freetimes3x wrote: One of the
The Occupy movement does come with a load of baggage; the same old baggage of capitalism. Consider just a few of the comments being made by some involved in the U.S. movement; not markedly different I suspect from comments being made by some involved in the movement over here.”The movement should have one simple message — stop using the top-tier banks: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, Citigroup, Wachovia, and US.; move money to credit unions, small banks, and stop purchasing on credit.””I don’t think we need to abolish money or banks though. They simplify the old bartering process. But banks shouldn’t be able to loan out money that they print, that isn’t backed by real assets. That’s how they inflate these credit bubbles that hurt the many and profit the few.””Anti-capitalists are not at all necessarily socialist. I am anti-capitalist and would love to see free markets work, but it’s a theory, and a hegemonic one, at that.”
There’s a very good reason why we “bang on about parliament”.What distinguishes us, amongst those who want a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, is our view that parliament can, and should, be used in the course of establishing such a socialist society. This position is based on our understanding that before socialism can be established there has to be a majority actively in favour of this, and that it is essential for this majority to win control over the machinery of government (political power, the state) before trying to establish socialism. In developed capitalist countries, it is control of the law-making assembly (parliament) that is the way to the control of the machinery of government. Since control of parliament is obtained via elections based on universal suffrage, a socialist majority can win control of the machinery of government through winning a parliamentary majority via the ballot box.[quote-freetimes3x] Perhaps we need to think about what the socialist party would look like and what it would be doing if we were starting it up right now. Brand new. No baggage. What would it be like? Would it better reflect the thoughts and conversations that members have which each other or would it be like it is now with its reputation for hostility? [/quote]Why would or should it be different given a similar set of circumstances? The party has a “reputation for hostility” as you put it for very good reasons. There’s a clue in one of its principles I seem to recall. It is not, however, hostile to individuals as such but to erroneous ideas and the mistaken view that there is some ‘short-cut’ to socialism. A comment made earlier in this thread “that socialist consciousness is……more prevalent outside the party than inside it” is just another bald assertion without, unfortunately, a single shred of evidence advanced to support it.