SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:If we haven't found the right 'strategy' after 111 years then it's unlikely that we will. The same applies to our companion parties who are doing even less well than ourselves. Why is it though that those who continually carp and snipe from the sidelines and appear to have all the answers don't simply put their ideas into practice and show the rest of us where we're going wrong? Why aren't our comrades in the North-East forging ahead and leaving the rest of us behind? Why isn't there a thriving socialist party in Spain, where Robin has resided for over a decade; surely there must be an abundance of religious workers there who are just falling over themselves in their bid to join up?The truth is that there is no silver bullet; we constantly have to battle not only against the misinformation which workers are fed from cradle to grave but against Leninists and other distorters of socialism. That we're around and still doing that is an achievement in itself.gnome wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:In defence of NERB, they did succeed in becoming a branch after many years of inactivity and stood a candidate in the general election. I'm sure there are other branches more rightly deserving of your critiicism.
No they're not; members of other branches and their 'supporters' aren't negatively casting aspersions on the party's strategy, etc.
Not really sure what your problem is with the NERB, Gnome? This is not the first time you have expressed animosity toward them.I don't recall any animosity being expressed toward the KSRB from comrades in the North East. Just because you may have a problem with a couple of NERB members and myself expressing opinions you dislike, does not mean the branch as a whole is deserving of your animosity.I believe in the 1980's there was a thriving NERB, for reasons unknown to me it withered away. When I joined in the late 1990's the branch had been resurected and once more began to thrive. We did all the usual things, as well as contesting a number of elections. Once again the branch withered away. Now under quite difficult circumstances the branch has once again resurfaced and managed to contest the last general election. Perhaps it will once more grow only to wither away, who knows. But please don't lather your animosity for a few, over the entire branch.Officially there are 20 NERB members. 5 make regular appearances on the NERB on-line meeting room on this site. The NERB members whom you take exception to that make regular contributions to this forum do not claim to speak for the whole branch.As for these negative aspersions you speak of. Since when has constructive criticism been taboo within the SPGB/WSM. The NERB members and "supporters" on this forum who are critical, are not engaged in trolling the SPGB. No one has ever said there are any silver bullet solutions to improve the fortunes of the SPGB/WSM. It is simply the considered view of myself and one or two NERB members that the SPGB does itself no favours in alienating those attracted to the "left". On what planet could this be construed as casting negative aspersions at the SPGB? Time and time again I have asked you to provide counter arguments to opinions or proposals I have offered, yet despite your vociferous objections, you fail to present any solid counter arguments. And now you condemn the North East branch. It prompts the question, who is being negative?
Isn't it about time another thread was set up to discuss all things Corbyn Labour party?A party member has recently found himself in trouble for posting off topic on this thread, which in essence is no longer a relevant thread. Meaning all posts are now off topic and have been for some time now.
Soy and corn starch is found in a huge amount of processed foods. I wonder just how necessary they really are?I know that cost and shelf life are major factors in their use, as well as cosmetic factors, but not sure if they are essential. In other words could we manage to feed the global population and have healthy, as well as enjoyable diets without their use?
robbo203 wrote:ALB has suggested that "This is becoming a thread not just for Private Fraser, but for Jeremiah, Cassandra and Moaning Minnie" Well I might be a Moaning Minnie for going on about how the Party pigheadedly (perhaps I shouldnt mention pigs in this polite company) and shortsightedly refuses to even consider changing the way it does things or thinks about things but I am far from being a pessimist. Quite the opposite – the opportunities for putting across socialist ideas are expanding not contracting and I disagree with SP when he says "But haven't you heard Ozzy, millions of workers know about our socialism and reject it" – unless of course he is being ironic which I assume is the caseI was being ironic Robbo. Some months ago there was a discussion on this forum about party progress and a party member insisted millions of people had heard the SPGB/WSM case for socialism and delibertely rejected it.I disagreed, as like you I'm of the view that not that many people in the real world have a clue of the existence of the SPGB/WSM. I also tend to agree with you that numbers count, that an extremely small political party advocating pretty far out ideas is not taken seriously by those who get a fleeting glimpse.
