Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I lack the excellent training the SWP gives in sucking up to liberals while hiding my own views.
Do Socialists and Greens compete for votes?
- Thread starter red gone green
- Start date
Grego Morales
New Member
Nigel Irritable said:
SECT FIGHT! Clear the way everyone, this might get nasty.
Come on son, he aint worth it
We've all had a few drinks, lets just all go home shall we
*Ducks stray pint glass*
Nigel Irritable said:
Ooh you are such a charmer..
However I thought that the Militant and then the SP used to run special schools in how to be obnoxious.. it's me that lacks the special training..
(Note.. I recommend the appropriate chapter in Mark Steels 'Reasons to be Cheerful' for a good laugh about the distinctive culture of the Militant in the '80s.. and a good many other things too including the SWP)
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
mutley said:
Why thank you. But please don't linger, I wouldn't want to distract you from your pressing duties brownnosing liberals or religious zealots elsewhere.
Nigel Irritable said:
Oh don't worry, they give us five minutes off brown-nosing every second Monday.
By the way, did you ever decide what one of your members would do or argue for if they were a well-rooted union rep in a print firm that was going to print those cartoons?
It's just that I asked you three times and a cynic might think that you either won't or can't answer the question.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I didn't answer your question because I assumed it was rhetorical, the answer being relatively obvious. If the workers in the Danish newspaper, which clearly printed the pictures as a racist provocation, had refused to print them I would have supported them in that act. That doesn't mean that I would support a state ban on the cartoons. I realise that the SWP isn't very clear on the difference.
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
Socialist Greens
Socialist Platform launched in the Green Party - I wonder if our very own Matt S will join it? If he has not already...
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/greenplatform.htm
Socialist Platform launched in the Green Party - I wonder if our very own Matt S will join it? If he has not already...
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/greenplatform.htm
Yes, I have been involved in the construction of this. Although, to be honest, I am irate that it has been announced already, as a bunch of us are still working on it. I haven't yet put my name to it - I think it still needs development.
For a start, the name 'Green Revolution' is shite.
There is also some tension as to whether it should be a 'proper' anti-capitalist grouping, or a sort of 'soft left' grouping instead. If the former it will be smallish, if the latter it could include most of the party!
Matt
For a start, the name 'Green Revolution' is shite.
There is also some tension as to whether it should be a 'proper' anti-capitalist grouping, or a sort of 'soft left' grouping instead. If the former it will be smallish, if the latter it could include most of the party!
Matt
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
Matt S said:
Wasn't Green Revolution the name of a newsletter that Derek Wall and others put out in the 80/90s?
Anyway, whoever wrote that statement that was published on the Socialist Unity Network website don't know their history. The Democratic Federation wasn't formed in 1880, and neither was Morris a founding member.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
Matt S said:
Sorry, not sure what you are saying here.
I understood that Derek Wall has been a member of the Green Party since the late seventies. I understood that 'Green Revolution' mark one was simply a platform in and around the Green Party itself.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Matt S said:
The Socialist League.
The Democratic Federation was mostly a pile of tripe and was the personal fiefdom of H M Hyndman, an unreformable sectarian and a capitalist imperialist who claimed adherence to marxism. Engels saw through his crap.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
OOps. Sorry, I thought you were referring to Derek WallMatt S said:
I think the Democratic Federation was formed in 1881, and it was the renamed Social Democratic Federation that Morris joined a few years later, only to split with people like Eleanor Marx, Edward Aveling and Belfort Bax, to form the Socialist League 'cos of - amongst other things - the undemocratic tendencies of Hyndman.
Some things never change
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
imposs1904 said:OOps. Sorry, I thought you were referring to Derek Wall
I think the Democratic Federation was formed in 1881, and it was the renamed Social Democratic Federation that Morris joined a few years later, only to split with people like Eleanor Marx, Edward Aveling and Belfort Bax, to form the Socialist League 'cos of - amongst other things - the undemocratic tendencies of Hyndman.
Some things never change
Speaking about Morris's joining in 1882, 1 year after its foundation in 1881, and alongside a series of 'public school men' recruits, Pelling says:
"as the working class radicals left the Federation, the middle class socialists came in".
Pelling goes on to say
"Hyndman had capture the Democratic Federation ... and he expected to go on dominating it and leading it along the lines he favoured ... Marx and Engels ... never regarded him as a genuine socialist by their standards"
Morris and nine other members of the Executive split in December 1884 after Morris had met with Engels who had encouraged him to found a new organisation. The Socialist League however did not displace the SDF and only managed 230 members in 8 branches six months after it was founded. Pelling puts this down to Morris' hostility to parliamentary action and his willingness to cohabit with the anarchists.
Henry Pelling, Origins of the Labour Party 1880-1900, Pub 1965, Oxford University Press
Matt S said:
If you do get involved can you do something about this bit:
'While GR is keen to build fraternal links with Muslim activists and other faith communities it will not compromise on of human rights including issues of gay and lesbian rights and women's liberation.'
It just winds me up when people can't even mention Muslims without immediately implying that Muslims are likely to be a problem with respect to human rights. I welcome the intention to get involved with oppressed groups and not get hung up on secularism, and the commitment to human rights is fine. But the way 'Muslims' and 'potential problem' gets linked is just the kind of formulation that will block these links.
For example, has anyone ever seen a formulation like 'while we are keen to build fraternal links with the working class we will not compromise on sexism and homophobia' even tho' these things are of course common in the working class.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
Fisher_Gate said:
Pelling must have got it wrong 'cos Morris didn't join the SDF until 1884, and was an active socialist for the next 12 years until his death in 1896. The rest of what Pelling wrote also seems rather speculative.
mutley,
I agree with you on that one and, again, have already raised it. I have no problem with talking about 'faith communities' in that way, as I think it is important to set out where we stand, but specifically mentioning Muslims is foolish and counterproductive.
This statement still requires a lot of work - however, I'm pleased that progressive Greens are getting together to discuss it.
Matt
I agree with you on that one and, again, have already raised it. I have no problem with talking about 'faith communities' in that way, as I think it is important to set out where we stand, but specifically mentioning Muslims is foolish and counterproductive.
This statement still requires a lot of work - however, I'm pleased that progressive Greens are getting together to discuss it.
Matt
Theres a little bit on the original Green Revolution on this thread also -
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=154428&page=3
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=154428&page=3
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
imposs1904 said:
It's possible. Pelling doesn't say on exactly what date Morris joined. His narrative comes over as chronological though and he describes Morris joining, then he says about some other event "at the end of 1883". Later in the text he says the DF (as it still was) took a delegation to the 1883 TUC to canvass delegates and "about the same time" organised a 'mission' to striking miners in West Bromwich attended by Hyndman and Morris. Morris became treasurer of the SDF in 1884, reported in Justice, paper of the SDF, August 1884. Pelling places the split as 27 December 1884.
In criticising the alleged impotence of Morris and the Socialist League, Pelling is making a political point that I don't necessarily agree with. The early socialists couldn't organise a proverbial in a brewery according to Pelling - what was needed were good trade unionists who wanted parliamentary legislation to protect the workers, rather than intellectual propaganda for socialism. Pelling later sees the Labour Representation Committee formation as the great leap forward.
Similar threads
- Poll
