alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"Is this new for Labour?"A new version of old Guild Socialism, perhaps?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_socialism
These are not accidental slips but part of a co-ordinated campaign to demonise immigrants as the cause of UK people's problems.Isn't the weakening of the trade iunions, the expansion of part-time or zero-hour contracts and the spending cuts to public works construction more of an effect on living standards. The fact is if he had the facts and figures to support his allegation he would of provided them but all the evidence from think-tanks from the left, from the right and from the government's own departments say immigration has a limited and localised effect on pay and jobs.And broader, the EU requires population growth because long-term demographic projections is that too many old people will be supported by too few young people. GDP will drop. We require immigrants…young people…The SOYMB blog has been highlighting the realityof immigration for a while (and i personally in the Weekly Worker.) The common Leftist argument is that we should restrict immigration on the grounds that it is what the ruling class seeks…by increasing supply of labour to lower the wages of native workers. British jobs for British Workers etc etc I resort to Eugene Debs as he expresses it wellhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1910/immigration.htmBut Ernest Untermann repliedhttp://www.marxisthistory.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1910/0820-untermann-replytodebs.pdfHere, i think his complaint will resonate with those who were in the Merchant navy and saw the total disappearance of British crews to mostly Filipino seamen. http://www.marxisthistory.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1910/1210-untermann-immigrationques.pdfIt's not a new debate and if i recollect correctly, the SPGB EC long ago had to chastise some in the SPC on their attitude towards Chinese immigration to Canada But as i have stated the SPGB is only a part of the World Socialist Movement…and we don't take sides in nationalistic sectional disputes based on a person's accidental place of birth. Anecdotally, when working in Royal Mail, staffing policy changed to recruit part-timers, mostly foreign students or migrant workers. I heard all the usual jibes…"Its like the United Nations here"…"Glad to hear someone speaking English" …but when it came to an unofficial strike over an issue only very indirectly affecting the part time staff, 100% bar one came out (we had more native-born scabbing.) That surprised many and changed attitudes. The more we worked together, the more we talked together, the more the differences faded. It is no surprise that it is in areas of low immigration with little interaction between peoples that differences are polarised and the media and politicians can be held culpable for the fears they incite.
Lbird while i acknowedge our party has remained an insignificant influence, let's be blunt, your reflect the views of a party of one, as you yourself are fully aware. One of our strengths is that we do not always listen to what the workers say when they express themselves democratically. We have not been a populist party following the ebb and flow of the prejudices prevalent within our class by changing our principles to follow what fellow workers believe. We have submitted our political opinion on the world to a contest of votes and unfortunately that has the result of 0.2% on average at the polls. But we do not accept that those who vote Tory or Labour by strength of numbers have better insight into the world around us. At times we must oppose our fellow homo sapian and declare they are misinformed and mistaken in their ideas and because the majority hold to one view, does not make it right… Nor have we touched the forelock to our "intellectual betters" who frequently advocated and promoted ideas that could not withstand deeper scrutiny. We have not been slaves to the sociologists and economists and historians and philosophers who sought to interpret that world. Changing words does indeed change the conversation …and as a Marxist you know full well the Communist Manifesto devotes several chapters to the meaning of the terms and why socialist was discarded and substituted by communist. If you want to simplify class it is easy …It is "them and us" and us will take power from them so that we can change the economical and social system to one where us and them disappear as separate categories. Words as social constructs do sometimes outlive their purpose and we shouldn't be protecting our language as sacred cows not to be tampered with if we can offer ideas in a diffferent way so to make understanding clearer. This is as far i have ventured to declare. What we can do, we should endeavor to do and not try and accomplish the unachievable.
Sometimes, i think our failure is one of language.
