SPGB Forum Purge

[VinnieUK]

Socialist Party of Great Britain has had enough of free speech on its forum, an ex member has been suspended indefinitely as an example to others.


Other members and ex members are treading on eggshells afraid to raise the subject for fear of retribution. I should add that we are ex members as a protest at the way the ‘moderators’ use ‘moderation’ to censor and suppress dissent.

It has had enough of awkward questions
Threads are locked down to prevent open discussion




Worth keeping an eye out for future expulsions.

[Blake's Baby]

So, come to RevLeft. No-one is ever purged here.

No, that's a lie, people are regularly purged. But then again, RevLeft doesn't pretend to be a democracy.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Why was this person banned? What are the issues involved? Is the SPGB in some sort of internal crisis? Being on the other side of the pond, I am not very familiar with them. As I understand they are something like a pre-Leninist "ultra left" group and is relatively small.

I have heard the SPGB called the "small party of good boys". That is the extent of my knowledge of them.

Why is the ban hammer being applied?

[whichfinder]

Why was this person banned? What are the issues involved? Is the SPGB in some sort of internal crisis? Being on the other side of the pond, I am not very familiar with them. As I understand they are something like a pre-Leninist "ultra left" group and is relatively small.

I have heard the SPGB called the "small party of good boys". That is the extent of my knowledge of them.

Why is the ban hammer being applied?


If you'd like to know more about the SPGB and the bogus claims being made by one or two disaffected ex-members visit the party's website and its forum. Make your own judgements about this issue and the most democratic revolutionary organisation you'll ever likely to encounter.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum

[VinnieUK]

If you'd like to know more about the SPGB and the bogus claims being made by one or two disaffected ex-members visit the party's website and its forum. Make your own judgements about this issue and the most democratic revolutionary organisation you'll ever likely to encounter.


This would carry more credibility if I was the only disaffected ex-member but if you visit the website as whichfinder suggests you will find a few more.

The censorship is directed at the same ex members and I predict more bans.

Indeed, an EC member called for the suspension of the internet committee - see the party's internal forum 'spintcom'. I have not been on revleft long enough to paste a link but it is message number 14472 (EC Minutes)

[Q]

If you'd like to know more about the SPGB and the bogus claims being made by one or two disaffected ex-members visit the party's website and its forum. Make your own judgements about this issue and the most democratic revolutionary organisation you'll ever likely to encounter.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the OP is right, wouldn't all dissenting messages have been removed?

[whichfinder]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the OP is right, wouldn't all dissenting messages have been removed?

No, the vast majority still remain but some threads have been locked because of the wanton and capricious disruption which continued for around six months taking place mostly on these sub-forums:-

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement

The OP has now been banned indefinitely from posting on the forum after numerous warnings and temporary suspensions.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No, the vast majority still remain but some threads have been locked because of the wanton and capricious disruption which continued for around six months taking place mostly on these sub-forums:-

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement

The OP has now been banned indefinitely from posting on the forum after numerous warnings and temporary suspensions.
Yeah, gotta watch out for "wanton and capricious disruption." What the hell does that even mean, comrade? Were the posters posting pictures of Dick Cheney and Maggie Thatcher nude so that viewers were losing their respective lunches? Sounds like bureaucratic suppression to me.

I seriously dislike the fact that this forum bans people for opinions that the mods find reprehensible. Some excellent posters have been lost because of this. Of course, this forum is not an extension of a party, like CPGB. Which only makes the bans here harder to fathom.

[Blake's Baby]

What have the CPGB got to do with it Lev?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yikes. There I go being sarcastic and careless:crying:. They have nothing to do with it, Blake. My bad. And apologies (if applicable) to the CPGB. I hasten to add that I can abide neither wantonness nor caprice.

[Forward Union]

Socialist Party of Great Britain has had enough of free speech on its forum, an ex member has been suspended indefinitely as an example to others.


So the membership of the forum dropped 25%?

[VinnieUK]

If you'd like to know more about the SPGB and the bogus claims being made by one or two disaffected ex-members visit the party's website and its forum. Make your own judgements about this issue and the most democratic revolutionary organisation you'll ever likely to encounter.



This is not a good excuse. There are more than a few members concerned with the situation. Indeed an EC member called for the SPGB Internet Committee to be dismissed. Is he a 'disaffected ex member'?

