alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Sun and Murdoch media empire often gets the credit for fixing the outcomes of elections and the fate of prime minister. Our esteemed BBC is regarded as a paragon of virtue. Not so.
Trouble with long threads, some things said are forgotten or overlooked, Matt and Adam.
From an earlier message, Page 4 Post 192112
Also we must question whether in the end it really matters because we will always be accused of being socialists and communists and Marxists. We would be accused of deceit and subterfuge rather than political honesty
As the Manifesto says – “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.”So as you can see, I fully accept both your points.
If an ordinary American said that, ALB, then it shows that they knew all along what socialism really meant but have now lost that understanding if they mistake Sanders’ policies as being socialism…that makes me feel even more depressed that we’re regressing and not progressing and my fellow workers are all suffering from a collective amnesia when it comes to politics and what socialism actually means.
But we cannot escape the smears and the slurs which will come if we ever grow into a substantial movement. How often online have i had to refute the assertion that Nazism – national socialism is socialism, not as frequently as having to deny Bolshevism is socialism but often enough. As I said before, we are in good company if we seek to avoid the name socialist…Marx and Engels opted for the title Communist Manifesto, not the Socialist Manifesto.
What about the Wage-Slave Abolitionist Party?…Wouldn’t that focus on the essence of the debate?
The British did this a long time ago and also included the Sikh religion so that it those two religions could be included in anti-racism legislation.
“This has implications for how we target our propaganda”
Words are important. Communism even though we insist is the same as socialism is rarely used by the Party due to the common misunderstanding and misinterpretation. In practice we have already opted to employ certain words and not others.
I have mentioned it before.
Our main video does not mention the word “socialism” once.
The World of Free Access dropped the word “socialism”
Zeitgeist chose the expression “resource-based economy.”
Parecon made popular the term “participatory economics” to complement “participatory” democracy.
Many anarcho-ecologists taking a cue from Murray Bookchin talk of a “post-scarcity society” promoting potential abundance as an alternative to current de-growth green narratives.
Then there is “Full Automated Luxury Communism”
In the past the IWW would use the words “industrial democracy” or “economic democracy” as alternative terminology to define the society it aspired towards.
The 19th C and early 20th C socialists sometimes preferred “cooperative commonwealth” as a description of our goal. Not to forget “social democracy”
Marx, himself, used the words “associations of producers”, “associations of free and equal producers”
I suggest that we should tailor or arguments to our audience and update and adapt our language when required. Why reinforce the misconstrued misconceptions, held by many people which is often justified because of the purposeful confusion of what socialism actually means by both the Right and the Left, the media, the education system and by dictionaries.
Are we too fixated upon class struggle when the “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” has now been replaced by the mutually assured destruction of the planet because of the inability of the profit system to cure the climate crisis, not as implied the old fashioned class conflict?
Some eco-socialists such as John Bellamy Foster and Richard Smith may have done more to relate Marx to the environment emergency than we have.
How often do our writers and speakers need to qualify “socialism” by adding real socialism, genuine socialism authentic socialism or traditional socialism. Using alternative language means explaining and elaborating on what it means. Well, that is something we do right now. But rather than being negative…what socialism is NOT and tediously offering obscure dusty history lessons.
Instead, we can present a positive image of the future…our post-capitalist society is THIS and THESE are the reasons it will succeed to bring prosperity and plenty on a planet where the fear of many is shortages and depletions of resources, a dystopia and not a utopia.
All this cannot be accomplished over-night and nor can it be realised without a planned-out strategy. Call it a re-branding, a change of image, but the Party has to better reflect today’s world. I simply don’t think we do despite the great opportunities some of the events going on around the world offer us.
I think we may have been down this road before with Left Unity and to a lesser degree with Occupy St Pauls. Some, but not all, of Labour Transformed will be fixated with their own analyses and unreceptive to those that challenge them. They will be at the proselytising stage of a new organisation, full of optimism and eager enthusiasm to grow in size
Of course, I’m in favour of contact and creating a dialogue if they will offer us a hearing and are willing to listen.
How will it be done?
Another open letter? Naw.
I propose it is we who give them the hearing and that we are the ones who first listen.
Can I suggest the Party officially invite them to send a spokesperson and/or delegation to HO to address us. Not in the style of a formal debate but giving them a platform to convince us of their merits in a Q and A forum.
Labour Transformed, a new Labour Party group, talking the talk…but will they walk the walk
https://labourtransformed.org/
https://www.facebook.com/labourtransformed/
We are anti-capitalists. We share an opposition to capitalism, a system based on exploitation, competitive accumulation, and an absence of real democracy. In order to be meaningful, this opposition must take the form of class struggle, the struggle of the working class, using its own instruments and initiative, against exploitation and its enforcers. In this we recognise the importance of Marxist, feminist and anti-colonial critiques of capitalism that have informed and shaped the history of socialism.
We are socialists. We are committed to systems of collective, democratic ownership and control of the economy, and we recognise the need to move beyond the limitations of social democracy. For us, socialism is the self-management of life and work by and for the working class itself.We are internationalist. The working class is divided by national borders and identities, further fractured by capitalist social relationships which limit its collective capacity to transform the world in line with socialist principles. We stand in solidarity with workers in the global south who are currently at the coal face of capitalist exploitation, and we recognise the importance of building alliances and solidarity across borders.
We support meaningful direct action. By this we mean whatever activity increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the egalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the working class and whatever furthers its political consciousness. Socialism cannot, nor could it ever be delivered by parliamentary means alone. As such we will pay attention to, and engage with, extra-parliamentary campaigns, supporting these struggles without subordinating them to the Labour Party.
