Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In some ways, the project is not as nonsensical as it seems, it has identified, empirically, several major groupings within the British community, and it's terming these 'classes': in reality, you can classify people any way you want, by hair colour, height, hand span, etc.What came out of their list is that really, they were differentiating between different types of people according to their job, with only the Elite (and to some extent the Precariat) outside that. It is fair, in a way, to look at non-monetay factors, such as personal networks, which can be associated with power and ability to play a system.We've never claimed, unlike some leftists, that the working class has a monolithic culture (or that there is some virtue in that culture), but that everyone who receives a wage/salary has the same interest. This is demonstrated most in that the employment case law is often made up of fairly well heeled workers taking their employers to court, and shaping how the rest of us are treated.
There is an official party position on how our delegates to elected bodies will behave, the answer to W.B. of Upton Park (link).
The EC wrote:[our] presence [in Parliament], backed, as it must needs be, by a wide-awake electorate (suggestive of more to come and the threatened "end of all,") would in all probability evoke the initiation, by one or other of the capitalist parties, of measures that may conceivably contain some small advantage for the working-class. Now intellectual vitality requires the continual absorption, and digestion of new facts as they occur. So with Socialism and proletarian politics. The S.P.G.B. is always ready to consider new facts and phases when these present themselves, and therefore the question of whether Socialist representatives should support any such measures in Parliament, is one that we do not, in January 1910, pretend to answer. We can only say as to this, that as we progress and new situations arise, our membership, ever guided by the revolutionary principle of NO COMPROMISE, by our general understanding of Socialism and the requirements of the greatest interest of the working class, its emancipation, will DEMOCRATICALLY direct the action of its representatives.This answer was endorsed by conference and party polls. We would, in Morris' words, go to parliament as rebels and not reformers. Our candidates stand pledged to carry out the instructions of branches locally, and the EC nationally; and they stand on the party's platform, not on their personal attributes/achievement/endevours. Hence why we don't do pictures of candidates on our election material, it's the case, not the face. The only criterion for being a candidate is that a member should have passed the speaker's test, which is a test of whether their understanding of the case is robust enough to answer thjose tricky questions we get in public.
Since no one else has replied, those symbols are working fine on a networked Windows PC using Mozilla…
That would have been twice the damages, say, if they had been exemplary because they were unregulated: plus, maybe a change in culture could come about because the new arrangements may encourage people to turn to the courts, especially against small opponents. It would all depend on how exemplary the damages are, and how much it'd cost for a licence…
My concern was for ourselves: we paid about £4 when we were sued for libel in the early 1900's, now it would be a minimum of several tens of thousands, plus about half a million in costs, before they decide that exemplary damages are due becuase we wouldn't have paid the licence fee.Unfortunately, a rule big enough to take the big boys on would crush us under foot…
Interesting, and much as I'd hope we'd behave: going to parliament as rebels and not reformers (although I'd hope we'd refuse to wear the ties). Of course, that doesn't mean that their politics are laudible, but it still remains an interesting phenomena, and one worth watching. Admittedly, it will lead to further elections, so will their 'revolt' keep going?…
Technically, we do have a ban on factions:
Rule 6 wrote:6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party(my emphasis — key word is "organisation"), any Militant style faction would have to avoid being a political organisation (with formal membership, officers, policies, etc.) Unlike then SWP, though, we certainly don't forbid agitation for a particular point of view, with a rule that dates back to some arguments in the Social Democratic Federation when our founding members were agitating as an internal tendency:
Rule 5 wrote:Members have the right to attend at meetings of Branches other than their own, and speak with the permission of the Branch, but shall not have the right to vote thereat. Central Branch members, however, shall be informed of a party vote and forwarded a voting paper and shall be allowed to vote through the post or at any one Branch meeting on production of membership card. All members may attend the meetings of the Executive Committee, Delegate Meetings, or Conferences, and with permission may contribute to the discussion.(my emphasis). The SWP actively prevents lateral communication between branches, in a method to ensure that the central organisation retained the control of information, save at regional aggregates (run by full timers). These rules, I'd suggest, would be useful devices to preventing subversion of the party.Equally technically, we do sort of operate a slate system, as our EC is elected by bloc vote, and in the advent of a serious schism, the largest plurality of the party can take all the seats (if it ever becomes that open and formal). Other methods, such as the right to attend and ask for permission to speak, do counteract that, a little.
