[SocialistPunk]

The pleasant fellow has been caught out expressing the view that most Tories hold anyway. They see workers as mere economic units to be used to make a profit. If your physicaly fucked, then you aint profitable for an employer. So flog your wares on the jobs market on the cheap.  I now notice that the Tories are going with the line that they are simply concerned about helping the severely disabled contribute to society and earn a sense of self worth that only employment can bring.Arbeit macht frei.

[SocialistPunk]

I am aware of the rules of the forum DJP.I wasn't asking the moderator to intervene, nor was I chastising anyone for any perceived rule breach. I was asking other users if they could see any problems, as I couldn't. 

SocialistPunk wrote:

 I've just noticed two posts by Steve have been flagged, #165 and #169. Don't know about anyone else but I can't see any abuse, trolling, cross posting or off topic going on.Heres what the forum posting rules say.11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention

The worst that could be said of my posts, as well as yours in answering me, is we are off topic.I happen to think that a post asking other users about flagged posts, that then gets flagged is quite amusing. To make it even funnier our posts need to be flagged. 

[SocialistPunk]

Just noticed that post #171, where I point out the possibility that the flagging function has been misused, has been….wait for it…. flagged.Pure comedy gold.

[SocialistPunk]

I'm not being pessimistic Adam, more like realistic. While I accept that without a majority willing to supply and prop up any attempted military coup, there are absolute loyalist lunatics in the high echelons of power, who would be prepared to take whatever measures they deemed necessary. I would even suggest that they would even be prepared to use the ultimate "deterrent" if they could.What of my question about, as you put it controlling the executive. Do you mean it as I see it. If a socialist majority gains a sizeable majority in parliament, by constitutional definition they have the legality to form a government. However no government will be formed, instead power will be devolved to whatever structures the socialist majority deem necessary.When I talk of abolishing the State, I see the State as the legitimizing framework, parliament, government, monarchy, legal system, police and military. Although the State controls many of the useful services in this and many other countries, those useful services are capable of functioning without State interference. In fact most useful services in this country have been privatised and the few remaining are in the pipeline for eventual privatisation. As you and others put forward the idea that most of the military and police force will become part of the socialist majority, the State would be left a virtual ideological shell, so could be layed to rest, immediately after a socialist revolution. 

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

Steve, since we had no website in 1988 that resolution and party poll was not concerned with it. But there was in 2008 so it's that new resolution which governs it. So even if the Constitutional Court overturns the 2008 resolution that part will stand. It's the fascia and the front cover of the Socialist Standard that are problematic and open to possible challenge as attempting to over-rule a Party Poll result. The trouble is nobody challenged it at the time, probably because the voters would be the same and so presumably the result.

The above highlighted quote from ALB is the area of contention regarding the Party poll of 1991, as it ratified the 1988 Conference decisions regarding the Party name used on the cover of the Socialist Standard and head office signage.To be fully constitutional the 1991 Party poll would need to be overturned by, you all guessed it, another Party poll. Unfortunately until then it does mean that the change of use in those two instances is out of order.I remember when I joined the Party in the late 1990's and being bored stiff having to sit through the formalities of Party rules regarding branch minutes being accepted etc. I was told it was important to have a democratic structure and follow it, despite the boredom factor.Rules, you can't live with them and you can't live without them..

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,actually, history shows it's the upper ecxhelons who remain loyal to the regime.  Pinochet had to assasinate his way through the Army ranks to become Generalissimo, and Franco was a Colonel as well.  What we need to see off the threat of a military coup is a solid majority, and to hold back adventurers who might give them an excuse to act unconstitutionally.

And what of the reserve powers of the head of state?I cannot foresee another situation other than a civil war, albeit between the majority and  a smaller in numbers military. Unfortunately it would likely be a civil war against a military with the majority of the firepower that they would use against the people.   

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Adam, I was hoping you or someone else would be able to explain how a socialist majority in parliament goes from there to taking control of The State?The coercive elements of the State can only be dismantled if actually under control of the socialist majority in the first place, it is why I mentioned the need to remove the military hierarchy in the first place. 

Much as a capitalist parliamentary majority does now. A socialist majority in parliament (reflecting of course a democratically self-organised majority outside parliament) will control the executive and the executive will continue to control the coercive powers of the state, including the armed forces.  I can't predict the future any more than anyone else can but I can't see a socialist majority, on winning control of political power, not completely democratising it (by lopping off its bureaucratic and military excrescences) before using it. Many members of the armed forces and civil service will of course be socialists themselves and so prepared to go along with and implement this. Or are you asking if the executive (today and tomorrow) does not or would not control the armed forces?. 

How does the socialist majority control the executive when the executive in British politics is in fact the appointed government?This is why earlier I mentioned a socialist government. There is a big difference in having a socialist majority in parliament and controlling The State.As to the military and who controls it, I think it is not beyond the realms of believability to think a military coup would be instigated against the parliamentary majority. What we are discussing here is not the changing face of capitalist politics, as all relatively recent revolutions have been. We are talking about the once and for all overthrow of capitalism. It's why I mentioned the removal of high ranking military officials as quickly as possible, once the socialist majority gain power. 

