SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Obviously, we are opposed to rape, and we would argue that rapists in socialism would need to be dealt with (incidentally, and to be ultra controversial, there is a case for prison, but the logic is only to protect the guilty from vengence of angry friends and relatives). That said, Evans has been punished, and should be able to return to his trade (running fast and kicking a ball). The counter argument is that footballers are 'role models'.
Surely in a socialist society there would also be a need to contain someone who has harmed another person or persons to prevent them from repeating the same act?
alanjjohnstone wrote:advice groupsSP, BrianJ of Swansea branch who has experience of such, once suggested this at a conference/ADM but it was shot down in flames for a number of different reasons but the most obvious is that it does associate us with reformist activity foremost.socialsAlways suggested and always viewed sympathetically. We have a few talented musicians (and plenty of comedians) in the party to make such occasions enjoyable…but apart from limited one-off events we have never ever tried making it a regular gig. Down to size again and members who have the ability being over-stretched (and probably under-paid by the Party) food banks etcBefore my time but didn't ex-member Robin C try to argue for this involvement (LETS) . Again it is down to numbers and the persception that we suggest reformist path and palliatives…In the future i see no problem with a food cooperative…buying in bulk at discount prices, storing at HO for members/sympathisers use, or even simply a notice board at HO of members buy/sell and offers of their DIY services at "mate rates".I think on a couple of threads i suggested one practical thing we could do is offer our premises as a meeting place, and offer internet and printing facilities. I'm always impressed by the Quakers and their welcoming strategy for practically all-comers at their meeting houses, but there is a lesson…It is not a means of recruitment, there is not a knock-on effect of gaining members. But it may widen a little our circulation of literature which we would make freely available.And again, i would think a Saturday/Sunday drop-in coffee-shop/cafe book-shop/reading room is feasible enough to try. Our advantage is that we are situated on a busy High Street and could take more advantage of that.But once more it requires volunteers and members may think they are giving too much time to the Party, although if we can make the activity more pleasurable and ourselves SOCIAL-Party, the tasks are less odious. All the above , of course , has the caveat that it shouldn't impact on our primary purpose…being a political party.Hi AlanPleased to hear some positive words about this aspect of social-ism. In essence this is what it is all about people helping each other to create a social-ist society.I know you have a lot of time for ideas that are outside the accepted SPgb realm when it comes to spreading awareness of socialism. As you point out such approaches have been suggested and shot down in the past. The major reason is the reformist label. On that note I have to ask the question, what is reformist about being an active part of a community? I'll be more specific, our brand of socialism advocates a world where we as human beings own in common and control democratically the resources of this planet. It means taking control of our lives and joining with others to create a strong, vibrant, healthy, global community. The ultimate in DIY ethics.Is the SPgb and WSM just another political organisation seeking votes? If the SPgb could find a way to integrate itself into peoples lives in a way that reflects our global vision of socialism then it may be able to transcend mere politics and communicate what we aim for by deeds as well as words. It only becomes reformism when the activities themselves become the sole focus, as in campaigning on single issues etc. Is it reformism to to engage in the sorts of things we advocate we would do in a socialist society? Or put another way, is it reformist to help one another?The big problem the SPgb has is numbers, it may well be impossible to engage in community based activities as a group, even for the largest branches.
RodshawWhat is it with Liddle, is he a failed "lefty" who now rails against just about anything? No doubt he thinks he's seen it all. He'd probably think us lot a bunch of idealist loonies.If he has a go at Russell Brand for telling people it's a waste of time voting, which is correct unless there's SPGB representation, what does he think we can do to improve things? Like John Lydon, I suspect he thinks we should complain to "our" local MP and use our vote strategically. Wow!By the way Gnome, my apologies for lumping ya in with Liddle. On reading my last post just now, I went too far mentioning any connection between the two of you. You are a fellow socialist and worthy of more respect than that, no matter what our disagreements on this forum may be.