[VinnieUK]

No, the vast majority still remain but some threads have been locked because of the wanton and capricious disruption which continued for around six months taking place mostly on these sub-forums:-


The OP has now been banned indefinitely from posting on the forum after numerous warnings and temporary suspensions.

This not correct. Many posts simply addressing the question of the censorship of party members have been removed. Funny thing is, most have been saved by sympathetic members as they are delivered to all email addresses:)

[Hit The North]

What a chuckle.

This tells me two things:

1. When an internet forum has a moderator there is no such thing as free speech.

2. That the fetish of free speech, as cherished by the SPGB, is unsustainable and is a retreat from politics.

[whichfinder]

Indeed an EC member called for the SPGB Internet Committee to be dismissed.

Not true; the EC member referred to called for two members of the Internet Committee to be banned from moderation duties. The other nine members of the Executive Committee disagreed.




Is he a 'disaffected ex member'?No, he's a democrat who accepted the overwhelming majority decision. He remains a highly active and effectual member of the party.

[Fionnagáin]

I'm a little surprised that anyone in the SPGB is young enough for them to have an internet forum.

[whichfinder]

I'm a little surprised that anyone in the SPGB is young enough for them to have an internet forum.

Life is full of surprises. :D Here's a very recent SPGB meeting at the party's Head Office in London. But what's your point anyway?

http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/5/6/6/a/600_213142122.jpeg

[The Idler]

What a chuckle.

This tells me two things:

1. When an internet forum has a moderator there is no such thing as free speech.

2. That the fetish of free speech, as cherished by the SPGB, is unsustainable and is a retreat from politics.
Chuckle away - Still waiting for an open public internet forum from a group in the Cliffite tradition after ten years of the SPGB sustaining multiple such "unsustainable" internet forums.

As for free speech, I believe chairpersons are responsible for meetings and audience contributions, editors are responsible for publications and letters printed, moderators are ultimately responsible for internet forums. If you came into a crowded meeting and started shouting fire, I'd expect someone responsible to remove you. So much for fetishising free speech. Beats suspending four members for talking shop on facebook eh though. When revolutionary socialists start doing that, they probably weren't revolutionary socialists.

[Fionnagáin]

Life is full of surprises. :D Here's a very recent SPGB meeting at the party's Head Office in London. But what's your point anyway?
My point is that I've very rarely encountered an SPGBer under the age of 60. Evidently the London branch has some younger blood, but I'd wager that's the exception rather than the rule. (Not that they're unique, in that respect; the British leftcom and ML sects are largely the same, and if you discount their revolving-door student membership, the Trots only knock their average down by a decade or so.)


Cos older people don't or can't use computers/net?
Of course they can. They just don't use it as much, and tend not to use it very heavily for discussion. Some do, certainly, but a minority, and generally not the ones who cling to shrivelled antiquities like the Socialist "Party" of Great Britain.

[The Idler]

My point is that I've very rarely encountered an SPGBer under the age of 60. Evidently the London branch has some younger blood, but I'd wager that's the exception rather than the rule. (Not that they're unique, in that respect; the British leftcom and ML sects are largely the same, and if you discount their revolving-door student membership, the Trots only knock their average down by a decade or so.)


Of course they can. They just don't use it as much, and tend not to use it very heavily for discussion. Some do, certainly, but a minority, and generally not the ones who cling to shrivelled antiquities like the Socialist "Party" of Great Britain.
This is "a retreat from politics". A "retreat from politics" is not arguing against party channels being the only place to discuss party business.

[VinnieUK]

As for free speech, I believe chairpersons are responsible for meetings and audience contributions, editors are responsible for publications and letters printed, moderators are ultimately responsible for internet forums.



There is no comparison. A chairperson cannot delete vast amounts of 'posts' or contributions from forum members. A chairperson is seen by all and can be instantly removed by the meeting.

At the moment An SPGB moderator wears two hats and is constantly changing them like Morecambe and Wise.

A moderator - and I have to say I would not have believed unless I had first hand experience - can manipulate a debate from behind the scenes checking contributions and only using posts that make him look good under his other guise.

All this would be fair enough if a forum is owned privately but the SPGB claim that ALL its committees and officers are under the democratic control of the membership.

And finally, why was my post almost identical to this deleted by the mod why I received a four week suspension for it?

By the way I included no nude pics of Maggie

[VinnieUK]

Fionnagáin

I didn't come on here to defend the SPGB but I really can't see why the size of its membership and how old they are, is an argument against their principles, anymore than the color of their skin or sexual preference.

