alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think a distinction should be made between the soviets and factory committees.The 1917 soviets unlike the ones in 1905 were party creations, hence not a single representative from factories were at the inaugral meeting of the St Peterburg soviet. The 1905 soviets were genuine workers' not tools of the political in-fightingThe factory committees seemed to be more representative of actual control over the factories that the bosses deserted and left the work-force to deal with by themselves, and were much more independent of the political parties, hence they were subject to dissolution by the Bolsheviks and the imposition of one-man management.
I don't want to place words into Mcolomes mouth but he is probay referring to the for profit detention centers used to house undocumented migrants. ICE are required to detain 34,000…a captivemarket (pun intended) for the private prison industry whose shares rose because of the election of Trump. There is little need for detention.Nine of the ten largest ICE detention centers are private and stricter the enforcement of immigration law, the better these businesses benefit.Private prisons hold about 8 percent of the country’s inmate population. On the other hand, private prisons and county jails hold 90 percent of immigration detainees. Even in facilities owned by ICE, many of the operations are carried out by personnel contracted from private companies .Carl Takei, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, said while investors stand to profit, they shouldn’t lose sight of what he calls the moral issues wrapped up with the private prison industry. “No matter what they say about being a government services company or providing valuable services to government agencies, this is a business model that doesn’t need to exist,” Takei said. “It represents the outsourcing of an essential government function to for-profit companies that have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, but not to the the public.” “The contracts make it clear that this is about commodifying human beings,” the ACLU’s Takei said. “The government specifies they will deliver a certain number of units to the private prisons. The units in this context are human beings.” You want to define them as felons and criminals but Trump ordered ICE to prioritize deporting not only immigrants who been convicted or charged with crimes, but also those who had "committed acts that constitute a chargeable offense"—a category that could include entering the country illegally and driving without a license.
Quote:I really think these things should be taken into consideration instead of just repeating that a planned economy will be all great and wonderful. There are flaws in this concept but I do believe it is possible if the people are very diligant and want to see it succeed.CP, my reply was just to confirm that indeed we do intend to discuss and debate and decide upon the implementation of a socialist society. That exchange will become wider and more detailed and much more elaborate the closer we get to socialism and the more adherents we gather towards the idea. I'm sure you appreciate that an organisation of just a few hundred members has limits to the degree of knowledge on the practabilities of things, but as my last quote inferred, capitalism itself is doing valuable development work on how the world can cooperate and coordinate which will only require adaptation and shaping. Think of all the medical associations that partake in WHO, when these folk have become convinced socialists, their solutions will be much more clearer in how health policy can be applied. Capitalism is full of scientific, technical, professional, trade associations which do valuable work within capitalism, but inside socialism their worth will be ten-fold.Anyways, as proof that we are still thinking about the issue you brought up, here is an examplehttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/practical-socialism-thought-experiment
“There are those who say, ‘I am very Catholic, I always go to mass, I belong to this and that association’,” the head of the 1.2 billion-member Roman Catholic church said, according to a Vatican Radio transcript. He said some of these people should also say “‘my life is not Christian, I don’t pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, a double life’.”“There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal,” he said. “How many times have we all heard people say ‘if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist’.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/23/pope-francis-better-to-be-atheist-than-hypocritical-catholic
Just today i read that some of "those provincial heretics" , not just those cosmpolitans are crying out for migrant workers since there simply is not enough local unemployed available whether they have bikes or not. https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/02/capitalism-needs-migrants.htmlPoskitt's Carrots is a £35m a year business in the East Riding of Yorkshire. "If we didn't have access to non-UK labour we just could not run this business," says managing director Guy Poskitt. "I wouldn't even attempt to try and run it. Take away 80% of my workforce how can I operate?" Guy Poskitt doesn't want to be reliant on migrant labour, but argues that there just aren't the domestic workers available from the rural communities nearby. Graham Usher, who heads York's Hoteliers' Association, when asked what about using British workers? "There just aren't enough of them around. York only has about 700 unemployed people and that is it."