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Brand also marched on a Anonymous group demo recently.The revolution can't be far away then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04nvh5j/daily-politics-06112014Gnome, you are in good company. Rod Liddle also thinks Russell Brand is an "idiot". Why does liddle think Brand is an "idiot" because he tells people not to vote for the same shit time and time again. What would Liddle have us vote for I wonder. Probably the same shit time and time again. He is a professional cynic.Liddle was asked if such protests achieve anything, his answer "No…nothing at all….except to let politicians know there is a degree of anger out there.". Then asked if it was worthwhile he replied, "Yeah, I think it probably is from time to time."Liddle went on to talk of the lack of coherence of such marches and demonstrations. So he accepts there is anger at politicians for imposing austerity for something that was caused by the likes of the 1%, (as the public percieves it) and presumably like John Lydon we must use our vote.
I think the bit about working within the communities with things as advice groups, socials, food banks etc is a positive thing and something the SPgb could involve itself with.I expect I'll get the usual reformist or pandering to popularity accusation from some. I hope I do.
YMSI had come to the conclusion that we both had valid points, depending upon what angle the issue was seen from. It's why I offered an olive branch a few posts back.I notice you haven't really answered my questions from my last post.
SocialistPunk wrote:YMSAs valiant as it is, do you honestly think addressing people at Speakers Corner and handing out a few leaflets here and there are an equal match against the resources of the establishment?Before you were a socialist, when you voted did you think about who would do a better job of managing capitalism or "running the country"?How free were the workers in the "dark satanic mills"? How free, or more accurately, safe were/are workers during a recession?Forget the last ones about the "satanic mills", I am fully aware that you do not think of those times as positive for anybody other than the owners.The first two are potentialy important. I know you are aware of the power the establishment has at its disposal. The power to influence peoples opinions and choices. It is the second question that is the key point. What do we vote for when we vote Lib, Lab or Con etc? Is it the management of a system, or the "running of the country"?
Did anyone catch the BBC documentary a couple of days ago, the third in a series about Gothic art, titled Blood for Sale: Gothic Goes Global? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04nqpz3/the-art-of-gothic-britains-midnight-hour-3-blood-for-sale-gothic-goes-globalKarl Marx and William Morris, get …..err…..high brow treatment.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Sp, What I said originally was:Quote:I think we need to take workers' opinions at face value. When asked, time and again they support capitalist parties, and capitalist ideas. When presented with the case for socialism, they reject it. That's why workers vote Tory, Libreral and Labour. Unless and until their lived experience accords with socialist understanding (and the need for socialist ideas) they will go on supporting capitalism.Most workers when presented with our ideas reject them. Simple empirical fact, we hand out leaflets and only the tiniest fraction ever come back and ask for more information. Annecdotally, I've addressed thousands of workers at Speaker's corner, and met with almost universal rejection. Empirically, workers vote for Capitalism, I know from my own experience that I only ever voted after consideration and with inent to vote for the party I meant to vote for. I'd need evidence that anyone else was voting with different behaviour. When given the chance to vote for socialism, they have not done so.Being a free workers meant you were better off than a slave, or an indentured or bonded worker, so the achievement of the status of wage workers was an advance for the working class. Selling our labour made us freer, or at least that's how it was often percieved, felt.
YMSAs valiant as it is, do you honestly think addressing people at Speakers Corner and handing out a few leaflets here and there are an equal match against the resources of the establishment?Before you were a socialist, when you voted did you think about who would do a better job of managing capitalism or "running the country"?How free were the workers in the "dark satanic mills"? How free, or more accurately, safe were/are workers during a recession?