After all the German Nazi Party had a massive membership. Does that make the Nazis somehow better than the SPGB?

To be fair the SPGB has stood for socialism without compromise and refused to get involved in the dead end activity of reformism. In fact in that sence - and I stand to be corrected - they are the only socialist party in existence.

[VinnieUK]

No, the vast majority still remain but some threads have been locked because of the wanton and capricious.

Never heard of 'wanton and caprice! It was more likely Morecambe and Wise on the SPGB Internet Committee to blame.

[The Idler]

What should a moderator do? What is sustainable? Does an organisation with democratic control by its members imply something other than private interest?

[Fionnagáin]

I didn't come on here to defend the SPGB but I really can't see why the size of its membership and how old they are, is an argument against their principles, anymore than the color of their skin or sexual preference.
I'm not knocking their principles. I'm knocking their pretence of relevance.

[Sam_b]

Chuckle away - Still waiting for an open public internet forum from a group in the Cliffite tradition.


Sorry, what has this got to do with anything?

[The Idler]

I've always thought free speech particularly online a good way to judge parties calling themselves revolutionary. The Cliffite tradition calls itself revolutionary (in fact I've often heard them call themselves "the only serious revolutionary party" especially at recruitment rallies). But their attitude to non-members discussing them, the IS list and the ISN private forum (despite rhetoric about transparency) makes me wonder about their relevance. You can't judge a party calling itself revolutionary in isolation from the class struggle generally.

[VinnieUK]

What should a moderator do? What is sustainable? Does an organisation with democratic control by its members imply something other than private interest?

Moderators should allow free and open discussion like this one. The spgb moderators have expelled me for such discussion.

Perhaps revleft moderation could give classes. I do believe it was a suggested by your Swansea Branch.

At this moment one of your members is attacking my integrity on one of your forums - perhaps mods should intervene but what are they doing? They are not allowing my posts so I cannot defend myself. Moderation on SPGB forums is abysmal and members and sympathizers are leaving

[The Idler]

Could you link to a specific post where your integrity is attacked? Even if you haven't made enough posts yet on revleft to hyperlink it, we will be able to see it.

More generally, if you're arguing for completely free and open discussion, then does this equate to no moderation and no moderators?

Were there were no moderators, then users would be free to attack other users integrity.

[VinnieUK]

Could you link to a specific post where your integrity is attacked? Even if you haven't made enough posts yet on revleft to hyperlink it, we will be able to see it.

More generally, if you're arguing for completely free and open discussion, then does this equate to no moderation and no moderators?

Were there were no moderators, then users would be free to attack other users integrity.

If I did not believe in moderation then why would I suggest mod classes for spgb mods?

If a democratic meeting removed a chairperson because he/she was incompetent would that mean that the members of the meeting did not believe in a democratically elected chair? No, it merely means the chairperson is incompetent

To bring the thread back on topic:) Do you think moderation on SPGB forums is fine? You will look foolish defending your 'party right or wrong'. Ask yourself why we can't have this discussion on your forum.



I can not yet post a link and I am at the disadvantage of not knowing which member I am debating with, but I think you well know where my integrity is being attacked and by whom.

I am being attacked for not replying but the mod will not print any of my replies. Do you support that dishonesty?

PS:
By the way I would rather be in the SPGB putting my point of view

[The Idler]

Okay so you want moderated forums. How can you have free and open discussion with moderators presumably moderating? If it were as simple as allowing free and open discussion (including personal attacks presumably), moderators/meeting chairpersons would be surplus to requirements.

As you probably know, I'm not interested in defending the party right or wrong, I think it was Trotsky who came up with that party defencism.

As I understand it, a review of formal complaints about the SPGB internet forum is still pending so it would be unwise to pre-empt the outcome.

[Hit The North]

I've always thought free speech particularly online a good way to judge parties calling themselves revolutionary.

This is an odd way to judge the revolutionary credentials of a party. Are you suggesting that the primary way in which a party is revolutionary is in its commitment to free speech? This betrays a very abstract notion of revolutionary intervention and, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that a libertarian neo-con organisation could be judged revolutionary as long as it practised free speech on the internet.


You can't judge a party calling itself revolutionary in isolation from the class struggle generally.Indeed. So the fact that the SPGB does not intervene at all as a party in the class struggle would indicate that it is not a serious revolutionary party.