Quote:There are even supporters of the so-called Socialist Party here who won't have workers' democratic control of production. Why any worker should think that some elite form of 'socialism' should be any better than capitalism, these non-democrats never explain.How easy this could be interpreted that society will have no social control over production and that it is a re-iteration of the syndicalist sectional control of production which i think many have now transcended in their vision of a new economic system. As a democratic decision-making structure workers-councils are only part of the production and distribution process of socialism. I think we should identify and emphasise in our language our membership of a common humanity (DannyL does this effectively) and not just the working class. How many of us cringe when we hear that term "proletariat" used…almost as many as when we hear "precariat" or "lumpen-proletariat". No i am not advocating the rejection class politics or class analysis but for us to consider the way we express it. Occupy was successful in avoiding the "working" v "middle" class red-herring…we are the 99%…"Power to the People" as John Lennon sang. Nor am i placing myself or the blog beyond reproach for the alienating use of words and phrases.Isn't the first thing the ruling class do is co-opt the language of revolution (or merely dissent), re-define it, commercialise it, and turn it against us so it no longer has any meaning. Do we engage ina rear-action and doomed to failure fight to keep our terminology or do wewith such a rich vocabulary we possess keep adapting our language to capture the imagination of people and offer alternative descriptions of what we seek to accomplish. I find it strange that many who applauded Russell Brand for bringing the case for revolution into the popular political discourse are not applying the same logic to Sanders or Corbyn re-introducing "socialism" to the electoral campaigns. For sure, they share exactly Brand's faulty understanding of what is meant by socialism. What we have to do is retain the public enthusiasm for the idea of change but to steer it towards what we argue is real socialism and not the reformist version that has prevailed since the 19th C. and now being represented by the likes of Corbyn and Sanders with the support of the left-wing reinforcing their mistaken definition of what socialism is. It is exactly the same battle and perhaps against even much greater odds than we originally faced in 1904. BrianG in his talk said, and i think others share his opinion, that the Scottish referendum made talking politics "respectable". i think the general left-ward drift of mainstream politics not just in the UK but world-wide (albeit, there is also a corresponding equally as striking right-turn taking place in other parts of th globe) is having a similar effect. The Corbyn-effect is to extend the general election campaign in some ways to a fairly important post-election post-mortem that goes beyond simply the leadership of the Labour Party that i don't think has occurred after the last few elections.When politics is being debated and discussed, as it is now, we should be part of it even if it is to pour cold water over some of the delusional thought being promoted. But if common ownership is being talked about, by all means lets join in and push forward the conversation to delve deeper into what common ownership actually entails. Socialism hasn't happened because its time has not yet come to paraphrase that well known saying. Why is not an easy question to answer but if the objective conditions now exist for its establishment then there are subjective reasons why it has not occurred. In defence of the Party, we have always been a negligible influence so how can it be said we are culpable. This can be widened to the Left as a whole. There are greater forces afoot which are persuading people of the futility of attempting radical change and restricting them to cosmetic superficial reformism. Until we develop a strategy that taps into another side of peoples' personas, one that we do know exists because occasionally, even if for short periods, it has come to the surface and expressed itself collectively, all we can do is do what we do now but try to be more efficient at it and in practical terms we have a lot of potential in communicating the ideas and views we hold a lot better than we do now. The way we express our ideas is one of those.I can be corrected on this, but the manner of writing in the Socialist Standard was once debated…some thought it was more akin to university essays and a decision was made to drop abstract Marxist theory and word articles simpler and have more general themes. Has it worked?…i'm not sure but that is not my point. I'm citing this as evidence that we can talk about basics and change our approach in actual practice.
Just to revive interest in last year's flavour of the month I came across this link on Libcom to Piketty, a recently published Left Com analysis.As i have often stated soon as an economic article begins to use algebric formula in explanations i simply go into a coma and disappointingly this article does make extensive use of equations. Others may actually find it of interest.http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2015-08-07/piketty-marx-and-capitalism%E2%80%99s-dynamicsI am sure we will all agree with the article's conclusion
Quote:What is needed is the replacement of the capitalist system of production by a socialist one in which the means of production are made common property and all labour becomes social labour. Until this happens the system will lurch from crisis to crisis and symptoms of its internal contradictions, such as inequality, will continue to grow more extreme.Sanders has this authoritarian streak to protests.In 1999 anti-war activists protesting his approval of the bombing of Serbia were arrested at his meeting. Few years, later people protesting the deployment of F35 aircraft in Vermont were thrown out of his office. And the clip shows a rather uncooperative response to Black Lives Matters, despite the overly emotional demands to speak. He no doubt had a stringent time-table to keep that did not permit a delay in speaking. I have no doubt if he becomes President, he will harden his attitude to the opposition to his policies.
Went to wiki to read what it had to sayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IVQuite illuminating. I had no idea about the 1976 Industrial Common Ownership Acthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/78/contentsAnd it led me to read http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/14/contents
Another left drift taking place?"New Democratic Party has held seats in Canada’s Parliament for decades but never taken power. Now, an election campaign which started a week ago presents supporters with the tantalizing possibility that – finally – the NDP has a legitimate shot at forming a national government, and of turning Canada away from the rightward course set by prime minister Stephen Harper." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/07/tom-mulcair-and-canadas-progressive-democrats-lead-push-for-change
As one of the bloggers i have already expressed my own discomfort with the term neo-liberalism in the previous post.Usually on the blog 'neo-liberalism' is used when we make use of other writers' articles. The frequency of the word's usage does make disclaimers rather cumbersome to always add to a post. But we will endeavour to use apostrophes or some other qualifier in future when we come across it as the Socialist Standard does. We have made clear that the term is an inaccurate description on at least three occasions from a very brief google search of the blog.