Quote:Another thing to bring up, what makes you think people would want to be actively involved in the political process? Because it would take a massive amount of work and involvment if the people were to formulate planned economies and its just like do you really think the majority of people would even want to participate?CP, this is actually a very important issue you have brought up and should be commended for it.Many socialists themselves have tried to address this. We are all in favour of participatory democracy but don't wish our lives to revolve constant meetings as you pointed out.In the days of yore, the common response that we elect a system of delegates to take responsibility. Critics have cautioned that perhaps some sort of strata of bureacrats may well arise, expressed often as who police the police. Once solution suggested is a return to a democracy and administrative duties by lot. Demarchyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SortitionAfter all be base our system of justice and courts on a random pick of people from the electoral roll. This idea is an extension of this concept.But we have the power of computer technology these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filteringPeople are involved in what they have shown an interest in and can be contacted by text or email or whatever for opinion and oversight.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1210-june-2005/pathfinders
Quote:capitalism’s drive to make its democratic forms look more participatory may be doing socialism’s work for it, so that in the future the technology to debate, dispute, appeal, complain, conference and vote will all be in place – at the touch of a phone button.We also tried to offer an answer to how goods and services are allocated with the minimum of administrative paper-work and increase the automaticity of the stock and shelf filling process in our anaysis and critique of the Economic Calculation Argument.
Quote:Do you think that the mass immigration that you and your capitalist enemies support might also have "…weakened the workers and their organisations…" and impeded their ability to "…stand together so as to be more effective in the class struggle"? Do tell.Isn't it more telling that i did answer this question very directly and you fail to acknowledge it since the answer was not one you wish to hear, nor advice you seek to heed. You are the one who wishes to disregard the research and the experts on the subject. but i will concede for the sake of 100% accuracy here has been a small effect on some workers by migration but there has always been and in my life-time i have seen women, youths and the irish being being blamed for low pay and lack of jobs.But as Robert Burns said facts are chiels that winnae dingIn September 2016, a group of 13 economists, along with Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and three other chief economists of the World Bank, met in Sweden to deliberate on the main challenges facing the global economy, and drafted a document highlighting some key issues. This consensus document, the Stockholm Statement, explained the real reason for depressed incomes and unemployment of the working classes in developed countries was not that workers from other countries are taking jobs but the two main culprits were the slow rate of creation of new jobs, and the increasing inequality in the share of labour (wages) and capital (profits) within their own countries. A team of researchers led by the University at Buffalo in New York examined census data and crime reports from 200 US cities in the years between 1970 and 2010. They found “strong and stable evidence” that crime rates are not linked to immigration. The study’s lead author Robert Adelman, said, “The results are very clear.” Higher levels of immigration are in fact related to a drop in some types of crime. You mention the shameful assaults in Cologne but overlook the fake claims about Frankfurt, which confirms what i assert….that there are some who do indeed wish to create a false impression to divide. I certainly do not believe that every newcomer to the country is an angel and saint. The number of Poles in UK prison proves that. But let us be clear, German data show despite a 444% increase in migrants, crime among that gropu only went up 79%. The typical German was more likely to break the law than the average migrant(and, a bit of history will reveal similar racism was expressed against the Turkish in Germany). Most of the crimes committed by the refugees are related to theft or trying to ride public transport without a ticket. Less than 1% were sex crimes. As far as many of your other statements such as " we mustn't let normal people take part in debate.", the fact that you are on this forum, engaging in discussion with myself demonstrates clearly that you don't hold too much respect for the truth. We welcome disagreement and contrary opinion which presents us with an opportunity to exlain our case for socialism, but we do prefer them to be supported by reasoned argument and that actual evidence is offered instead of your wild claims.
I have had personal experience of witnessing many foreign migrant workers standing together in support of fellow-workers during an unofficial strike which did not directly affect them and would not directly benefit them and had many of them risking dismissal. But there was no scabbing and the handful of workers that did strike-break proved to be indigenous. It is a shame that some folk seek to divide and accomplish a self-fulfilling prediction by sowing dissent and discord, rather than foster solidarity and unity. I recall one of the most effective ads produced by the independence campaign in the 2014 referendum was one where they presented non-Scottish-born pledging to vote Yes. And by all accounts, a majority did support an independent Scotland, and again it seems Scottish independence (and i think Catalonian too) does not threaten ethnic minorities or newcomers. Unlike the pro-nationalist vote of Brexit.
Congratulations, a sterling effort over the years by yourself.Those now forgotten articles have been a valuable source material for this plagiarising copy and paste blogger. No doubt bits and pieces of the trade union article will end up being re-edited and modernised and presented on one of our other blogs.
Cheers, Darren. Any idea what it was all about?I have a very vague recollection it might have been something about Anderson being a womaniser but i could be making that up.