Were there were no moderators, then users would be free to attack other users integrity.

So now you are not in favour of free speech, you are in favour of responsible speech. The problem with this being that someone has to decide what is responsible from irresponsible speech.

[VinnieUK]

I am permanently expelled from your SPGB forum for being 'off topic in thread'

Perhaps spgb members have an explanation for this comedy duo which is typical of their forums at the moment. The moderator and 'malcom' is the same person.

Who is 'disrupting' this forum? Who is challenging the integrity of members? Who is off topic?

And perhaps I can give you a demonstration of the status of free speech in the SPGB by going on the forum to defend myself?

unable to post link but it is the WSM forum

[The Idler]

I could have been clearer, but no, free speech isn't the primary way in which a party is revolutionary. Although as Bakunin said
"liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
As for the claim that the SPGB does not intervene as a party in the class struggle. This still betrays the false notion that parties exist outside of the class struggle and bring consciousness from without. The SPGB propagate socialist consciousness which is all the other parties going by the socialist label can claim to do.
I am in favour of free speech, but the party forum is not a substitute for society, and the party is prefigurative under capitalist society insofar as is possible. Again, I repeat, the SPGB would not expel members from the party for talking party business (or even probably criticising the party) on non-party channels such as facebook.

[VinnieUK]

Having left the SPGB and joining revleft looking for an alternative socialist party I am having trouble finding one. Can anyone assist? I have had a good look on the site and cannot find an organisation that wishes to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism/communism without going down the never ending road of reformism.

[Fionnagáin]

SolFed? Dunno how you feel about anarcho-syndicalists, but their credentials as anti-reformists check out.

[Crixus]

I wonder what Marx and Engels would've made of this whole internet thing? A tool paramount to organizing and fostering class consciousness? A total waste of time? An integral part of nullifying bourgeois media? An arena of Stirnerite egoism only good for facilitating a war of each against each?

[Blake's Baby]

Having left the SPGB and joining revleft looking for an alternative socialist party I am having trouble finding one. Can anyone assist? I have had a good look on the site and cannot find an organisation that wishes to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism/communism without going down the never ending road of reformism.

http://www.leftcom.org/en

http://en.internationalism.org/

Neither of those organisations is reformist, because Left Comms aren't. The CWO (part of the ICT, on the 'leftcom' site) have a section close to you. You could get in touch with them.

[The Idler]

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but what do you think of the revleft mods?

[VinnieUK]

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but what do you think of the revleft mods?

Not sure what you mean? Haven't had any dealings with them. It is refreshing that you can ask the question without being warned, I suppose. Not that you should be :)

On a different subject, have you noticed spintcom in the last hour or two. Is this representative of the party, do you think?

[VinnieUK]

It seems some member of the SPGB are terrified that I intend to rejoin the party.
and are disrupting the forums by attacking ex- members and sympathisers - it is no wonder they remain small

They are not representative of the party but I have no intention of joining while there people like that in the SPGB.

These very same people have chased off sympathizers and will continue to do so until the silent majority discovers what is going on.

The members and sympathisers attacked here have since left the party and are being vilified for trying to improve a rubbish moderation

[Q]

Having left the SPGB and joining revleft looking for an alternative socialist party I am having trouble finding one. Can anyone assist? I have had a good look on the site and cannot find an organisation that wishes to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism/communism without going down the never ending road of reformism.

You might like the CPGB (http://cpgb.org.uk/) as a communist group. Here's a FAQ (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/faq) that explains what they're about.

[VinnieUK]

Q

Thanks for the link and I had a look at the Q &A. I view the need for leadership similar to the need for religion; a thing of the past for people unable to think rationally for themselves. I am not after leaders. I am far too politically mature for that!

I agree with Marx that the establishment of socialism/communism requires a class conscious working class:

"the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself"

I know what I want, I am a class conscious member of the working class, I know what capitalism is and how to get rid of it. I really don't need a 'leader' to tell me that.

But I appreciate your suggestions:)

cheers

[Blake's Baby]

I don't really want to be rude, Vinnie, but was there something wrong with mine?

[VinnieUK]

I don't really want to be rude, Vinnie, but was there something wrong with mine?

No, you are NOT being rude I am busy having a look and will get back to you:)

[Q]

I really don't need a 'leader' to tell me that.