robbo203 wrote:People don't so much reject the SPGB having heard the case. The fact is overwhelmingly people haven't a clue of even the existence of the SPGB let alone what it stands for. And the relatively tiny number of people who do know what it stands for, largely reject the SPGB because they think it is too small to make credible progress (a self fulfilling prophecy) or because of silly pointless policies that the SPGB inflicts on itself such as its bar on religious socialists which handicaps its own growthLike you I'm encouraged by the current climate of political cynicism and mistrust.
Brian wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:The conclusion then must be the way the SPGB responds to the changing socio-political climate.Fraid that doesn't follow. It could be that the ; it could have been that sun spots caused us to become members: we don't know. Assuming just one more tweek in our propaganda, one more change in our structure, a different tone of voice, etc. will lead to the breakthrough is egoising. People will become members, or they won't, all we can do is express our opinion.
Nobody is assuming that the proposals for change will lead "to the breakthrough" but that we make a start on addressing the real threat of a further decline in membership and activity. And its no "could have been" about it for "the conditions outside the party that generated members have gone/changed" for the point the proposals are trying to make is there has not been a corresponding change within the party on what we say and what we do, or how we do things.
What Brian said.I would have thought it obvious that changing conditions outside would impact the fortunes of the SPGB/WSM.I guess some prefer to maintain a stiff upper lip in the face of adversity. You never know, it might just work old bean.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l_3-23zAWM
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm afraid the answer is imple. People don't like our case and don't agree with us. That was the message at the general election, either they reject us outright, or say they like what we say, but want to 'do something now' and so will vote Labour. Nothing we change in our presentation or organisation is going to change that situation. All we can do is go on having our views and stating them.Unfortunately it'snot as simple as that YMS. But it is also not as simple people not understanding it either. It's a mixture of both, with a big dollop of the way the party communicates becoming irrelevant. Brian puts it perfectly.
Brian wrote:We are quick enough on doing a system analysis on the disfunctionality of capitalism but very reluctant on doing the same analysis to ourselves.I think the fact that the membership is dwindling is an indication something is being done wrong. If the party numbers were static then we might be able to reasonably conclude that most people just don't like the message and that it only appeals to a few weirdos (people like us) in every generation. But members numbers are dwindling away.If nothing else we should be able to see even the small number of weirdos are not being drawn in as they used to be. The conclusion then must be the way the SPGB responds to the changing socio-political climate.Keep calm and carry on as usual, while we are being passed by.I don't have all the answers, but I have a suspicion that the way the party traditionally responds to the "left" is not working as well as it used to in this digital communication age.I might get a chance to expand on my ideas later.
Alan,I've been watching this thread with interest and I think there are some valid points being made by the "Moaning Minnies". I particularly noticed your remark about the low ballot paper returns. An easy identifier of member interest if ever there was one.What strikes me, and it's particularly odd as usually members of the SPGB are quick to refute, is the lack of credible counter argument being put forward against Vin, Robbo and yourself. The proverbial ostrich once more springs to mind.I think there is hope for the SPGB/WSM, if only members admit to there being serious flaws that need dealing with once and for all. It saddens me to see party members in denial, when things are so dangerously close to the event horizon.You were right to note there are parallels with what John Crump said about the situation the SPGB was in back in the sixties and early seventies. Back then there were double the members there are now. I think that speaks for itself.The social environment is ripe for the plucking. It's now or never.
As a person who uses two medical products that are a result of recombinant DNA technology, I'm well aware of the benefits of genetic modification technology.The technology was driven initially by medical science. A worthy cause most would agree.The first GM crop to be trialed was a herbicide resistant tobacco plant. Not quite what you could call a worthy cause. The first commercially available GM crop for eating was a tomato, designed to have a longer shelf life.Do I need to spell out the obvious conclusion from a socialist perspective?