I think we have to face the problem that belief in a nation has grown stronger and has become more of an obstacle for achieving socialism.People have adopted a belief that nations …even continents in respect to Europea "civilisation"..share common culture if not language and how can we deny that religion has grown in prominence of being a distinguishing feature. I don't think discussing the concept of nations as a neo-medieval idea is too far off the mark.Nations are breaking down and the EU is adopting a policy of being a Union of Regions. Cities have become more like city-states and have often seen as not the same nation as the provinces and rural areas…London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam… In America the Fox narrative is to differentiate the "liberal" east and west sea-boards as not the real America. We have a movement for an independent California, and state-rights rather than federal obligations are in conflict. Scotland seeks to break the union with England to establish a union with Europe. Hong Kong seeks the same status as Singapore. ..Economic Enterprise Zones are getting their own administrative laws. The Gulf States are basically City States..Abu Dhabi, Dubai. Many sovereign powers have been ceded to trans-national authorities..ICC etc and Trump, Le Pen and Brexit has fed on this. But as a world socialist/world citizen, these developments offers some hope, not fear. The environmentalists have challenged borders as much as the refugee crisis has undermined frontiers.It's the insular protectionist xenophobia that worries me. I'm for a pix and mix planet of peoples. Don't know how many times i have come across white rastas and white indians (both the sub-continent ones and the North American native eco-warrior variety). Religion is a market place of theologies, there is a church to suit everyone.People have indeed become polarised on the subject of nations and it is a battle we have to fight.Another timely reason for a change of name for the Party?…If we are considering becoming a national organisation, can we also consider our structure going beyond and becoming a global one …if we are considering placing our journal online, can we also consider placing our decision-making online?
Don't know where i read it, maybe the Monument most likely, but there is a cryptic comment that Anderson left Scotland for London under a shadow of some sort. Perhaps someone can clarify what.
You are right, CP. We should not demonize individual capitalists and we try not to do that too much compared with others. Some business leaders are well-meaning and well-intentioned people.We have repeatedly said that changng the personnel does not change the system and that the capitalist class are as much victims of the system as the workers…they are merely more materially rewarded, but psychologically, i am sure many are as damaged as ordinary folk. However, there are some capitalists who do epitomize the capitalist system in their attitudes and it is difficult not to be personal, at times. I am thinking of Martin Schreli, in particular, who can shameless take advantage of the law to make the vulnerable pay unreasonable prices for medicine. And in the past, the name "Robber Baron" for particular industrialists was not too amiss the target, either. That we think alike should not come as a surprise. After all we are all members of the same organisation and share its analysis and goals although we can disagree most vehemently on some topics which you can see on this forums on other threads.That we support the idea that democracy can be exercised by the election of accountable and recallable delegates i think is the strong point of our case and it is one that many people are now focussing their attention upon. Our caveat is that this can only succeed by a social democracy, as socialism was one described and another name for socialism that has fallen out of usage is industrial democracy. As i mentioned previously, self-management and control of the work-place cannot be neglected when it comes to collective decision-making, not just city and regional councils and assemblies as organs of political power. You appear to take the line that the AGM of investors should ultimately determine the needs of society since you uphold their privileges of ownership and that their proposed business plans and corporate agenda reflect the interests of the community as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth.But when you say there is a need for government, we say what is vital is rational organisation…To-MAH-toes, To-MAY-toes
CP, our messages have crossed but to address this claim…
Quote:businessmen are not out to get you, you know that right?You have read history and you read today's media, haven't you, and so you know that statement is patently false.We have had the industrial barons and corporations persecute those who seek to organise unions to try to equalise the balance of power a bit more, and the repression is frequently with the support of supposed "law and order" and they do so simply because
Quote:they are just looking to invest in a market and make money.We have businessmen who breach health and safety to make a profit…and rarely does the law prosecute. I'm no defender of Hilarity Clinton, but the Saudi cash went to the Clinton Foundation, which you could correctly say was a lobby group, not to her election campaign funds. They have since dried up after she lost, which as they say seems to indicate that they were inducements for influence.Only American citizens (and immigrants with green cards) can contribute to federal politics, but the American divisions of foreign companies can form political action committees (PACs) and collect contributions from their American employees. Some details and figures herehttps://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/foreign.php
CP, again it is a matter of definition.I have offered you options of an alternative administration of society to the capitalist State, which socialists describe as the executive committee of the ruling possessing class and we challenge the idea that is somehow a neutral arbitrator for everyone. We are no defenders of the State, regardless of whatever constitution they frame to justify its existence.We maintain that there exist existing structures that can be adapted and re-shaped into better decision-making bodies. We also say that the arrival of the new technology permits the development of new improved means of applying the principles of democracy. As regards to the abuse of authority, part of our case is that by insisting on the peoples right to the free access to the necessities of life, there can be no usurpation of power, since throughout history it has been the elite's possession of the privilege to dole out what people required to survive that gave them their power. By depriving any bureaucracy of this power of being able to decide who gets what and when, they are denied control over us.
Quote:Anarchism is by definition chaos.Since i have raised the question of definitions, lets be clear – it is anarchy that is a common word for chaos, not anarchism which does not reject organisation and order.
