|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Mar 11, 2006 0:05:55 GMT
I want to try discuss the topic of "conservative socialism",the notion that by taking part in struggles like gay rights or homeless struggles we are somehow watering down the struggle for a revolutionary change in politics in Ireland.
A revolutionary party might be wary of taking part in something that can be portrayed as reformist,but in doing so i think they should find an alternative way to agitate the people in fear of actually doing nothing.the argument that we should not take part in activities that try and reform the state but rather revolutionise the politics of this country is admirable and the way forward i think,but i think we can stand side by side with the activists of these struggles "gay rights" ETC but still hold on to our revolutionary ideology,we could stand in protest with them,but also expalin our theory that what is needed is a total revamp of our political system in order to achieve what the activists are looking for.I might just be in the dark regarding this matter,but i see hesitation in supporting these activities for the reasons i have suggested,Am i wrong to think that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Mar 11, 2006 10:36:25 GMT
I want to try discuss the topic of "conservative socialism",the notion that by taking part in struggles like gay rights or homeless struggles we are somehow watering down the struggle for a revolutionary change in politics in Ireland. A revolutionary party might be wary of taking part in something that can be portrayed as reformist,but in doing so i think they should find an alternative way to agitate the people in fear of actually doing nothing.the argument that we should not take part in activities that try and reform the state but rather revolutionise the politics of this country is admirable and the way forward i think,but i think we can stand side by side with the activists of these struggles "gay rights" ETC but still hold on to our revolutionary ideology,we could stand in protest with them,but also expalin our theory that what is needed is a total revamp of our political system in order to achieve what the activists are looking for.I might just be in the dark regarding this matter,but i see hesitation in supporting these activities for the reasons i have suggested,Am i wrong to think that? It is in our interests to fight for the rights of everyone on an international scale. To be active is an important part of socialism. You can't pick and choose your fights, either you're a socialist or not. Just like the SWP, they call themselves socialists but don't seem to recognise British Imperialism in Ireland and haven't done much to fight against them (except for Eamonn McCann talking about how the IRA should disarm, well he got his wish. But taking away the threat of armed resistance against British rule does more for 'normalisation' (of Imperialism), a tactic the British have used numerous times through history to make a fool of the Irish revolutionary). This is what's called bourgeois socialism. It is our duty to fight for all. We are not watering down the cause by fighting for Gay rights or Homelessness, in fact that is a big part of the struggle. People have a right to live their lives however they please as long as they're not hurting anyone. It is reactionary not to fight for gay right and homelessness. I'm curious where you got this idea fighting for people's rights is 'somehow watering down the struggle for a revolutionary change in politics in Ireland'? |
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Mar 11, 2006 18:16:52 GMT
I want to try discuss the topic of "conservative socialism",the notion that by taking part in struggles like gay rights or homeless struggles we are somehow watering down the struggle for a revolutionary change in politics in Ireland. A revolutionary party might be wary of taking part in something that can be portrayed as reformist,but in doing so i think they should find an alternative way to agitate the people in fear of actually doing nothing.the argument that we should not take part in activities that try and reform the state but rather revolutionize the politics of this country is admirable and the way forward i think,but i think we can stand side by side with the activists of these struggles "gay rights" ETC but still hold on to our revolutionary ideology,we could stand in protest with them,but also explain our theory that what is needed is a total revamp of our political system in order to achieve what the activists are looking for.I might just be in the dark regarding this matter,but i see hesitation in supporting these activities for the reasons i have suggested,Am i wrong to think that? It is in our interests to fight for the rights of everyone on an international scale. To be active is an important part of socialism. You can't pick and choose your fights, either you're a socialist or not. Just like the SWP, they call themselves socialists but don't seem to recognise British Imperialism in Ireland and haven't done much to fight against them (except for Eamonn McCann talking about how the IRA should disarm, well he got his wish. But taking away the threat of armed resistance against British rule does more for 'normalisation' (of Imperialism), a tactic the British have used numerous times through history to make a fool of the Irish revolutionary). This is what's called bourgeois socialism. It is our duty to fight for all. We are not watering down the cause by fighting for Gay rights or Homelessness, in fact that is a big part of the struggle. People have a right to live their lives however they please as long as they're not hurting anyone. It is reactionary not to fight for gay right and homelessness. I'm curious where you got this idea fighting for people's rights is 'somehow watering down the struggle for a revolutionary change in politics in Ireland'? In the Communist manifesto it talks about "conservative socialism" or "bourgeois socialism".It says " A part of the bourgeoise is desirous of redressing social grievances,in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society".In this section it puts,"economists","philamthropists","humanitarians","improvers of the condition of the working class","organisers of charity" "members of the sociaties of prevention of cruelty to animals". It says they want the the existing society minus its revolutionary elements. I took from this that to take part in these organizations was taking part in "conservative socialism" and in doing so you would 2desire the existing society minus the revolutionary elements",therefore your not a radical socialist anymore. I wanted to try question that theory,weather i had picked it up wrong,or weather it is still the correct way of thinking in modern times! |
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Mar 27, 2006 9:48:54 GMT
Oh right, now I get it. I think the conservative socialism would apply to people who ONLY fight for these things and don't actually fight for revolutionary change. In some cases these people would go so far as to talk down communism even though communism is more a friend to their cause than Capitalism. Put it down to ignorance or outright arrogance I don't know, but I understand what you're talking about.
Bourgeois socialists often fight for the rights of certain things and leave out others. This is the problem I would have with them. I believe Connolly called them Gas and Water socialists and Costello called them 'ring-road' socialists. I’d call them cowards! Trying to appeal to the working class effected by a capitalist system rather than teach them about the revolution. Cowards! They’re worse than the capitalist.
You'd think that people who start a socialist party would read and understand the communist manifesto.
|
|
