SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Yes. And it's maintained by their continuing support for it. The ruling class can't just switch it off. Political democracy is not just a matter of laws. It's a reflection of a level of political consciousness already attained.SocialistPunk wrote:The ruling class may be unable to switch off democratic consciousness, but they certainly have managed to turn down the dimmer switch of trade union consciousness among the workers, despite the gains their ancestor's struggles have won them.SocialistPunk wrote:Do you think the ruling class incapable of manipulating the political consciousness of us workers?
Don't mean to be pushy, but a statement was made that basically says, the ruling class can't control the political consciousness of us workers. Yet there is evidence to the contrary in the demise of the Trade Union movement. Another example where workers have been led to accept the reduction of the welfare state, is found in the flood of tv programs about benefit scroungers, along side politicians misinforming the public about the figures. We are being manipulated.So how hard would it be to convince the public that in order to be safe from terrorists, we had to relinquish certain "minor freedoms" such as advocating socialist/communist revolutions etc?
I think we're getting somewhere here, but there are a couple of points I am hoping for clarification on..
Quote:State. The state is essentially a coercive machine (police, judiciary, armed forces, schools, etc.) for conserving the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers in a geographical area.Quite self explanatory. And also obvious, that in order for a socialist revolution to be successful, states must be captured and dismantled.
AlanJJohnstone wrote:The State is the form taken by the centre of social administration without which modern industrial society couldn't function. We want the working class to take it over and convert it into an unarmed democratic administration of things. We want to see an end to capitalist class rule not the breakdown of society.Reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes.If workers will be organising outside "the state" in the run up to taking control, democratically, I seriously doubt if there will be a breakdown of society. If "the state" vanished within a capitalist structure, there would be a breakdown of society (and we often see it happen in the world today), but conscious socialists planning and forging ahead with a revolution would be supremely organised.
Young Master Smeet wrote:1) I for one an allergic to dying of typhoid the day after the revolution, the whole gammut of state regulation of sanitation and health will need to be taken over (disrupting it will be harmful).2) Why create new democratic structures when perfectly functional ones exist? Local councils and parliamentary bodies exist and we will need something of their like (even if we change the terms of election and their precise duties: what would definitely be dismantled would be the separate and secret executive functions of the state).I'll have to use Britain as an example. Firstly, not all health and hygiene services are state owned anymore. The NHS is more than capable of running independently of the state tomorrow if it had unrestricted financial resources. Plus it won't be too long before there is little left of a state owned NHS. Utilities are no longer state owned, likewise communication, most transport, postage. One of the Tories favourite mantras is "the small state".My point is social organisation and necessary services are more often not under state control. There would be no breakdown, or loss of function, as it is the workers who organise and run the services already. And so brings me onto the next point.Secondly, new democratic structures will already be in the process of creation a the revolutionary workers organise and plan the logistics outside existing democratic structures. During the "change over" period it would be more a case of taking control of premises, equipment and the book work.A similar thing would happen with privately owned services and production. Food for example would need to be produced and co-ordinated to meet the needs of a non profit society of common ownership. New democratic structures would need to be developed. And I suspect such planning would be taking place as the revolutionary movement gathered pace.So what is left, or even useful, of "the state"? The military? Would a reduced "state" be kept in place (not even sure what that means) to enable any violent capitalist resistance to be stamped out? As Robbo points out, "stateless societies are also capable of wielding coercive force".
So George thinks China isn't a sweatshop economy.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/forced-student-labour-china-appleBut he is a fan of the Victorian era.
Quote:He claimed, as he waited in Hong Kong for a flight home, that the positive attitude of the country during the Victorian era and while Margaret Thatcher was prime minister has been lost.“I do think there’s an ambition in the country and a sense of optimism and 'can do’ which our country had in the Victorian age and had at other points in our history,” he said.“Somewhere along the line in Britain there were bits that were great about British industry that we allowed to wither.”Perhaps he's refering to child labour.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87eVOpbcoVo
ALB wrote:Yes. And it's maintained by their continuing support for it. The ruling class can't just switch it off. Political democracy is not just a matter of laws. It's a reflection of a level of political consciousness already attained.By the way, what's that Nazi site you refer us to? I agree they should be concerned about these new laws being used against them. We'd oppose that too.Do you think the ruling class incapable of manipulating the political conciousness of us workers?
