[SocialistPunk]

I'm curious about an aspect of the DoP. It speaks of democratic and political organization by the working class in order to take control of the state, but no mention of using a parliamentary route. It's an aspect I never really scrutinized before, as during my quarter of a century or so association with the SPGB, I had assumed the parliamentary route to socialism originated with the party in 1904. My assumption was such that I never really questioned this idea in all those years and when reading the DoP now and then I always took for granted that number 6 below meant using parliamentary route. 6. That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.It's pretty obvious why no mention of parliament is spoken of, as in Britain, it wasn't until 1918 all men over twenty one got the vote and 1928 that all women over twenty one got the vote.So as parliament was not the route of obvious choice for the workers to bring about socialism in 1904, does anyone know what the SPGB had in mind then? 

[SocialistPunk]

A good point Vin. I had thought that a vote for independence would damage Tory chances at the poll, but I saw a bit of the Daily Politics today and they were crunching some numbers on the parties and an independent Scotland would lose the Labour party a lot of seats. The result could be as you point out, in favour of the Tories for the rest of the country.While I have no support for Labour, there is something even more loathsome about the Tories. I know it makes no logical sense coming from someone who can see through the lies and bullshit from all political parties who support capitalism, but there is something I can't quite shake off when it comes to them in particular.

[SocialistPunk]

It would seem that a Tory British government has given the YES campaign a boost. I've read in a few articles that there is a lot of traditional anti Tory feeling in Scotland. So the combo of recession and Tory led austerity could see a YES vote win the day. If that does happen Cameron is finished politically and perhaps it could harm the Tory chances at the next general election. Although Labour and Lib' Dems couldn't capitalise on this issue as an effective election propaganda tool, as they have backed the NO campaign 100%.

[SocialistPunk]

Vin,You've argued the point about the problem with the SPGB having multiple identities for some time now, and you are spot on. I also think you are spot on with the idea that Great Britain, nowadays more than ever implies nationalism. to the casual observer.Something I was thinking the other day. Consider if Scotland goes independent and GB ends up with a title change. Imagine if at a future election the party stands as SPGB, what kind of reception could be expected by the media. What would be the likely issue to attract attention on a programe such as the Daily Politics? It's hard enough for the party to get heard anyway, but sticking to an old nationalistic identity would mean one more hurdle to overcome.I hope for the sake of the SPGB, this stays a hypothetical discussion. 

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I wasn't aware that the SPGB had the monopoly on socialism?

Live and learn, eh? 

SocialistPunk wrote:

I would hope SPGB members would never dare question the socialist credentials of someone who agrees with the above definition, yet does not agree with using parliamentary democracy to get there?

So would I.The reason why we say it is essential to win control of the machinery of government, which in countries such as the UK is parliament or its equivalent, is that the state is both the historically-evolved centre of social administration and, in class-divided societies like capitalism, the institution with the power to employ socially-sanctioned physical force. The state is an expression of and enforcer of class society.  Intrinsically it is a coercive institution.What's your favoured alternative scenario workers might use "to get there"?

Gnome, I happen to think the SPGB strategy is the safest way for the socialist majority to take control of the state so that it can be neutralised effectively. So I agree with the parliamentary route to socialism. I was a party member at one time, so I think I must have agreed with it then. But if it was decided otherwise by a non SPGB socialist majority that would be fine with me.As for the idea that parliament should be retained I happen to think it should not. Two reasons come to mind. Firstly as Alan has put it, democracy will likely be a lot more democratic following a socialist revolution than anything the SPGB originals ever dreamed up. The internet would allow democracy to be accessed much quicker and easier than ever before. Our friend on the recent TZM discussion placed a lot of faith in the power of the internet and they are correct.Secondly as parliament has always been an arm of the state, for pure symbolic reasons I expect socialists would prefer to reject the parliamentary model totally. As for adapting it, what is there to adapt when socialist democracy  leaves the parliamentary model way behind?Most of the work of parliament is regarding law making, commerce enhancing, issues of national and international security and defence, arguing over s[pending, blah, blah, blah. Food production, medicines, clothes, housing and energy is all left to capitalist business for the most part. So most administration will be decentralised anyway.

[SocialistPunk]

I wasn't aware that the SPGB had the monopoly on socialism?The definition of socialism given on this site, quoted below, says nothing of the route to socialism. Democracy is spoken of, but it says nothing about a parliamentary route or some other democratic peoples uprising.The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.And as has been said a number of times on this forum by various party members, it is the workers themselves who will create socialism and not the SPGB, and that the SPGB may play only a small part of a democratic socialist revolution.I would hope SPGB members would never dare question the socialist credentials of someone who agrees with the above definition, yet does not agree with using parliamentary democracy to get there?  

[SocialistPunk]

That is brilliant Gnome, but I already knew it.I'm referring to the possibility that GB reverts to some other name. In all likely hood GB will remain politically intact and even if it split the use of GB would likely stay. Who knows, time will tell.I'm merely knocking about ideas, not to be confused with advice.

ALB wrote:

A single organisation covering two states would be making a point in itself.

Again a nice idea. But I have to ask, if that's making a point, presumably regarding unity over singular nationalism, what kind of statement of identity and intent would The World Socialist Party of the British Isles make? I mean that covers England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and all the other islands. How's that for promoting socialist unity?

[SocialistPunk]

I'm not panicking Adam. I don't see a need for the Scottish branches to form a separate national section either. It certainly would be making a point if the UK, GB changed to something like plain old Britain, and the SPGB stuck doggedly to the Great Britain tag. That would look pretty damn old empire nationalistic.But it aint my party, as I've been reminded.