[SocialistPunk]

If John Lydon is telling people to engage with politics he's a little late. Far from telling people not to engage in politics the "bumhole" ,Russell Brand is advocating people take politics into their own hands. He's looking for a solution to the same old crap that is mainstream politics, and he knows that solution has to come from the people.I guess when you were once known for being outrageous, calling for Anarchy in the UK and are now better known for advertising butter, it gives your once edgy creability a publicity bosst to have a dig at another celebrity who has actually put the idea of revolution back into the public arena.  

[SocialistPunk]

I've just noticed two posts by Steve have been flagged, #165 and #169. Don't know about anyone else but I can't see any abuse, trolling, cross posting or off topic going on.Heres what the forum posting rules say.11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

As such it suggests that Gnome is unaware as to whether or not adding Great Britain on the end of The Socialist Party is likely to make any difference to peoples perception of confusion with ex-Militant, Socialist Party.As to my second question, seems Gnome is still in favour of using both Party names.Clear as mud.

1) It suggests nothing of the sort.  My position is well known and briefly outlined in post #149.2) No I'm not.  But I have to recognise the precedent of using the shortened name form in certain instances ever since the Party's inception.  Again refer to post #149.End of story.

Gnome, I asked if you got the impression the people you have spoken to thought the inclusion of Great Britain in the Party name would remove the confusion with ex-Militant (now SocialistParty). I wasn't having a go, just asking a genuine question.

gnome wrote:

I have personally lost track of the number of occasions when workers, predominately young workers, have thought we were something to do with the outfit otherwise known as the ex-Millies.

The above quote from post #149 indicates there is currently confusion, pretty obvious, but makes no mention of any idea that said confusion is likely to be eliminated by the inclusion of Great Britain in the Party name.I'll put it another way.Did any of the people who expressed confusion with ex-Militant and (I assume) the abbreviated use of the Party name, tell you that the full name would not have caused them such confusion?Sorry for suggesting you are in favour of using the two Party names.

[SocialistPunk]

Adam, I was hoping you or someone else would be able to explain how a socialist majority in parliament goes from there to taking control of The State?The coercive elements of the State can only be dismantled if actually under control of the socialist majority in the first place, it is why I mentioned the need to remove the military hierarchy in the first place. 

[SocialistPunk]

Spot on Rodshaw, there's only one socialist punk and that's SocialistPunk. 

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistPunk wrote:

A couple of questions Gnome.

gnome wrote:

As a member of a branch who, by dint of its regular literature stalls, has arguably had more contact with workers than any other branch over the past couple of years, I have personally lost track of the number of occasions when workers, predominately young workers, have thought we were something to do with the outfit otherwise known as the ex-Millies.

Do you get the impression that the young people you have spoken to would have differentiated the SPgb from the ex-Militant group by the words, Great Britain used at the end of the Party name?

gnome wrote:

It will come as no surprise that I favour using the full name of the party on most occasions and certainly where confusion with a similarly named organisation is not only likely but virtually unavoidable.

You say you are in favour of the full Party title on "most occasions". Surely to avoid any ambiguity it would be better to pick one and stick to it on all occasions?

Well, I asked a couple of reasonable questions and got nothing in reply.As such it suggests that Gnome is unaware as to whether or not adding Great Britain on the end of The Socialist Party is likely to make any difference to peoples perception of confusion with ex-Militant, Socialist Party.As to my second question, seems Gnome is still in favour of using both Party names.Clear as mud.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi ALBA good enough point regarding the possibility of needing the armed forces to put down a minority capitalist uprising. However I think on another thread you said that it would be highly unlikely a defeated capitalist minority would to go head to head with a socialist majority of the people.I would say that deposing the existing hierarchy of the military would be a wise move to avoid any potential co-ordinated international military coup. That in effect would leave a leaderless military.Regarding my earlier question. If The State were not immediately dismantled, but kept in place just in case, how and who would manage The State during the period leading up to its eventual abolition?The Times article about John Lydon on Russell Brand is only available to subscribers, so I couldn't read it.Although I think John Lydon has produced a lot of good music over the years, (his best stuff without a doubt when in the Sex Pistols) in general he himself is a muddled "bumhole" when it comes to joined up political thinking. So far, Russell Brand is more consistent and interesting when it comes to political thought, than Johnny.  

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

I remember voting against that resolution in 1984 (too anarchistic) and was pleased to vote for its repeal 20 years later and replacement by something more realistic:

Quote:

That the 1984 Conference Resolution, 'This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State', be rescinded and replaced with: 'That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use'. (2004).

 

I prefer the anarchistic version.The first (anarchistic version) is clear regarding the need to immediately abolish The State, whereas the second is almost saying, "It'll happen at some point." The concept of The State is entwined with government, legislative institutions, enforcement agencies. essentially anything that protects and promotes the ruling ideology. Bodies such as health care systems, educational systems, environmental maintenance systems, communication systems, maintenance of road networks and other systems modern life requires can all function independently of State control. Therefore the State would become immediately obsolete once a democratic Socialist revolution wins power for the people. There would be a lot of logistical State information that would be useful, so an organised effort of opening up the interior of The State for public scrutiny would take place. I think the second version is fine, but it could benefit from being more bold regarding the imediate abolition of The State. That's my view anyway.

[Author]

Posts