I'm basically in agreement. A socialist society would be in a more advantageous position to be able to way up the present needs with potential long term uncertainty. When I say long term, I'm thinking beyond decades.However the issue of whether or not to use GM foods today is not based on the same reasoning as we would expect to see in a socialist society. The thinking behind the use of GM crops etc today is not based on necessity, but profit.
DJPJust checking.I'm aware that there is a general consensus among scientists that GM food is safe. Because I'm not a scientist and can't review the thousands of studies to verify for myself I have to trust that consensus, just as I trust the overall consensus among the scientific community that manmade global warming is a reality.The only issue I have with GM food is whether or not it is really necessary, to save lives etc, and not as a result of "commercial necessity". If it is an absolute necessity then the potential long term uncertainty is worth a gamble.
DJPAre you saying that there are no potential risks to eating genetically modified foods? That they are 100% safe because all outcomes are known and deemed acceptable?
Basically the like and dislike buttons are popularity meters.As such they can be misused, just like the flag feature on this forum is often misused.
twc wrote:ajj wrote:I provided one individual and one political organisation which met your request. The means to achieve that solution may not be the SPGB's but they seek the same society as we do as a solution to all the social ills.Before you get carried away, you might reread my challenge to provide an instance of someone or some organisation outside the party that actually advocates the same practical solution as we do. I worded the challenge carefully.Just because people or organisations imagine the same future world doesn’t mean they have the the same practical solution as we do.Imaginary worlds are cheap. They all remain utopian dreams—in Marx’s and Engels’s sense—without the necessary means to achieve them, and then to convince their proponents that, once achieved, the system will maintain itself as socialism.And therein lies the crucial point of the challenge.Therein lies the necessity for the socialist party to ground its existence on its signature Declaration of Principles, which is the party’s practical solution to achieving socialism and, once achieved, of reproducing and maintaining it.The Declaration is based on the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels. It is the party’s rational means of convincing people of the necessity and viability of socialism.As a succinct rational document it also serves to actuate class consciousness; to convince people that socialism can be achieved practically and, once achieved, that socialism will reproduce itself practically. That is a powerful weapon.By comparison to scientific conviction, all else is socialist pipe dream. No matter how immediately compelling the non-scientific alternative, conviction remains utopian, and practical socialism remains stillborn.Of course none of this means anything to you. You flatly deny the predictive force of scientific socialism and you effectively repudiate its deterministic scientific status. From your angle, the party’s socialist platform and rationale are decidedly not scientific. They are fundamentally matters of pure opinion.To reduce socialism to mere opinion is to scuttle the party—to remove its rational scientific foundation. Without its scientific platform the party has no convincing reason to exist at all.And that’s why your purely opinionated socialist stance fences you into the invidious political position of putting unbounded faith in the following priceless specimen of lamentable opinion “Can’t you accept that others may well be right and we wrong?”
Hi TWC,Not so sure the DoP does offer a practical solution to achieving socialism.There's the common ownership and democratic control statement. Then you've got the capturing of the machinery of state etc. Not forgetting this only coming about by the concious effort of the majority of us workers.It's a start, a very good start, but it doesn't explain much else to people as to how to put it all into effect. It doesn't even touch upon the imensity of the task of how to actuallty go about restructuring society.This is part of the problem. It sounds nice, but it gives no clue other than to say we've got to do it for ourselves, democraticaly. That's probably a large part of why the people I've discussed it with over the years always come up with similar statements. "It's a nice idea, but it'll never work." and variations around that theme. People can't fit the pieces together. Increasingly, I find my mind boggles at the task facing humanity.If you look at the SPGB there's a lot of difficulty even organising communication and effective participatory democracy among about three hundred or so members. Such an example for the rest of our fellow workers doesn't say much for the DoP being a practical solution to anything.So to say the DoP is a practical solution doesn't really stack up against reality.
