RevLeft
Go Back   RevLeft > Members List
Register FAQ Members List RevLeft Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

RevLeft Shortage Alert
RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $42.50 below the monthly needed amount of $140. Help Revleft keep running and to be completely free of adverts again - please subscribe for a monthly donation now and get all adverts removed immediately! (no obligation, subscription can be cancelled anytime)


The Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellectThe Idler A fundamentally profound intellect
Committed User

The Idler The Idler is offline

Senior Revolutionary

Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 78
  1. Brad
    20th October 2014 22:24
    Brad
    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.
  2. Brad
    20th October 2014 22:22
    Brad
    "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.
  3. Brad
    18th October 2014 02:42
    Brad
    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.
  4. Brad
    17th October 2014 00:39
    Brad
    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?
  5. Brutus
    31st August 2014 22:05
    Brutus
    Is impossibilism maximalist, with it's rejection of reforms?
  6. Skinz
    29th August 2014 23:26
    Skinz
    Greetings.
  7. Blake's Baby
    18th August 2014 13:53
    Blake's Baby
    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'?
  8. Blake's Baby
    12th August 2014 14:22
    Blake's Baby
    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.
  9. Zoroaster
    23rd July 2014 19:29
    Zoroaster
    Ok, thanks.
  10. Zoroaster
    22nd July 2014 18:33
    Zoroaster
    It looks good. Daniel De Leon is a personal hero of mine.

Statistics

Total Posts
Visitor Messages
Total Thanks
General Information
  • Last Activity: Yesterday 21:49
  • Join Date: 8th August 2008
  • Referrals: 0

Friends

Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 23

All times are GMT. The time now is 16:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.