It's really crap that when a British person does well at anything the meedja always refer to them as Scottish (if they are Scottish) and British when they are English. I tell you now, it really is disgraceful. Can they not do something about it?
Tennis is so fucking shit it gives shit a bad name.
Not true. When anyone does well from the colonies - he/she is referred to as British. If anyone from England does well he/she is referred to as English. I hope Andy Murray scores the winning goal for Italy.
Glad to see 55 million people shift their hopes to the cricket...
"And Darren (whose socialist grouping dinnae think workers battles with bosses are at all valuable)"
Hello Neil,
Just a clarification 'cos your quoted comment indicates that you might be labouring under a misapprehension.
The SPGB's politics are rooted in a Marxian Socialist analysis of class society, and part of that package is the recognition that there is this wee thing called the 'class struggle', which is taking place even as I write these words.
It is not even about whether or not "workers battles with bosses are at all valuable" or not; they are a fact of life and workers have to be organised democratically to fight and resist the encroachments of capital.
The SPGB have always argued this, and the idea that we might be opposed to workers organising, or going on strike etc etc 'cos it is not about the abolition of the wages system is a myth. (Sometimes that myth has taken a more sinister turn with some our political opponents alleging that SPGBers have advocated walking through picket lines. Total bullshit, of course.)
What we don't pretend is that workers organised in unions, and if or when they go on strike automatically translates into socialist consciousness or will by default transform itself into a revolutionary situation*. (Usually, according to the left, all that is lacking is the right leadership with the correct line.) I think that is a myth that some starry eyed people on the left like to wrap themselves with to protect themselves from the harsh cold of political realities.
* A personal observation is that I personally believe that there have been and will be occasions when workers will be more receptive to revolutionary ideas - SPGB or not - but I know that there are some SPGBers disagree with this viewpoint.
Yip - I probably am confused about the SPGB. When you first commented on my blog and I had a quick look at yours, I thought "CWI?" But further reading told me otherwise. I admit to knowing little about the SPGB. And yes, one of the things I had heard was that they did not support strike as the worker had to be truly uncomfortable to ensure revolution. I oppologise for my ignorance!
Anyway - some questions - what is the consensus in the SPGB on the SSP? Does the SPGB have a central "committee" or leadership? Does it devolve power/ decision making to it's branches? What was the SPGB line on the G8 - ie. did it want to shout at them or shut them down? Is it part of the FI?
"Anyway - some questions - what is the consensus in the SPGB on the SSP? Does the SPGB have a central "committee" or leadership? Does it devolve power/ decision making to it's branches? What was the SPGB line on the G8 - ie. did it want to shout at them or shut them down? Is it part of the FI?"
Hello Neil,
To answer the points you raised in your final paragraph reproduced above:
1) The SPGB considers the SSP a reformist organisation,seeking to reform capitalism out of existence. As a recent article in the Socialist Standard put it: "The SSP, for instance, advocates ‘the break-up of the British state and the creation of a free Scottish socialist republic.’ But a single Socialist country in a hostile capitalist world is just impossible, and this quote just reveals that the SSP aim is state capitalism — Scottish state capitalism. Many of the left are in fact nationalistic in one way or another." Quoted from Why Socialists aren't part of the Left. 2) The SPGB doesn't have a central committee or leadership. It has an Executive Committee which administers the day to day work of the Party as set out by Branches and individual Party members at our Annual Conference and Autumn Delegate Meeting. The EC cannot make policy, and has no authority to do so even if it wanted to. Policy has been set down by our Party principles, our rule book, and by policy resolutions that have been passed by Party members at Conferences and in Party Polls down the years. You can view the Party rule book here. 3) With regards to the matter of whether or not the SPGB devolves power to the Branches, etc, as the rule book states: "7. The Branch shall be the unit of organisation. A Branch may be formed by not less than six members making written application on the prescribed form to the Executive Committee and receiving their sanction. Where two or more Branches exist in any single Parliamentary or Local Government area, the Branches shall federate for the purposes jointly concerning them."
The Branch is the basic unit of organisation in the SPGB, and it is not the case that there is a top down leadership in place that imposes policy on the membership. As mentioned before, it is the membership in branches who decide policy democratically, one member one vote.
4) Some SPGB members were at the G8 linked events in Edinburgh and Gleneagles last year. We even devoted an issue of the Socialist Standard to the event that can be read here. It wasn't a matter of wanting to either shout them down or shut them down (I take it by that you mean the idea of protestors storming the event?) As the editorial of the special issue of the Socialist Standard stated at the time: " . . .International diplomacy is clandestine, furtive, removed as far as possible from the democratic gaze. The meetings at Gleneagles will be held behind locked doors, far away from the eyes of anyone interested in proceedings, as the eight colossi dicker and bargain the loot of the whole world. In the ancient world, the definition of a tyrant was a ruler who couldn’t walk around without bodyguards: the meetings at Gleneagles will be conducted behind an awesome ring of steel and firepower.