The ruling class may be unable to switch off democratic conciousness, but they certainly have managed to turn down the dimmer switch of trade union conciousness among the workers, despite the gains their ancestor's struggles have won them.
Well there's no doubt in my mind that what we here advocate is definitely radical, so the SPGB and other revolutionary groups could potentially be seen as extremists.It all depends on what the government, even local authorities want to use the law for. As we've seen in Britain laws intended for dealing with the threat of terrorism have been used for far, far less serious issues. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.htmlOnce such laws are in place, they're there to stay and can be called upon whenever required. Today it's Islamic extremism, tomorrow it could be socialist/communist revolutionaries.If there's a call to arms to condemn and protest against the legislation, I strongly suggest the SPGB roll up its sleeves and muck in.
Found this amusing spoof.http://newsthump.com/2015/05/14/tories-accidentally-ban-themselves-under-new-anti-extremism-laws/However, believe it or not, this quote by Teresa May is real.
Quote:Theresa May told BBC Radio 4 Today the government wants to "bring people together to ensure we are living together as one society".She said: "What we are proposing is a bill which will have certain measures within it, measures such as introducing banning orders for groups and disruption orders for individuals, for those who are out there actively trying to promote this hatred and intolerance which can lead to division in our society and undermines our British values."But it will be part of a bigger picture , a strategy which will also have as a key part of it actually promoting our British values, our values of democracy, rule of law, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths."The measures, she added, will focus on "extremism of all sorts… that is seeking to promote hatred, that is seeking to divide our society, that is seeking to undermine the very values that make us a great country to live in".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802I've highlighted the obvious flaw in what she says. She obviously doesn't recognise that her government have been promoting division in British society.http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people
Quote:The government's focus on alleged fraud and overclaiming to justify cuts in disability benefits has caused an increase in resentment and abuse directed at disabled people, as they find themselves being labelled as scroungers, six of the country's biggest disability groups have warned.Some of the charities say they are now regularly contacted by people who have been taunted on the street about supposedly faking their disability and are concerned the climate of suspicion could spill over into violence or other hate crimes.While the charities speaking out – Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the National Autistic Society, Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), and Disability Alliance – say inflammatory media coverage has played a role in this, they primarily blame ministers and civil servants for repeatedly highlighting the supposed mass abuse of the disability benefits system, much of which is unfounded.At the same time, they say, the focus on "fairness for taxpayers" has fostered the notion that disabled people are a separate group who don't contribute.This from a more recent article.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/551327/EXCLUSIVE-Hate-crimes-on-disabled-rise-by-213
Quote:Last year 574 disability hate crime cases were recorded, compared with 183 in 2007/8. However, Stephen Brookes, of the UK Disability Hate Crime Network and Disability Rights charity, said the figures were probably much higher.He said: “I believe the number of people actually suffering is equivalent to the number who report religious and race hate crime each year – 60,000.”Former director of public prosecutions Ken MacDonald last year said the police and CPS regularly overlook the crime despite “lots and lots of cases involving disabled people being abused, injured, or murdered”.A CPS spokesman said last night the body launched a Disability Hate Crime Action Plan in 2014 to tackle the issue.And last but not least, (sorry for the long post). http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tax-avoidance-schemes-used-rich-5166327What did Teresa May say the government wants to do? "bring people together to ensure we are living together as one society". Uhmm….something doesn't quite add up. I wonder what it could be?
We have gone off topic a fair bit, but it's an interesting and worthy discussion. Any one any idea if there is a thread that we could take this over to? Or is a new one required?
I see your trying to wind me up Gnome, my dear. Trying to get me to post something inflammatory. All I'll say is that you obviously have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, so you just keep on posting the same quote by me that wasn't even a position I hold, simply a "what if", a "what would you say to that" scenario.Here it is in it's full context.
SocialistPunk wrote:If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?And your reply.
Gnome wrote:Accepting that achieving socialism requires majority understanding and the ballot is the surest way of confirming that is what has happened, why then would "the people" instead embark on a certain course of mass suicide by confronting the state machine with force when they could gain control of it peacefully? Whatever the outcome would be in the wake of this romantic and dangerous nonsense one thing is definite; it wouldn't be socialism.Wow! I was only positing a "what if" scenario that you decided to inflate way out of context, but you've made a concrete statement (my bold ) that confirms your "If it it aint SPGB, it aint socialism" attitude, I detected previously.That if a messy, ie violent, revolution did take place, but was successful in achieving a global society of common ownership and democratic control, you would view the outcome as unsocialist, just because it didn't go your way.I know the SPGB/WSM believe in using existing democratic structures, where possible, to achieve socialism but I didn't think them so rigid in that stance as to reject socialism should it come about via a different route. Perhaps you're in the wrong political party? And still unable to discuss the pros and cons of using the state for social organisation I mentioned earlier (#61).
