SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:We have learnt from our experiences in the North East that once a particular Branch, or a combination of Branches have committed themselves to election activity it has to be sustainable in respect of Branch resources being sufficient to cover the activity in the long-term. In short, one-offs are a nono.
Hi BrianIt was during my time in the North East I believe you are referring to and we contested a general election, a euro-election and several (if not more) local elections. There was a lot of activity going on then and the branch became very focused. The intention was to contest more future elections, but things have a tendency to happen.I certainly would not describe the hard work and effort put in as a one-off affair.
james19 wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't dislike Tony Blair?Not my words. Perfect timing to get in this: The Labour Party has the stench of rotting human flesh up its nostrils.Someone didn't like it, we'll it is half term.Please add anything that might shame the above troll.Labour party supporters logic. Labour Party members think that their bombs are nicer?Hi James, I am a little confused here. The sentences read like you might be quoting others from some social media site, but without the use of any quotation marks to clarify.To paraphrase JDW, what is it that you are asking?
I doubt if the SPGB is likely to change its mind regarding those with personal spiritual belief Robbo, consider the fact that the party line on the ethical aspect of socialism is rejected in favour of a purely scientific nature.What is hilarious regarding this issue, is that this thread has 28,981 hits. It keeps popping up every now and again, it even gets hits when not in use. Any number of conclusions could be drawn from this fact, at the very least it proves how interested people are in the issue.Wouldn't it be a little embarrassing if many of those checking out this thread, were potential socialists with personal spiritual beliefs. Unfortunately there is no way of finding out.
Hi JDWBefore we go any further with this I wonder if you could clarify your original comment about idealists being excluded from the party. I assume you must think there are idealists already in the SPGB? If so some examples of idealist interference would be welcome, no names of course.In the UK the SPGB is the movement so far. Those who vote SPGB could not really be termed part of a movement in any real sense of the word, as a movement implies active involvement in achieving any goals etc. Essentially we are born and raised in a society where we are encouraged not to take part, the very nature of socialism is the opposite of that. It would be a complete society of voluntary involvement on every level. How many voters do you expect fully understand this aspect?
jondwhite wrote:I don't think the exclusion of the religious (or deists) excludes enough idealists. If anything, the question should be broadened.The essence of socialism is not beyond the understanding of most people, however if further restrictions are placed upon joining the movement, such as strict atheism, adherence to historical materialism with Marx and Engels placed on a pedestal, then socialism will be a long time coming. In fact I would go as far as saying it would never happen.A good PR approach would seek to make it as palatable as possible without sacrificing core structural values, as common ownership and democratic control. Socialism is not an intellectually elitist book club, it's about real people seeking a better world. Don't put more obstacles in the way.
pfbcarlisle wrote:(I might be wrong but I think that for many years the Questionnaire did not have a question about religion).Does anyone know when the religious question appeared on the questionnaire?
Well if the religious are not hammering down Clapham HQ seeking to join the atheist heathens in the quest to improve the lot of human kind, in the hear and now, then where did the issue about not allowing those with a socialist understanding in the party because they happen to hold a spiritual belief of one kind or another?The view expressed by Paddy (#441) and prob' held onto by most party members is a mix of scientific snobbery and fear. Quite disturbing in my opinion, as it says to those socialists, "Even though you understand and want to work towards socialism, unfortunately we don't trust you to keep your personal views out of the picture." As if the SPGB membership works in total harmony without any squabbles or personal differences of opinion.Farcical, hypocritical and at it's worst quite worrying.
Ed wrote:p.s.I'm certainly open to the idea of getting rid of the religion question.A very sensible idea.Can anyone seriously imagine a socialist society dictating personal spiritual belief or belief in anything for that matter? So why on earth does the SPGB/World Socialist Movement place an atheist prerequisite upon joining the struggle for socialism? It gives off a two faced image of socialism.
I wouldn't advise having a dig at the victors etc. Look at the situ with UKIP, they seem to thrive on their enemies attacks. Better to follow the advice of Northern Light and write letters to the press thanking those who voted SPGB, getting in a bit more propaganda about real socialism etc. Also inviting those who voted SPGB to contact the party for more info etc.
