[rodmanlewis]

This is the old "crumbs-from-the-rich-man's-table" argument. The poor can't become less poor until the rich get richer.

[rodmanlewis]

How are we supposed to compensate the capitalists? Perhaps we can assure them that when socialism is established there will be no need for them to work if they don't wish to do so. Of course, they may have difficulty finding lackeys to do their cooking and cleaning. Otherwise it will be a bit like nationalisation–they won't have to rise until midday.Anyway, the progress towards socialism is not being held back by capitalists' reluctance to embrace it.

[rodmanlewis]

No doubt, this could also have a knock-on effect on the recycing industry, if the UK steel industry shrinks to the point where it is no longer viable for my local council to collect my baked beans tins?

[rodmanlewis]

This is the political equivalent of softcore porn. People who don't like it aren't interested, and those who prefer hardcore aren't interested either!

[rodmanlewis]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Of course, we also have Her Majesty, the Queen's 90th birthday in April…perhaps we could do a right royal republican edition of the Standard for the occasion

…and congratulate her on a long and fruitless life?

[rodmanlewis]

Even if we did, what difference would it make? If you 'support' one side or the other, then you should be prepared to take up arms as appropriate.

[rodmanlewis]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

"One former member remarked many years ago that we are probably better known than we think"

Personal anecdotal evidence i have of this is when i re-joined and turned up at a protest with leaflets someone was pleasantly surprised that we were still in existence. He was well acquainted with ourselves from outdoor soapbox meetings but once those ended, he no longer saw our presence and presumed we had disappeared from the political arena. This happened a few times…

This is a rather patronising attitude for that person to take. He would only show 'interest' in us as long as we had a strong profile–not being prepared to join. In other words, he was just a groupie.When, or if, socialism is established these people will climb out of the woodwork and declare they were 'with us all the time'! Meanwhile we continue to do the donkey work.

[rodmanlewis]

One former member remarked many years ago that we are probably better known than we think, but we are not known socially.

[rodmanlewis]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The festive season seems to have affected the frequency and numbers of posts on the forum overall. So i migt as well take advatage of the lull to highlight this bit i recently read on Libcom.

Quote:

I am avowedly anticapitalist….The only socialist parties I'm aware of are the SWP and the Socialist Party. If there's a separate group called the Socialist Party of Great Britain then, assuming it's not the latter, I haven't heard of them. I'm talking about the group formed from Militant.

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/learning-curve-10122015?page=1This has a funny smell about it. He says he was not aware of, and goes on to refer to us. This means he'd been informed of our existence before making his statement, but chose not to investigate us further. It looks like a deliberate exercise to belittle us.

[rodmanlewis]

Seems as though this thread went off-topic from the get-go.

[rodmanlewis]

Vin wrote:

How many people come across the party and agree but then go on to think 'it aint gonna happen in my lifetime so why sweat blood and tears? The workers aren't going to join me so to hell with it! The SPGB is too small.I think it was Robbo used the term 'critical mass' Perhaps people will join at that point, when they see the possibility of progress. Suffering now for something that will happen after we are gone doesn't make sense to many. The point is it is not a religion  socialist are not religious, not willing to wear a hairshirt, why should we? I rejoined a few years back because I genuinely feel there is 'something in the air' as Tthe band Thunderclap Newmen once sang  

I think the term 'critical mass' has been doing the rounds in the party for many years. But that won't happen if members of the working class hold off joining until we're bigger, for obvious reasons. The question is how do we target members of the working class who will join regardless of our size, and are prepared for the long haul and many disappointments? Those who are holding off until something 'seems to be happening' are useless as far as we're concerned. And then there are the 'revolving door' members who join, leave, rejoin, leave again…We should be making workers feel guilty about their hanging on to the apron strings of capitalism–a system that dispossesses them of much of what they produce. Make them feel guity about bequeathing this rotten system to their children and grandchildren. Point out to them that this exploititive system only maintains itself because of their support, and is not the fault of governments who can only carry out their, admittedly, tacit support.

[rodmanlewis]

Vin wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Straying into the realm of the claim that has been knocked about here the now and then, that only members of the SPGB/WSM are socialists.

The realm of the rediculous. I challenge anyone to convince me this man was not a socialist'Or stopped being a socialist when the SPGB expelled himhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upoHgSGdifA

I am not saying that socialists can only be found in the SPGB/WSM. In fact, the only contribution that some members make is being membership fodder–they don't contribute anything else; they don't give any financial support, and they don't respond to communications from branch secretaries. This means they are a burden on the party, whose members have to spend valuable time and effort chasing them up when they could be doing something more useful.We know there are non-members who support and help the party. Whatever their reasons for not joining, it's a fact that they contribute more to the socialist movement than some members.If some members behave in a disruptive manner because they think they are the "true believers", then that leads us to question their socialist credentials. On the other hand, perhaps they are the genuine socialists and we're not!? Let's hear their argument for us not being socialist.

[rodmanlewis]

Yes, if they are helping the socialist movement. But it would be better if they joined. It would give them and us more confidence to continue the work.

[rodmanlewis]

[/quote]i think this topic is going in a different direction about what is a 'socialist', but I don't believe the first 'socialists' only came into being in June 1904.[/quote]A socialist has to be more than someone who holds socialist ideas. They have to be in a position to assist in propagating those ideas, even if that just means remembering us in their will.

[rodmanlewis]

jondwhite wrote:

To clarify I'm not against disputing public claims that some non-member is a socialist, but I think it unwise to get into the nitty-gritty of whether a non-member would be hypothetically accepted or rejected where there is no application for membership.

 It depends on how you define a "socialist" (not socialism). A socialist has to be more than one who holds socialist ideas in their head, and doesn't communicate those ideas to anyone else or contribute in other ways to the promotion of socialism.

[Author]

Posts