AlanJJohnstone wrote:To give another example of our presentation problem, I am sure in these centenary years of WW1 many of us are puzzled why despite our unwavering opposition and the personal sacrifice of numerous members, the party rarely receives a mention when it comes to reviewing opposition to the war. It surely cannot be a conspiracy by historians singling the SPGB and erasing us from history-books.I think it is to do with the fact that we ourselves distanced ourselves from other anti-war activists. Again, as individuals, I recall reading of members coaching and representing non-party conscientious objectors at their tribunals. I recall reading that the Socialist Standard re-published a call for an international anti-war conference. We could have went a lot further and acted as a conduit for anti-war activism and it needn’t have jeopardised our socialist credentials but reinforced them.Absolutely Alan. It's what I was getting at on the "Tory Legislation on "Extremism" thread.
SocialistPunk wrote:My point is, if the SPGB constantly alienates itself from the "left", there will be no support should it ever be required. Sometimes you gotta step into the firing line, or else risk being left at the back of the room trying to get heard above the cheers for the ones who took a hit. In other words who gets the recognition, who gets remembered by the future revolutionaries?I'd be interested to know what the SPGB membership numbers were before the first world war, compared to now.gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:The parliament route serves only two functions as far as I can tell. One is practical, in potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state and the other is purely decorative "legitimacy".I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.You're completely and utterly confused, aren't you, AnarchistPunk. On the one hand you admit that the "parliament route" serves the function of "potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state", but in the next breath you say "controlling parliament is not essential" for socialism to come into existence". (your bold) Which is it to be?As far as your other "function" is concerned, that which is "purely decorative", one of "legitimacy", how better to know if the majority support the socialist revolution other than by the ballot box?You've abysmally failed to present one alternative to the "parliament route" other than to posit the completely ludicrous situation where "the people decided to use force" (#47). Against the modern state? Come on, you cannot be serious.Present us with what you consider to be 'viable' alternative scenarios, AP, and they will be systematically demolished one by one.
I'm not confused at all Gnome.The social organisation aspect of gaining control of the state is unnecessary as I pointed out previously. (quoted below) . But you still fail to answer that point, despite it being a point that you placed importance on. (see #54)
SocialistPunk wrote:As a socialist revolutionary movement grows, democratic organisation on a mass scale will be taking place by the workers, who already run society, outside the state. It won't be a case of "Right, we've gained control of parliament, now what?". The state won't need reorganising because the workers would have already organised in readiness for the reorganising of society as a whole.As for the military issue. I was asking you a question regarding your response to a "what if" scenario, when I posited my "ludicrous scenario". (#47)I actually base this line of enquiry on things I've read in the Socialist Standard and this forum. Not long ago there was a discussion on this forum about the possibility of a bloodless revolution, with suggestions that the military machine would likely grind to a halt as a socialist revolution gathers serious pace. It was pointed out that soldiers are workers with families and friends and so most would be unlikely to turn their guns on them.I've already said I'm not against the parliamentary approach. However I definately think winning control of the state is unimportant regarding social organisation. For me the military question is the issue. But I'm not dogmatic in my outlook, I'm simply trying to get some clarification on a few things here. For some reason you seem to be on a major defensive as if I'm trying to smash the SPGB philosophy.But be my guest and demolish my "scenarios", starting with the one you forgot about in my quote above. I'm more than willing to expose myself to correction, even ridicule, on this forum if it teaches me something. Are you?
Gnome wrote:The SPGB may not "have an exclusive claim that the road to socialism must be via the limited state democracy of parliament" but you've failed miserably to present a cogent (or any) argument as to why the SPGB is incorrect.Sorry Gnome old chap, trying to avert attention from your beloved stance of "If it aint SPGB, it aint socialism", by claiming I've failed to prove such a stance wrong, is quite laughable. I've never said the SPGB parliament approach is wrong or that I disagree with it. All I say is that the parliamentary route is not necessarily as vital as some think. It's useful in that it should pull the teeth of the military and it adds "legitimacy" to the revolution. Though legitimacy is unimportant as socialists care nothing of the claims of capitalists. But if their limited democratic structures are used against them, then they have no counter claim of illegitimacy.