[SocialistPunk]

Nothing wrong with what you've just stated Adam, I think your earlier reference to the continued use of "parliament" was like waving a red flag at a bull.But it is important to discuss this stuff.

ALB wrote:

When we had a debate with some anti-parliamentary socialists (insofar as they too stand for a classless, stateless, moneyless world) in Birmingham last year

Now who was asking about the existence of other groups with similar views?

Gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

If party members go around talking of not dismantling parliament, I'm not surprised there is disagreement on this issue, from other socialist groups.

Which 'socialist' groups would they be?

[SocialistPunk]

What I was saying earlier Vin. Such a place could even be set up like Madame Tussards with waxworks of the pompous politicians throughout the history of the place, with their ridiculous ceremonies etc. Be a fun day out for the kids.

[SocialistPunk]

How so Vin?If the constitution of GB changed and a name change occurred, how would the SPGB defend clinging to an out dated  identity?As the GB in SPGB is essentially a location identifier (albeit loaded with traditional baggage) with reference to the constitution or something along those lines, surely it is no big deal to change if necessary? If that came about it would make sense to seriously consider adopting the World Socialist Party identity along with the WSM majority.Ifs and buts at the moment. But there's nothing wrong with discussing it now, as it is a complicated issue, but then again I am not a party member and some in the party (I know you are not one Vin) think it has nothing to do with non members.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

In any event, why can't parliament, made more democratic, as an elected central decision-making body survive into socialism? There will have to be such a body anyway, so why not democratise parliament rather than create such a body from scratch? Which was my original point.

 

ALB wrote:

Quote:

"Now," said I, "I have come to the point of asking questions which I suppose will be dry for you to answer and difficult for you to explain; but I have foreseen for some time past that I must ask them, will I 'nill I. What kind of a government have you? Has republicanism finally triumphed? or have you come to a mere dictatorship, which some persons in the nineteenth century used to prophesy as the ultimate outcome of democracy? Indeed, this last question does not seem so very unreasonable, since you have turned your Parliament House into a dung-market. Or where do you house your present Parliament?"The old man answered my smile with a hearty laugh, and said: "Well, well, dung is not the worst kind of corruption; fertility may come of that, whereas mere dearth came from the other kind, of which those walls once held the great supporters. Now, dear guest, let me tell you that our present parliament would be hard to house in one place, because the whole people is our parliament."

[SocialistPunk]

Good point Vin.It may also have an effect on whether the SPGB ends up having to adjust it's name. I was reading a few articles online that talked of the constitutional repercussions of Scottish independence. Such repercussions also include the name, the United Kingdom of Great Britain.The idea of the SPGB changing to World Socialist Party of Scotland and World Socialist Party of ………, may be forced onto the party. Funny how various issues overlap.

[SocialistPunk]

AdamIf you want to talk about playing into the hands of "our opponents" then why not ditch references to Marx. He is misrepresented at every opportunity so to align the SPGB with his ideas would be playing into the hands of opponents. So it is silly to think talking of dismantling parliament gives any amunition to opponents they don't already have.

Steve colborn wrote:

It will be in and on, a facility like the "internet". Parliament is OK for "representative democracy", where we, the sheep, vote for "representatives" to take decisions on "our" behalf. For a method of direct participartive democracy, "Parliament" is a fucking joke and moreover, a farce.Technology offers us the chance for "real" democracy. Why be hindbound by the restrictions of "the past". Why not be set free, by the possibilities of the future? After all, as Soicialists, we want "the future", not the fucking 'decayed' past!!!

Alanjjohnstone wrote:

Talk of "Parliament" or "Congress" continuing frightens me because the changes in democracy will transform it so radically that it simply won't be "Parliament" that is recognisable so why stick to the old terminology, …plus it reinforces an anglophile image! The cautionary note on Supreme Soviet certainly applies to the other institutions, none of which really possesses genuine trust by people.New forms of democracy i think wil arise, or older ones assuming new roles…parish councils, for instance, in parts of England, neighbourhood councils.

Both Steve and Alan put this in a better way than my crude earlier fumbling.I should point out that I understand and accept the idea of using existing democratic structures to get to socialism, but if democracy changes dramaticaly from what we see today, why would any socialist think the old structures would have a place in a socialist future?As for the idea of delegates meeting in a physical environment, if that where to happen, then why on earth would any such meetings take place in a corner of this island, surely a meeting place would be better located in a more central place and that place would be made fit for the purposes of a full on socialist democracy. Westminster Palace is steeped in the history of monarchy, royal courts being held there as well as the early parliaments. The whole place is a celebration of the power of the state.Oh, I nearly forgot, someone earlier asked about other socialist groups with reference to one of my posts on this page. Until I joined this forum, I was not aware of any other groups with similar ideas to the SPGB/WSM. I think it was ALB who first brought my attention to others who shared similar views, with main disagreements about using the parliamentary route. So it would be more appropriate to ask ALB who the others are 

[SocialistPunk]

Thank you for pointing out what I had read DJP.I realised after I posted that I should have included the bit of ALBs post I found odd,

ALB wrote:

I'd prefer to talk of "dismantling the state" rather than "dismantling parliament".

So why not talk of "dismantling parliament". If party members go around talking of not dismantling parliament, I'm not surprised there is disagreement on this issue, from other socialist groups.Like I say, the only beneficial use for that monument to elitism, is as a museum. Perhaps then the truth of the insanity of the place could be seen in all its absurdity.

[Author]

Posts