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,but I have provided the proof, several times, as well as clarifying what I was saying as compared with what you say I'm saying (which are different things). For instance, I never said religion is a neutral thing, but that some protestnt sectaries were the means by which groups of workers both organised and expressed themselves (and many protestenat conventicles were very anti-hierchical: Blake left the Swedenborgians at the first whiff of priestcraft, just look at the early quakers).Anyway, I was always thought that part of the justification for socialism was because we work: we don't have any property to use, we can't use force to expropriate the labour of otehrs, so when it comes down to it our labour is what will make us free. Our resentment to the capitalist class is that they don't work.And, just to try and get away from another misapprehension that's crept in: my basic point is that we should assume that when millions of workers vote Tory or Labour that they actually want the policies propounded by thoe parties. When they vote, they mean it. It's irrelevent whether they have heard our case or not.YMSThe proof you have provided is not proof that the "work ethic" or whatever words are used, originated with our class or came from the workers, they are examples of it being adopted by workers.The origins of the "work ethic" come from a Christian religious intellectual response to economic and political changes going on as a new social economic structure was evolving around the 1500's. The Catholic church dominated medieval Europe including the ideas surrounding work. Top of the divine career pile was, shock horror, work that served God, in other words the institution of the Catholic church.Along came Martin Luther saying, amongst other religious things, that all work was equal in Gods plan, that monastical work had no special place in Gods plan and so officially sowing the intellectual seeds of revolt against the dominance of the Catholic church. John Calvin and others from the new Protestant movement continued the theme that saw the early capitalists and their investments as having equal value in the divine plan. A bit simplified of course but in essence the evolution of the "work ethic" was a religious response to the changing political and economic landscape.When I used the word "neutral" in relation to religion not being so, I was not implying you used the word. I simply meant what I said, that if it were neutral we socialists would not be bothered by it. Unfortunately it is a tool used to control minds to accept a hierarchical structured society, as Lord God Almighty and his (usualy a bloke) divine plan, scheme etc are key elements. So religion is used to discourage free thinking.As for work and socialism, work will once more become the simple necessity it once used to be seen as, with no moral or dignity value attached to it. When millions vote Tory or Labour they vote for the policies they hope will work best when it comes to governing the country. Do voters think, "I wonder if Labour will do a better job of managing capitalism come the next general election, than the current ConDem coalition"? Of course some are shrewd when it comes to voting for the likes of the Tories and hope to gain from the likes of tax cuts at others expense, but for most I think it boils down to reluctant acceptance of the status quo, rather than conscious endorsement of capitalism.
YMSNowhere have I said our class are meek creatures being knocked about as the movers and shakers formed society from their intellect. I don't hold to that view of society. I've already alluded to the complexity of change that was taking place during the evolution from feudalism to capitalism.Though previously I never said religion is always a tool of the ruling class, I will say it now. That splinter religious bodies appear all over the place does not mean that the overall religious ideology does not reflect the ruling ideas. And you generally find religious splinter groups hold to some form of hierarchical system of thinking.If religion was neutral and just a nice philosophy, us socialists wouldn't give it a moments thought. But we do, and we do because on the whole it is used as a tool to distract our class from critical free thinking.As a final note to this issue of morality and work. Why, when I asked you to provide proof that it originated with our class, did you not simply say. "I don't have any proof.", I don't understand the reluctance to be open in admitting you don't have all the answers. All we've been doing back and forth is talking at each other, I don't think we've been listening properly and we've achieved nothing constructive. Well that's not quite true, you have provided some interesting points and I've read DJPs interesting article he provided the link for, that I wouldn't be aware of otherwise.
YMSI accept I am not as well read as yourself, and could not out quote you from a multitude of books, but the fact is you made a statement about our class and the notion of the moral value of work being the invention of our class. I just put a name to it.Despite all your familiarity with books and works of various academics and intellectuals, you still can't provide proof to back up your statement that our class conceived the "work ethic" or as you put it "dignity of work".I have never denied the contributions our class/workers have made to the changes that have taken place over the ages. The change from feudalism to capitalism, as we all know was a not a simple one, it was a complicated interwoven web of change for many, both physical, intellectual and as with this issue, spiritual.Unfortunately the idea of the "work ethic" "dignity of labour" whatever term anyone wishes to use to describe the change in religious ideas of work throught the ages, as a response to the changing social economic circumstances, come from…. religions.No matter how you try to cut it religions are essentially a tool of the ruling class, and any notions of a religious slant to human activity have their origins in the elite of various religious doctrines. Are we done on this one? Because our original discussion about the millions of workers conciously rejecting socialism in favour of capitalism, that has also been touched upon on the William Morris thread, is still waiting.