Actually, this week's Weekly Worker more or less nails it…http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/953/ch%C3%A1vez-obituary-man-myth-and-legacy
Nick Rogers wrote:Similarly, the prominent Trotskyist, Stalin Pérez Borges, who entered the PSUV and formed the Socialist Tide tendency, has reported on the lack of space to organise at the grassroots of a party that is very hierarchical. Recent nominations of candidates for governorships and mayoralties have been handed down by fiat by the PSUV leadership.The problem is that a ‘revolutionary’ project that does not empower the working class will end up returning power to the only other class that can rule in modern society – the capitalist class.That's the key. For all he encouraged land reform (along a regulated homesteading basis, albeit), the latifundia are still, AFAIK, largely intact…
I don't honestly know how I can be much clearer, I've cited our application policy and our rulebook, in contrast to a comment received from some member sometime. All applicants are asked to agree to our non-Leninist policies and principles. Maybe if someone has been been known to espouse a particular position they might be specifically asked about it, just to be clear, because the application process is as much about letting them know where we stand as it is finding their views out; but the bottom line is anyone is welcome to apply, and will be allowed in if they agree with our non-Leninist policies and principles.
The question isn't so much, to my mind whether the workers benefitted, but whether they benefitted as workers, or as clients of a potlatching state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch). The indications are that the regional trends suggest Venezeula did reduce poverty faster than neighbouring countries, and that is a good thing. But, whether the overall politics of Chavez and Chavezismo are overall more harmful in the medium term is a serious matter to consider.
The precise rule is:
Rulebook wrote:Any person desiring membership shall sign the application form signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party. Such application shall be lodged with the Branch Secretary, whose duty it shall be to place same before the next business meeting (to which the applicant shall be invited) for consideration. After examination of the applicant, a majority shall decide, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009As per the online questionaire, any applicant will be asked questions to make sure they support the policies and principles of the socialist party. A specific recantation would not be necessary, but an acceptance of our policies would be.Obviously, the precise examination varies from branch to branch. The questions, though, both online or in person, would be such that someone holding Leninist views could not acceptably answer.
They'd be treated like any applicant member:
Party Policy wrote:Anyone who agrees with the principles and object of the Socialist Party can apply for membership.If they apply through the membership dept. they will be asked
Membership questionaire wrote:Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievment of socialism?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-applicationSo, they wouldn't be asked to recant, but they would be asked to commit to a democratic revolutionary process, without leaders.
The problem is, that even his internal politics were what we'd consider anti-socialist, in as much as it was predicated on the beneficent state distributing the wealth (and expecting support, in a gift relation) rather than emancipating the working class to support itself (saving, perhaps, the modest land reforms).So, the evidence is that hero-worship and state power still dominate the ideology of the left. He was a good example of an extreme leftist, but certainly not of socialism.The national-patriotic ideology also drove his foriegn relations: he could have behaved in a counter-hegemonic fashion without allying with authoritarian leaders (although, that may indicate that if he could have got away with it, he may have ruled as a dictator, or if necessary). Certainly, he attempted to get himself exempted from term limits…
History will be kind to him, for he intends to write it…http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-i.html
That is interesting, though I've seen a lot of commentary that they've been picking up rightward/populist votes.I've also heard comparisons with the Pirate Party in Germany & Sweden, but they've been foundering, partly over the question of leadership overturning the 'Liquid democracy' votes (also issues of instability of policy because of the immediate direct democracy).See here: (link)(A reminder of our recent problem, perhaps, and the need to make sure that liquid democracy is properly structured)