If the G8 were smashed, if its meetings did not happen, the mere practicalities of the existence of these hyper-rich states would mean that they would still have to collaborate and co-ordinate their interests. Simply by being in existence, they have an effect on the politics of the world as irresistible as gravity.
Clearly then, the only way to make progress is to remove the obstacle of these powerful camps and end the interests and powerbases they represent. This can only be done by raising a force adequate to resist them – a movement on a global scale, coherent and co-ordinated, so that one day the rulers of the Earth will wake to find our meeting of the workers, a clique 6 billion strong has settled on their doorstep. Our strength won’t be military or financial but creative. We have made the world as it is by our labour, and by the light of our industry and reason we will finally dispel the shadow of privilege and power."
It's perhaps not as exhilirating as playing cat and mouse with the police, but I think it clarifies our position on the matter.
5. The SPGB isn't part of the Fourth International - whichever version you might be thinking of. There are a few out there currently in operation. ;-)
A final point is that we don't consider workers organising in trade unions as reformist activity, though there is no denying that trade union leaderships with their use of the political fund etc and affiliation with political parties can be advocates of, and apologists for, reformist activity.
Since Darren is being a little tardy with his reply to you let me try. what is the consensus in the SPGB on the SSP?...Don't think a much of them and from their own current internal troubles , they don't think much of one another , either Does the SPGB have a central "committee" or leadership ? No leaders but we do have an executive committee but that is more a house-keeping administrative committee which has no power to decide policy which is reserved for conference discussion and then onto individual membership referenda for actual decison making . The EC don't even have the authority to submit their own resolutions to conference . There is no resemblance to the Leninist " democratic centralism " All EC minutes are available on the SPGB website . There exists no secrecy
Does it devolve power/ decision making to it's branches? The branches still ramain the mainstay of Party organisation and democracy in that it is the branch that submit resolutions to conference . A brief readable history of the SPGB is available at http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4018139&blogID=120234440&Mytoken=C8F87DBB-8CA4-49D4-9EA850ACF35066A8614082203
13 comments:
It's really crap that when a British person does well at anything the meedja always refer to them as Scottish (if they are Scottish) and British when they are English. I tell you now, it really is disgraceful. Can they not do something about it?
Tennis is so fucking shit it gives shit a bad name.
Not true. When anyone does well from the colonies - he/she is referred to as British. If anyone from England does well he/she is referred to as English. I hope Andy Murray scores the winning goal for Italy.
Glad to see 55 million people shift their hopes to the cricket...
Ok _ I'll play along for a bit more then...
From the piece linked to by Darren
"To get into the second week of a Grand Slam for the first time is great," said the 19-year-old Scot."
You know what I was getting at, Will. Please don't take my blog entries seriously. ;-)
And anyway with his arse getting kicked, he's back to being a full time sweaty.
And don't you take my commts entirely seriuosly (as if you would).
Not sure about the numpty up there tho' but and that.
Republican socialist? Bunch of arse.
If you're a socialist ... (fill in the blanks)
Give me a political analysis of "numpty"...?
"Socialist" is subjective - ask Toeknee Bliar. And Darren (whose socialist grouping dinnae think workers battles with bosses are at all valuable)
Take my witicisms extremely seriously because I'm right.
Neil wrote:
"And Darren (whose socialist grouping dinnae think workers battles with bosses are at all valuable)"
Hello Neil,
Just a clarification 'cos your quoted comment indicates that you might be labouring under a misapprehension.
The SPGB's politics are rooted in a Marxian Socialist analysis of class society, and part of that package is the recognition that there is this wee thing called the 'class struggle', which is taking place even as I write these words.
It is not even about whether or not "workers battles with bosses are at all valuable" or not; they are a fact of life and workers have to be organised democratically to fight and resist the encroachments of capital.
The SPGB have always argued this, and the idea that we might be opposed to workers organising, or going on strike etc etc 'cos it is not about the abolition of the wages system is a myth. (Sometimes that myth has taken a more sinister turn with some our political opponents alleging that SPGBers have advocated walking through picket lines. Total bullshit, of course.)
What we don't pretend is that workers organised in unions, and if or when they go on strike automatically translates into socialist consciousness or will by default transform itself into a revolutionary situation*. (Usually, according to the left, all that is lacking is the right leadership with the correct line.) I think that is a myth that some starry eyed people on the left like to wrap themselves with to protect themselves from the harsh cold of political realities.
* A personal observation is that I personally believe that there have been and will be occasions when workers will be more receptive to revolutionary ideas - SPGB or not - but I know that there are some SPGBers disagree with this viewpoint.
So you believe that reform is valuable?
Yip - I probably am confused about the SPGB. When you first commented on my blog and I had a quick look at yours, I thought "CWI?" But further reading told me otherwise. I admit to knowing little about the SPGB. And yes, one of the things I had heard was that they did not support strike as the worker had to be truly uncomfortable to ensure revolution. I oppologise for my ignorance!
Anyway - some questions - what is the consensus in the SPGB on the SSP? Does the SPGB have a central "committee" or leadership? Does it devolve power/ decision making to it's branches? What was the SPGB line on the G8 - ie. did it want to shout at them or shut them down? Is it part of the FI?