I think there may be somewhat of an 'allergic' reaction here. If you haven't yet, I would recommend checking them out more, read their paper a bit, watch some of their videos (like the SPGB they record their educational meetings and debates, but with video too ;)) and perhaps come to the Communist University in August (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cu2013-t179817/index.html). Because, there is only so much a FAQ can cover of course.

[The Idler]

By the way I have seen the discussion on spintcom and thinking of a response possibly a circular.

[VinnieUK]

Blake's Baby,

thanks for the links but I think I would have too many disagreements. For eg, I accept that Parliament is run by pro capitalists but it controls the army etc. and there has never been a serious attempt by a class conscious working class to send delegates to parliament and take control of the state democratically.

I t is one of the arguments that attracted me to the SPGB and I believe later in his life Marx argued that universal suffrage would remove the need for barricades and would allow the working class to take control of the state.

I don't see any reason for rejecting such a position, at the moment.

[Fionnagáin]

That the state is a particular iteration of the capitalist social relation, and not simply a neutral implement that may be wielded to any end?

That the bourgeois state is not reducible to its legislature, and that the majority of the state-complex will not (in fact, is structurally incapable) of cooperating with the working class-in-revolt?

That Marx described the greatest achievement of the Paris Commune as its deprofessionalising and demystifying government, in rebelling not against particular directors of the bourgeois state but against the state as such?

That any working class in such a position to take power doesn't need the apparatus of the bourgeois state anyway, that it can and will already have formed its own organs of political power?

[VinnieUK]

Fionnagain,

The capitalists needed to take control of the state to free their class from feudal chains and turn the state into a capitalist machine.

If we cannot get workers to vote for revolution........... Voting would also be a measure of support for the revolution. If that fails then any socialist would probably agree with the sentiments "peacefully if possible, violently if necessary"

When the working class has formed it's own 'organs of political power', it will need to take control of the state to prevent it from being used against a democratic revolution.

When there is a majority of socialist sending delegates to parliament and the state turns against them then I would change my opinion but at the moment I see no reason to abandon that position.

Such a situation has never existed

[Fionnagáin]

Why wait for bourgeois-sanctioned elections? History doesn't necessarily move at the speed of the bourgeois electoral cycle. Such formalities are unlikely to keep pace with the realities of class struggle, least of all in a revolution. Any working class that is sufficiently organised to take political power is sufficiently organised to conduct its own elections, through its own political organs, rather than waiting, child-like, upon the approval of the very bourgeois apparatus it's trying to overthrow

Further, why is it necessary to wait for the approval of 50%+1 of the electorate in a given, arbitrary territory? If workers in X-sville are ready to seize power, why wait for the uncertain workers of Y-sburg to endorse it? Why not go right ahead and take power, and force the Ysburgs deal with the new political situation, force them to decide what side of the class line they're on. That's what all revolutions come down to, in the end- even in your model of revolution, given that it requires only a majority of working class votes, and that only within a given territory- so why pretend otherwise?

[Q]

The capitalists needed to take control of the state to free their class from feudal chains and turn the state into a capitalist machine.

If we cannot get workers to vote for revolution........... Voting would also be a measure of support for the revolution. If that fails then any socialist would probably agree with the sentiments "peacefully if possible, violently if necessary"

When the working class has formed it's own 'organs of political power', it will need to take control of the state to prevent it from being used against a democratic revolution.

When there is a majority of socialist sending delegates to parliament and the state turns against them then I would change my opinion but at the moment I see no reason to abandon that position.

Such a situation has never existed
Never? What about Chili 1973? Or the Spanish Republic in the 1930's? Surely mere elections will not lead to anything, although I agree that parliamentary work is important. But if parliament actually changed anything, they would've abolished it.

In fact, that is exactly what happened: After Social-Democracy appeared in parliament and the secret meetings were over, the power of parliament has decreased over time via: Centralisation/bureaucratisation (more power in the hands of government), internationalisation (the EU is a good example of a new 19th century style parliament, on a higher level) and privatisation (the market is not democratic whatsoever).

To make the state fit for proletarian rule, we need to wage the battle for democracy and this goes much further than parliament alone. I published today a piece about the Democratic Republic regarding this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18887).