ALB wrote:Sorry, Robbo, you got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't saying that slump conditions are best for us. In fact I hold the opposite view (more workers turn to nasty nationalism as in the 30s and again now). What I was saying is that at the time many members did think this and dropped out when capitalism proved able to improve working class conditions, including their own, compared to the 30s.We also had our own "Revisionist" controversy which mirrored that started by Bernstein in the German Social Democratic Party at the turn of the century with some mermbers arguing that this development showed that a gradual evolution to socialism, e.g. more and more services becoming free, was possible (read the articles by Frank Evans in Forum and the arguments of Tony Turner). They and others left. We now know of course that it was the post-war boom that ended in the mid-70s that was exceptional not a standing pool of 5-6% unemployed that has existed since.So much for international solidarity then. Things may have improved for workers in post war Britain, with the welfare state, washing machines and cars, but what of the plight of workers around the world. Surely party members were aware of the bigger picture?Also, even if conditions improved dramatically for western workers during the post war boom years, there is still the fact that those same workers were still wage slaves, working fingers to the bone for a bit of comfort. Socialism is about more than just having the latest time saving gadgets and a cheap "Holiday in the Sun".Perhaps too many socialists got a little complacent and took their eye off the ball. Once that happens it's hard to regain control among a changing social and economic environment.
robbo203 wrote:You know, Ive heard this argument before about how the "climate of opinion" is rendered more "receptive" to socialist ideas by campagining reformist political parties and groups making political inroads. Its what they said about the Labour government in the immediate post war years. That was a time when the membership of the SPGB was at its highest – in four figures.How on earth does a party like the SPGB go from "four figures" membership numbers, to where it is today?I could understand it if the SPGB were another lefty party with a leadership and followers, internal power struggles are lethal for small political parties. However the SPGB has no leaders, but instead is made up of politically enlightened men and women who are passionate about wanting to build a better society for the worlds population.What happened?
I saw Danny on the Daily Politics today and I agree with Vin, he did a good job.Well done Danny.I noticed the interviewer made a sarcastic comment about human nature. It always boils down to that in the end. Just shows that there is little in the way of substance among mainstream politics when they wheel out the human nature card.
Hi VinYou are correct in thinking that morality is about wrong and right, but I don't know where you think I or anyone else advocate a universal morality? I have a sense of right and wrong as do most people. That sense of right and wrong is what I would describe as socially orientated, in that it is motivated by the well being of others and myself. As to whether or not there should be a universal morality, that is an entirely different question altogether.If it is the word morality itself that is off putting, I refer again to what I said on another thread recently, that the words socialism and communism are bad words to many people. Words associated with the former Soviet Union and China. Yet we as socialists are determined, unashamedly to use those words, despite their association. Why? Because we know their true meaning. Likewise morality has nothing to do with religion that dictates, judges and harasses people with threats of eternal punishment for disobedience with the ranting of a supernatural entity that has the social and moral capacity of a psychopathic killer.I would argue that capitalism is as wrong as socialism is right. If I did not believe that capitalism was at its very core a rotten, inhuman system that favours deliberate minority privelage and opulence over the well being of humanity, then I would not be a socialist. It is my belief that a socialist society is the only way humanity can live without the fear of poverty, needless disease, starvation and war.To me socialism is right and capitalism is wrong. I make an unashamedly moral judgment between the two choices.
Hi VinThat was a good essay, by an SPGB member I take it?The bit about Marx not moralising, suggests to me that the author (and yourself) sees morality as a form of self righteous preaching, lead predominantly by the religious brigade. Whereas I and others on this thread see it simply as a set of unwritten social rules that bind a society together, the (socialist) foundations of which are already expressed within the SPGB DoP.I imagine education in a socialist society would include history. Do you think that capitalist principles would be given equal value?.
Only just managed to get on here today, so I'm probably a bit behind with what's been going on and I dare not change pages for fear of being timed out of the site.I'm gonna try something very simple here. I like simple me.Like it or not, contained within the political framework of socialism are a set of values. Those values are essentially at odds with the values of capitalism. Told ya it was gonna be simple.Let's start with socialist values of common ownership and democratic control, then we have production for human need. International working class solidarity and one of my favourites, "from each according to ability, to each according to need". I'll also throw in open democratic participation.Now the capitalist versions. Minority ownership and control of wealth, production for profit. Nationalism and racism. Then there is the huge waste of human resources with the likes of unemployment and useless employment and of course, can't pay can't have. To top it off we have governance over populations by either pseudo democracies or outright dictatorships.When people come into contact with real socialist politics and wish to understand it fully, they learn (as I did) just how capitalism operates. As a budding socialist we are left with a choice, to take on board our newly discovered socialist values and reject capitalism, or continue to bury our heads in the sand and accept capitalism and the misery it causes. In effect we make a conscious choice of what we see as a right and wrong way to organise society. In doing so we are knowingly taking a hard road in trying to convince the majority of the worlds population that we have an alternative to a system (capitalism) that they do not even fully understand.Faced with a choice between the current horror and waste of human potential that capitalism gives us on a daily basis and the opportunity for achieving true human well being and nurtured potential within a global socialist society, it boils down to a choice each potential socialist must make. A simple (or not so simple judging by this thread) choice of right and wrong.
Wikipedia wrote:Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).[citation needed] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[1] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[
