The (Anarcho-) Socialist Party [Archive]

The Idler

16th September 2013, 21:39

Merseyside branch reply

IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96) argues that the majority of those workers who have repeatedly heard the case for socialism reject it and that (in the view of IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96) they are right to do so. This is because the Party’s arguments are self-contradictory and cancel themselves out.
However, in putting forward this view IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96) is presenting itself with a problem. The problem is that nearly all the people who “reject” the case for socialism do not do so for the reasons outlined by IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96). Most workers familiar with the Party’s arguments do not sit around bemoaning the fact that they are told the working class runs society “from top to bottom” and performs all the useful functions in society, while’ the capitalists are described as “functionaries.” No doubt IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96) would like this to be the case, but the fact remains that it is not. Most workers do not see glaring contradictions in the Party’s arguments (and it is no good stating that they do, but just don’t realise it). Workers reject the Party case for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the SP is so small as to lack credibility. – encouraging the view that’ doing something “in the meantime” is a worthwhile activity. The so-called “human nature” argument is another obstacle that the Party has to face, recognizing that very often such arguments have a religious basis. ...

IC / GWIEP reply

They charge IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96) with saying that the majority of those who reject the Party case do so because it is self-contradictory. What IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96) in fact says is that they reject it because they are identified with ideologies other than that of the Party. For those interested in close reasoning the Party’s self-contradictions provide justification, but these are a small minority. Merseyside are aware of the contention put in italics above, and go on to refer to it, but only as “another view put by IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96).” In spite of having had not only IC (http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=96) but also Ideologies and their Functions, An Outline Sketch of Systematic Ideology (http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=465) and IC versus SP (http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=388) on hand they have failed to recognise it as the main theme. ...