Further, why is it necessary to wait for the approval of 50%+1 of the electorate in a given, arbitrary territory? If workers in X-sville are ready to seize power, why wait for the uncertain workers of Y-sburg to endorse it? Why not go right ahead and take power, and force the Ysburgs deal with the new political situation, force them to decide what side of the class line they're on. That's what all revolutions come down to, in the end- even in your model of revolution, given that it requires only a majority of working class votes, and that only within a given territory- so why pretend otherwise?
We can't have a revolution in one city. It would be crushed in no time. Have a look at the history of the Paris Commune, Paris not being a small town at that.

Indeed, in the piece I just linked to, I make the call for a European Democratic Republic. It is this kind of scale that we need to look towards, at the very least.

[bricolage]

We can't have a revolution in one city. It would be crushed in no time. Have a look at the history of the Paris Commune, Paris not being a small town at that.
The Paris Commune lost due to its isolation which was a result of the crushing of the other Communes (Lyon, Marseille and so forth) and the soldiers in Bloody Week not turning on their commanders as they had done on March 18th. This doesn't though invalidate the position put forward that,

"If workers in X-sville are ready to seize power, why wait for the uncertain workers of Y-sburg to endorse it?"

The Communards should not have waited and the problem was not that they seized power too early (in fact the very act of the revolution in Paris was what spurred on the other Communes however doomed to failure they might have been) the problem was that it did not spread after they had seized power. If they had waited the army would have just come back for the cannons and none of the next three months would have happened.

[Fionnagáin]

We can't have a revolution in one city. It would be crushed in no time. Have a look at the history of the Paris Commune, Paris not being a small town at that.
You can't have revolution in one city, no. But you can have working class political power in one city. If it doesn't spread, sure, they're fucked, but it's not going to spread if nobody ever makes a move. That's the risk you take.

[Blake's Baby]

Blake's Baby,

thanks for the links but I think I would have too many disagreements. For eg, I accept that Parliament is run by pro capitalists but it controls the army etc. and there has never been a serious attempt by a class conscious working class to send delegates to parliament and take control of the state democratically.

I t is one of the arguments that attracted me to the SPGB and I believe later in his life Marx argued that universal suffrage would remove the need for barricades and would allow the working class to take control of the state.

I don't see any reason for rejecting such a position, at the moment.

If you're looking for a non-reformist party that's intent on working through parliament, then I'm afraid you're stuck with the SPGB.

Or possibly the split from the SPGB called the SPGB, who publish 'Socialist Studies': http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/

I think you're wrong about Marx's logic; the SPGB argues that democracy has increased the chances of a peaceful revolution since Marx's day, many of us argue that the obsolescence/decadence of capitalism (the notion which in fact justified the SPGB's foundation in 1904) has made that prospect (only ever advanced for the UK, USA and Netherlands) less likely. But, hey ho, never mind. I'm sure if you stick around we'll have plenty of opportunity to argue the relevance (or otherwise) of parliament.

[VinnieUK]

If you're looking for a non-reformist party that's intent on working through parliament, then I'm afraid you're stuck with the SPGB.



I think you are right.

But looking at their internal discussion forum I don't think they will have me back :crying:

[Hit The North]

If you're looking for a non-reformist party that's intent on working through parliament, then I'm afraid you're stuck with the SPGB.


As far as I can tell, the SPGB has no "intent on working through parliament" otherwise they would have a credible electoral campaign, rather than standing a single candidate in general elections. In fact, I contend that their strategy, as far as they have one, is incoherent.

[Hit The North]

I think you are right.

But looking at their internal discussion forum I don't think they will have me back :crying:

If you don't agree with the notion that the socialist party should engage with the class struggle, sometimes taking the lead in specific struggles, in order to win workers to the ideas of socialism, then you might as well be on your own anyway.

Why not stand as an "independent socialist" in the next election?

[VinnieUK]

As far as I can tell, the SPGB has no "intent on working through parliament" otherwise they would have a credible electoral campaign, rather than standing a single candidate in general elections. In fact, I contend that their strategy, as far as they have one, is incoherent.

I think the SPGB's approach to parliament is often misunderstood. It is consistent with its case:
That socialism requires the democratic action of a class conscious working class.

A class conscious working class could send delegates to parliament – not to use parliament as a reformist body but to use its power to dismantle the capitalist state machine with the result that it cannot be used against a democratically organised socialist movement.

Logically, this cannot be done at the moment as most workers support capitalism. It would be incoherent if it then claimed that it can run capitalism in the interests of the workers - for example by state ownership. So the SPGB stands at elections to help propagate the socialist case. It states this clearly in its election manifesto: ‘Do not vote for the socialist candidate unless you understand the SPGB’s position.’
SPGB candidates do no stand in elections to become MPs to administer the capitalist system.

