The Idler

Yeah, I thought so.

As for your first question, that's just semantics that makes no sense. An election to a bourgeois institution is a bourgeois election. Period. No ifs or ands or maybes or buts.

"I understand other tendencies define reformism as the use of general elections to contest political power"

No. That is one aspect of reformism. As for anarchism, impossibilists want a classless, stateless society too. Even Newell was pretty clear that the SPC included both reformist and impossibilist elements, and the latter opposed electoralism. As I said, and according to libcom and Newell, elections were used for propaganda purposes by those who did approve of doing so (and even that was not universally supported within the SPC), not with the intent of entering bourgeois institutions to enact gradual change.

Anyway, I did say I wasn't really looking to debate it (I'd rather read and come to my own conclusions), but whatever.

Yeah it does when, for one thing, the elections are for positions in bourgeois institutions, even assuming "universal suffrage" (which for much of the SPC's existence is a problematic assumption in any case!). I'd think an impossibilist would understand that.

I'm not looking to debate that, though. I'm just curious how reformists wormed their way into an officially "impossibilist" party, but hopefully the book will have some answers.

Hey. I'm about to borrow a copy of Peter Newell's book on the SPC. I'm hoping it will clear up a few things, such as: Can they really call themselves impossibilists if they ran candidates in bourgeois elections, granted that they apparently did so only for "propaganda purposes"? How was it decided (and by whom) that the SPC would run candidates in bourgeois elections?

Is impossibilism maximalist, with it's rejection of reforms?

Sorry, not sure what you're actually suggesting here.

What is your dividing line between 'in opposition' and 'flout policy'?

As I've said, in the case of the ICC there are individuals who are not expected to defend Luxemburg's economic theories because they don't accept them. There are sections which have called for the repudiation of sections of the ICC's body of theory but they haven't been dissolved. Are these 'oppositions', or are they 'flouting policy'?

Thanks, I'll take a look at that.

I think I disagree with you that the name of the organisation is a 'secodary matter'. If the majority wanted to call it 'The Socialist Party (of Great Britain)' and the minority wanted to call it 'The Flan-Flingers' and Pig-Picklers' International of Trumped-up Codswallop' I think the majority would be quite right to expel the minority, both by closing branches and expelling individuals.

If one joins a group, one should stick by its rules. Sure, argue that rules should be changed, but accept that sometimes you're going to lose the argument. I think that if it's so important that you refuse to follow agreed policy, you should leave, simple as.

Ok, thanks.