Gnome wrote:But there is a more positive reason for winning control of political power. The state is an instrument of coercion, but it has assumed social functions that have to exist in any society and which have nothing to do with its coercive nature: it has taken over the role of being society’s central organ of administration and co-ordination. Gaining control of the state will at the same time give control of this social organ which can be used to co-ordinate the changeover from capitalism to socialism. Of course, it couldn’t be used in the form inherited from capitalism; it would have to be reorganised on a thoroughly democratic basis, with mandated and recallable delegates and popular participation replacing the unaccountable professional politicians and unelected top civil servants of today.A simple question. What social functions does the state provide that are not already capable of independent functioning, or would not be under workers control by the time a convincing socialist majority won control of parliament? I've previously made this point using the NHS in Britain. It is more than capable of functioning independently of state interference. Likewise, services in the UK such as energy, water, communication, postal are no longer in the hands of the state.You also say the state would need to be reorganised. For what purpose? What social purpose would a withered relic of minority ownership serve? What's the point?As a socialist revolutionary movement grows, democratic organisation on a mass scale will be taking place by the workers, who already run society, outside the state. It won't be a case of "Right, we've gained control of parliament, now what?". The state won't need reorganising because the workers would have already organised in readiness for the reorganising of society as a whole.The parliament route serves only two functions as far as I can tell. One is practical, in potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state and the other is purely decorative "legitimacy".I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:gnome wrote:Which "revolutionary groups" would they be then? I know of none, at least not within these shores. For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it.If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?
Accepting that achieving socialism requires majority understanding and the ballot is the surest way of confirming that is what has happened, why then would "the people" instead embark on a certain course of mass suicide by confronting the state machine with force when they could gain control of it peacefully? Whatever the outcome would be in the wake of this romantic and dangerous nonsense one thing is definite; it wouldn't be socialism.
The socialist majority will decide how they wish to bring about socialism. If they decide not to use the parliamentary route the SPGB advocate, so be it. People can still (and do) organise on a democratic basis without participating in state democracy.You haven't answered my first and most important question.
SocialistPunk wrote:Do you honestly think that in order to consider yourself to be a socialist, you have to agree to using a parliamentary route?You say "For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it". Meaning if it isn't done by the parliamentary route, it isn't socialism.But I can answer it for you. The SPGB does not have an exclusive claim that the road to socialism must be via the limited state democracy of parliament or its equivalent in other countries.
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:If this government tried to use such legislation to hammer revolutionary organisations, would the SPGB stand on the sidelines waiting its turn, or stand with other revolutionary groups to resist? After all, there are those on the "left" who agree with the goal of the SPGB/WSM, but disagree with how to achieve it.Which "revolutionary groups" would they be then? I know of none, at least not within these shores. For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it.
Gnome,Do you honestly think that in order to consider yourself to be a socialist, you have to agree to using a parliamentary route? You say "For just as sure as socialism and democracy go hand in hand, so does the goal of the SPGB/WSM and how to achieve it". Meaning if it isn't done by the parliamentary route, it isn't socialism.If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?I believe ALB once said that he expected the SPGB to be but a small part of a socialist revolution, suggesting the SPGB are not the beginning and end when it comes to socialist ideas and how to achieve them.
YMS,We're not talking about the first world war and the restrictions it placed on SPGB propaganda. The thread is about a British government potentially using its powers to attack revolutionary political organisations today. Revolution would by most Tories be seen as an extremist stance and to advocate revolutionary overthrow of the status quo could be deemed treasonable.I don't think it will happen, but like I said previously, history has a way of repeating itself.JDW made a statement along the lines of, whether democracy or dictatorship, it would be business as usual. I said a hostile dictatorship would destroy the SPGB quite easily, meaning its members being either locked up or in an extreme case executed for treason.My point is, if the SPGB constantly alienates itself from the "left", there will be no support should it ever be required. Sometimes you gotta step into the firing line, or else risk being left at the back of the room trying to get heard above the cheers for the ones who took a hit. In other words who gets the recognition, who gets remembered by the future revolutionaries?I'd be interested to know what the SPGB membership numbers were before the first world war, compared to now.