From the pamphlet Russia 1917-1967.
Quote:How much agreement there was about the nature of the transformation they hoped to bring about by their different policies, can be seen for example in the Manifesto of English Socialists issued jointly in 1893 by the Fabian Society, the Social Democratic Federation and the Hammersmith Socialist Society. The signatories including William Morris, George Bernard Shaw, H. M. Hyndman and Sidney Webb, were able to agree on the following declaration which appeared in the Manifesto:“On this point all Socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines and the land. Thus we look to put an end for ever to the wage system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish national and international communism on a sound basis.”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/russia-1917-1967-socialist-analysis
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, first off, after due consideration I decided to clarify that "work ethic" was your term, that I shouldn't have let pass in the first instance.Not good enough YMS. You came up with a theme, I clarified the theme and you ran with it. Now you change the goal posts and offer no proof.I expect more from a socialist than to try and wriggle out of a discussion in such a way. Establishment politicians are usually the ones caught saying things like "What I meant was…and I regret I didn't clear the misunderstsnding up sooner".By the way, "dignity of labour" is still the "work ethic" using different words, the same as Arbeit Macht Frei.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The work ethic was very much developed by our class and is part of the way the working class built capitalism.and:SP, ISTR it ws you who introduced the term 'Work ethic' I didn't use those words,Keep on wriggling YMS, keep on wriggling.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP, ISTR it ws you who introduced the term 'Work ethic' I didn't use those words, I'd categoprise what I was talking about under the rubric of 'dignity of labour' which is very much the workng class version.YMSI specificaly mentioned the "work ethic" because in the paragraph below it looked a lot like you were pointing to the notion that the idea of believing in work, that work in itself has intrinsic value over and above necessity, was a product of our class that the ruling class have taken advantage of.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A further point, there is plenty of socialisation going on, but much of that is the working class socialising it's memebrs in it's interest. yes, the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class, but they're not the only ideas. A lot of working people dislike scroungers, and believe in work: the ruling class home in on such views, but they are not alien viws to the class.SocialistPunk wrote:However your example of our class "socialising it's members in its interests" regarding the idea of believing in work and disliking "scroungers", is the old chestnut of the "work ethic" and I do believe the last time I checked it wasn't an invention of our class, as you seem to suggest.When I pressed you to clarify your position, you didn't shy away from the point.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The work ethic was very much developed by our class and is part of the way the working class built capitalism.However I continued to press the issue and ask for proof of the "work ethic" being conceived by our class.
SocialistPunk wrote:If I've been wrong all these years, then I'm happy to ditch my socialist education in favour of another theory, but understandably I'm gonna need a bit of proof.and: If there is something definitive in that book or any other book, that proves beyond doubt that the "work ethic" was conceived by our class then a few quotes would work wonders in educating this forum.Since we started on this merry dance, Steve and Alan have both disagreed with your position and I have asked you to provide evidence that proves the "work ethic" was conceived by our class. Faced with an open invitation to provide proof and other members also disagreeing with your position, you now move the goal posts, claiming you were talking about "dignity of labour".I have already openly stated that faced with proof, I am willing to accept that I am wrong.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.Could well be due to social conditioning promoting a dependency culture on Leaders?
Reminds me of a conversation going on elsewhere.Like most things in this world the answer is rarely simple. Social conditioning, fear of change, lack of self confidence, all play a part.