I think it indicates that rather than seek out the Socialist Party as some of us are hoping, those who might share some of our ideas will persist within the Labour Party and carry on banging their heads against the brick wall. That last bit, BTW, makes me think someone has been reading old Solidarity stuff
Lord Eric Pickles, Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues and a former Conservative MP:
“BDS is an organisation devoted to boycotting and removing investment from Israel, one of our key allies. We’re going to ensure that public sector, places like councils and health authorities, can’t work against Israel, can’t prejudice Israel. BDS is just a thin disguise for anti-Semitism and we as Conservatives should always tackle racial discrimination. BDS is one of the worst, wink wink, nudge nudge, piece of racialism that we know.”
Hilary Aked, whose PhD thesis investigated opposition to BDS, told Al Jazeera: “Labelling the Palestinian-led BDS movement ‘anti-Semitic’ is deeply damaging to the cause of anti-racism, both in terms of fighting genuine anti-Semitism and opposing the apartheid system Israel imposes on Palestinians.
Countering a threat to the system
1. Call them names
“Uncooperative crusties”, “tree-huggers” or, in Greta’s case, “brat”, name-calling is the first port of call for those wanting to dismiss environmentalists.2. Out their hypocrisy
Greta Thunberg’s yacht crew flew to New York; Prince Harry and Meghan took a private jet. Calling people hypocrites is an excellent tactic used to divert attention away3. Take them to court
No one wants to end up in prison – Peruvian authorities have recently begun to reinterpret laws to punish opponents of mining projects.4. Encourage infighting
Do you support deep green resistance, or do you want to divert Doomsday within our current political system?5. Kill them
Needless to say, the most sinister and increasingly popular technique for ridding your country of climate unrest is to eliminate those creating it. The Philippines currently ranks as the most dangerous country in this regard, with 30 land and environmental defenders killed in 2018,Another example of hypocrisy. Tories appoint Muslim critic and Hindu nationalist who accuses Kashmiri Muslims of ethnic cleansing to chair their Islamophobia investigation
“Since India is supposedly in the grip of Hindu nationalists, any suffering Hindu group can be ignored, akin to the idea that Jews can only be oppressors because of the plight of Palestinians. The victimhood of Palestinians automatically places Jews in the oppressor box.”
Double standards and hypocrisy
Melanie Phillips claims that Islamophobia is a bogus term that provides cover for antisemites. Philips wrote in the newspaper that the entire concept of Islamophobia was “profoundly anti-Jew” and had been invented to mimic antisemitism, adding: “To equate it with the dehumanising, insane and essentially murderous outpourings of Jew-hatred is obscene.”
She said “the taunt of Islamophobia is used to silence any criticism of the Islamic world, including Islamic extremism” and “facilitates” antisemitism.The Jewish Chronicle’s editor, Stephen Pollard, did not express regret for publishing the piece.
He said the article “reflects an argument about the origins and utility of the notion of Islamophobia, as opposed to anti-Muslim bigotry”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the publication of this piece was an error: “Anti-Muslim prejudice is very real and it is on the rise. Our community must stand as allies to all facing racism.”
An “error” is very much an understatement but the sentiment is to be applauded.
I think you will also find it extremely difficult to find coverage of the press regulator insisting that the newspaper issues a correction after it could not substantiate claims made in an article about alleged bullying of Jewish MP Louise Ellman, then with Labour, in Liverpool by a party activist.
As I posted previously, I believe we are being overly optimistic in thinking that disillusioned Labour supporters will be fertile ground for our case for socialism.
I still hold that it is those who are growing increasingly sceptical of the ability of capitalism and governments to fix the climate crisis with each new disappointment with failed international conference. When it comes to real disillusionment with actual capitalist practice, it is more likely be expressed by climate campaigners. They are aspiring to a sustainable cooperative economy that has to include and involve changes in the way we organise our daily lives. That, in my mind, means they are going to be more receptive to the main thrust of our socialist message for a steady-state zero-growth economy.
There is no need to re-fight the old battles
Do ex-Corbynista supporters really go that far in their analysis of what is wrong with the world? We saw how the radical reformers such as Left Unity (that swayed one or two of our own active ex-members) and RESPECT swiftly dissolved and got absorbed into Corbyn Labour Party where they sank into anonymity subordinated into silence by the very aptly named “radical” wing Momentum.
“For the many and not for the few”, I thought was a very good slogan, (one which we can now appropriate), but was it being interpreted simply as an anti-austerity, re-distribution of government spending budgets without any of the revolutionary implications that I feel potentially exists within the ecology movement, where its political “leaders” being 16 yr old school-kids voice their key message as to listen to the science. If only we could translate that into heed scientific socialism. Even Occupy, IMHO, did not offer such a possible receptive audience to our ideas as school strikers.
OK, the downside is I accept the presence and influence of New Age mysticism manifesting in some XR spoke-persons and I am forever online refuting the too many people over-population and carrying capacity arguments advanced by many in the environmental movement.
Some things Chris Hedges says and repeats I find mistaken but he does sometimes express ideas that resonate with me.
ALB is critical of anarchist protests but Chris Hedges article is titled “Hope Lies in the Streets.”
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/12/16/hope-lies-streets
If some here are correct in their educated guesses that we face an unprecedent reign of Parliamentary power from Johnson with his Commons majority, where can the opposition go but on to the streets.
“…what has happened represents a kind of watershed moment, rather different from the ordinary run of the mill elections in my view…”
This is where we disagree. But we shall see. If you are right, then we can expect more of this.
https://freedomnews.org.uk/the-first-post-election-anti-boris-rally-of-many/
This need not be an either/or.
We are able to make approaches to two distinct constituents but it will be a stretch of resources and who knows, they may eventually over-lap.