Many groups claim to be socialist and then stand at elections with a bunch of reforms, now that IS incoherent!

[VinnieUK]

By the way I have seen the discussion on spintcom and thinking of a response possibly a circular.

I have been following the discussion and I think there are some positives. Steve has eloquently expressed on another forum how I am beginning to feel about the situation. Everything just went way out of control and I extend my sincerest apologies to my ex comrades for all the disruption to which I was a major contributor . It is not the result I wanted.

I am sure there is at least one ex-comrade who will see this as a good example of my capriciousness but I will prove him wrong by bringing it to an end.

I hope Steve is allowed to get on with his work within the party and I wish him and the SPGB well.

[Hit The North]

I think the SPGB's approach to parliament is often misunderstood. It is consistent with its case:
That socialism requires the democratic action of a class conscious working class.


Except that the "democratic action" of the working class will need to be largely extra-parliamentary in its reach and the remnant of the bourgeois parliament will be the least of its organs of power - if you seriously want to maintain the correct idea of the emancipation of the workers being the act of the workers themselves.


A class conscious working class could send delegates to parliament – not to use parliament as a reformist body but to use its power to dismantle the capitalist state machine with the result that it cannot be used against a democratically organised socialist movement.Ultimately, parliament only has the power that it can call on in the police and military. if it is at odds with these primary organs of state power it will be subject to a coup de tat. Therefore, the working class must already have overcome the police and army before its parliament can wield the necessary power to dissolve the capitalist state.


Logically, this cannot be done at the moment as most workers support capitalism. It would be incoherent if it then claimed that it can run capitalism in the interests of the workers - for example by state ownership. So the SPGB stands at elections to help propagate the socialist case. It states this clearly in its election manifesto: ‘Do not vote for the socialist candidate unless you understand the SPGB’s position.’
SPGB candidates do no stand in elections to become MPs to administer the capitalist system. No left of Labour candidate stands in elections with the expectation that they will even win a seat, never mind be in a position to administer the capitalist system :lol:. So the key difference between the SPGB and other groups is about how they build electioneering and the platform it provides for propaganda into their general strategy.


Many groups claim to be socialist and then stand at elections with a bunch of reforms, now that IS incoherent!Well, again, it depends on how these reforms/demands are seen to relate to the strategic tasks of the party in question.

[VinnieUK]

Except that the "democratic action" of the working class will need to be largely extra-parliamentary in its reach

As I said, taking control of parliament is to prevent it from being used against a democratically organised working class and to dismantle the capitalist state.

I also said by implication that it will be carried out by a democratically organised working class. So I agree we do not need it to organise for socialism as such and the working class will be organised BEFORE taking control.



What sort of 'extra-parliamentary' organisation do you envisage?

[The Idler]

two users (mods in fact) have been banned from revleft
explanation about why the BA had to ban... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=180605)

[VinnieUK]

For some reason I can't follow the link. Perhaps I have not been a member of the forum long enough.

[VinnieUK]

two users (mods in fact) have been banned from revleft


Just checked - I probably need 25 posts

[Hit The North]

What sort of 'extra-parliamentary' organisation do you envisage?

Everything from factory and community workers committees to people's assemblies, I guess. Soviets and stuff. Parties! A rushing of popular power into the widening cracks of bourgeois democracy is how I envision it.


Just checked - I probably need 25 posts

You need to be a member of the Committed Users group which necessitates a few hundred posts.

But I've no idea why The Idler has brought the matter to the attention of this thread.

[Blake's Baby]

Because this whole thing started with discussions about forum purges.

[Leftsolidarity]

Just checked - I probably need 25 posts

The thread is in the Committed Users section so it won't be visible to anyone not in the CU.

[Q]

You need to be a member of the Committed Users group which necessitates a few hundred posts.
Correct, you need to be in the CU group. Anyone with 1200 posts is auto-promoted to this.

[Blake's Baby]

Apparently it's an offense to post about content from the CU forum, I found out about 10 minutes ago. Just so everyone knows...

[robin13]

Thank you for this post. It gives me the chance to say that Vin was most
assuredly "not" misrepresenting the party's democracy on revleft.
He was representing the bias and partiality shown to certain people who posted
on the SPGB site

[The Idler]

If you have a complaint about the SPGB or its forum, it ought to be heard.