biggest and where a socialist party is first likely to democratically capture political power is all very interesting and all very well but rather besides the point of this thread , isn’t it? The point is what happens after some socialist party somewhere in the world first captures power? Does it establish the first socialist island in a sea of capitalism? Or does it install a proletarian dictatorship and continue operating capitalism until all the other socialist parties elsewhere have caught up? If the later, how can we avoid the clear risk of “substitutionism” and betrayal by a “socialist government”? If the former, how would this initial socialist region (ISR) relate in material sense to the surrounding residual capitalist states (RCSs)? Will it conduct its relations with the latter in the form of barter deals or will it opt for greater autarky as Alan has suggested or will it be both? And what about the question of porous borders and the free flow of individuals across them? Will this be permitted or denied and if so what would be the implications in each case? These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to. It needs to do that if it is to make its whole electoralist strategy more credible in the eyes of skeptics. The logical starting point is to address the question of whether socialism can be established immediately in one part of the world when the rest of the world is still nominally capitalist, albeit increasingly influenced by significant socialist minorities.
ALB wrote:Fabian wrote:Could it be said that socialism is based on an view that everyone has the right to fulfillment of their needs?You could put it that way and enabling people to fulfil their needs is what socialism will bring about. But there is no need to make out a moral or philosophical case for socialism since socialism will not come about through people accepting such a case. It will come about when material circumstances eventually lead the excluded majority to realise that their material interest (in fulfilling their needs) can only be achieved by making productive resources the common heritage of all, ie as a practical solution to a practical problem, not as the implementation of an abstract principle. This may well be reflected, as others here have pointed out, in a feeling that this change is right/fair/just, etc. In fact I would imagine it will be.
You don’t need to make out some kind of separate moral and philosophical case for socialism – simply to recognise that the case for socialism has both moral and material aspects to it . It makes no sense for example to criticise capitalism on the grounds that it exploits the working class without meaning by this that you consider such exploitation to be morally reprehensible. Certainly socialism will be in the material interests of the working class but it will also be the expression of our sense of moral outrage at what capitalism does to us and our environment.