"Anyway - some questions - what is the consensus in the SPGB on the SSP? Does the SPGB have a central "committee" or leadership? Does it devolve power/ decision making to it's branches? What was the SPGB line on the G8 - ie. did it want to shout at them or shut them down? Is it part of the FI?"
Hello Neil,
To answer the points you raised in your final paragraph reproduced above:
1) The SPGB considers the SSP a reformist organisation,seeking to reform capitalism out of existence. As a recent article in the Socialist Standard put it:
"The SSP, for instance, advocates ‘the break-up of the British state and the creation of a free Scottish socialist republic.’ But a single Socialist country in a hostile capitalist world is just impossible, and this quote just reveals that the SSP aim is state capitalism — Scottish state capitalism. Many of the left are in fact nationalistic in one way or another."
Quoted from Why Socialists aren't part of the Left.
2) The SPGB doesn't have a central committee or leadership. It has an Executive Committee which administers the day to day work of the Party as set out by Branches and individual Party members at our Annual Conference and Autumn Delegate Meeting.
The EC cannot make policy, and has no authority to do so even if it wanted to. Policy has been set down by our Party principles, our rule book, and by policy resolutions that have been passed by Party members at Conferences and in Party Polls down the years.
You can view the Party rule book here.
3) With regards to the matter of whether or not the SPGB devolves power to the Branches, etc, as the rule book states:
"7. The Branch shall be the unit of organisation. A Branch may be formed by not less than six members making written application on the prescribed form to the Executive Committee and receiving their sanction. Where two or more Branches exist in any single Parliamentary or Local Government area, the Branches shall federate for the purposes jointly concerning them."
The Branch is the basic unit of organisation in the SPGB, and it is not the case that there is a top down leadership in place that imposes policy on the membership. As mentioned before, it is the membership in branches who decide policy democratically, one member one vote.
4) Some SPGB members were at the G8 linked events in Edinburgh and Gleneagles last year. We even devoted an issue of the Socialist Standard to the event that can be read here. It wasn't a matter of wanting to either shout them down or shut them down (I take it by that you mean the idea of protestors storming the event?) As the editorial of the special issue of the Socialist Standard stated at the time:
" . . .International diplomacy is clandestine, furtive, removed as far as possible from the democratic gaze. The meetings at Gleneagles will be held behind locked doors, far away from the eyes of anyone interested in proceedings, as the eight colossi dicker and bargain the loot of the whole world. In the ancient world, the definition of a tyrant was a ruler who couldn’t walk around without bodyguards: the meetings at Gleneagles will be conducted behind an awesome ring of steel and firepower.
If the G8 were smashed, if its meetings did not happen, the mere practicalities of the existence of these hyper-rich states would mean that they would still have to collaborate and co-ordinate their interests. Simply by being in existence, they have an effect on the politics of the world as irresistible as gravity.
Clearly then, the only way to make progress is to remove the obstacle of these powerful camps and end the interests and powerbases they represent. This can only be done by raising a force adequate to resist them – a movement on a global scale, coherent and co-ordinated, so that one day the rulers of the Earth will wake to find our meeting of the workers, a clique 6 billion strong has settled on their doorstep. Our strength won’t be military or financial but creative. We have made the world as it is by our labour, and by the light of our industry and reason we will finally dispel the shadow of privilege and power."
It's perhaps not as exhilirating as playing cat and mouse with the police, but I think it clarifies our position on the matter.
5. The SPGB isn't part of the Fourth International - whichever version you might be thinking of. There are a few out there currently in operation. ;-)
A final point is that we don't consider workers organising in trade unions as reformist activity, though there is no denying that trade union leaderships with their use of the political fund etc and affiliation with political parties can be advocates of, and apologists for, reformist activity.
all the best,
Darren
Since Darren is being a little tardy with his reply to you let me try.
what is the consensus in the SPGB on the SSP?...Don't think a much of them and from their own current internal troubles , they don't think much of one another , either
Does the SPGB have a central "committee" or leadership ? No leaders but we do have an executive committee but that is more a house-keeping administrative committee which has no power to decide policy which is reserved for conference discussion and then onto individual membership referenda for actual decison making . The EC don't even have the authority to submit their own resolutions to conference . There is no resemblance to the Leninist " democratic centralism "
All EC minutes are available on the SPGB website . There exists no secrecy
Does it devolve power/ decision making to it's branches? The branches still ramain the mainstay of Party organisation and democracy in that it is the branch that submit resolutions to conference .
A brief readable history of the SPGB is available at
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4018139&blogID=120234440&Mytoken=C8F87DBB-8CA4-49D4-9EA850ACF35066A8614082203
apologies darren , you were probably posting as i was typing . You weren't being tardy , at all
I forgive you, Alan if you can find it in your heart to forgive me for not replying to your most recent email.
Sorry about that, and I hope you got the info you were after.
Hope you're well. ;-)
- Darren
Post a Comment