Quote:“The supporters of the old form of mixed private/state capitalism were appalled. They denounced the new form taken by capitalism as "neo-liberalism", using the term "liberal" in its 19th century sense when the Manchester cotton lords who wanted free trade were supporters of the old Liberal Party….What also keeps capitalism going is of course, politically, the support or acquiescence of the vast majority of the population who see no alternative to the money-wages-profit system that is capitalism. Livingstone, Galloway, Benn, the SWP and the Greens, in only criticising "neo-liberalism" and advocating instead what might be called a "neo-statism", are not helping to dissipate this acceptance of some form of capitalism as the only possible way of organising the production and distribution of wealth.”“Those arguing for a return to the laissez-faire policies describe it as "neo-liberalism". In the anti-capitalist movement this word “neo-liberalism” occurs again and again. In fact, so often that it gives a very strong hint that this is what the movement is really opposed to, that this is what it means by “anti-capitalism”. Not opposition to capitalism as such but opposition only to certain economic policies. The alternative they offer to neo-liberalism is not anti-capitalism. It is basically a return to state interventionism. The argument is that the state should abandon neo-liberal, laissez-faire policies and again adopt interventionist ones (finance regulations, import and currency controls, the Welfare State, re-nationalisation).”“Neo-liberalism is a term coined by opponents of the policies pursued by many governments since the 80s of privatisation and deregulation, of allowing market forces to operate with less state interference. "Neo" because it was seen as a revival of the anti-state, laissez-faire philosophy of 19th century liberalism. As supporters of these policies often call them simply "capitalism", some opponents also presented themselves as "anti-capitalist". But this is a false distinction. Capitalism is not just private enterprise, free market capitalism. That is just one of the forms it has taken historically.”http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/07/labour-leadership-election-260-former-candidates-and-members-rival-parties-apply-voteAs i have suggested a good excuse for th Media Committee to issue a press release on why we will not be recommending joining the Labour Party so to vote for Corbyn.
Quote:The neoliberal elite is the first in the history of capitalism to believe capitalism cannot survive alongside an organised workforce.I wonder how historically accurate he is here. From the talk By Steve C. at Summer School he mentions the crackdown on unions in 1926 after the Gen Strike and of course the US used Red Scares and criminal syndicalist laws to defang unions during the teens and 20s and they had to recover their strength by re-organising as the CIO.
Quote:This implementation phase is substantially complete by 1992…Because the unions were already smashed, they did not have to focus so relentlessly on destructive tasksI think it can be argued that if this was the intent then neo-liberalism has failed. Unions are still around, still influencial and capitalism has had to go on the run by re-locating the auto industry to the mostly non-unionised southern states. They avoided a full frontal attack on the unions. One thing we learned from Piketty is to look at the long term ebbs and flows of capitalism. Is Mason making the mistake of taking the last few decades and not looking at the entire history?Is the battle over? Mason appears to say it is. We can look around the world and see unions still possess some power and in fact in the developing world are growing more combative in many cases.I've never really been comfortable with the term neo-liberalism to describe features of capitalism that i consider inherent within the system. Toothless unions have always been the objective.
Quote:All versions of capitalist ideology … rely on the deeper assumption that private property, wages, and consumption according to market worth, not need, are “natural”, timeless and unchallengeable features of human life.To touch on another speaker at the Summer School, Brian . Big ideas have disappeared from the agenda. There was a time "abolition of the wages sytsem" appeared on union branch banners, perhaps as only a distant aspiration but the idea still was there. Can we re-capture that vision that once existed? So is Mason opening the door for us to bring the message back? I hope so.
Socialism is not about "setting prices at zero" as singularityists and some like Paul Mason has been inferring.It is about doing away with the whole notion of price and exchange value so that the very concept of "setting prices at zero" is a meaningless one as far as socialism is concerned. To talk of setting prices at any level presupposes still a capitalist framework.If the supermarkets tomorrow said 'All cans of beans are free' the shelves would be cleared in hours. But if they said the same the next day, and the next, it would become pointless to go and fill your arms with cans of beans, and easier to just go and take a reasonable stock to keep close to hand. And, of course, there is not a limitless demand for beans…we will opt for a can of spaghetti (or whatever) some days. When it comes to disagreeing with like-minded folk, i prefer comradely disagreement. But not to defend your point of view with full candour makes debate pointless. Political discussion should inspire us to new insight. There is no need to exaggerate every slight divergence of opinion but we shouldn’t shy away from challenging evidence. Easier said than done. of course.
Al Jazeera on the three vying political leaders. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/07/canada-prime-minister-150727085740365.html
We get Nazi-like statements about "blood and soil" from actual European politicians.The Hungarian Prime Minister, Victor Orban, actively incites peoples fears to compete for popularity with the neo-fascists. “What we have at stake today is Europe, the European way of life, the survival or disappearance of European values and nations, or their transformation beyond recognition … We would like Europe to be preserved for the Europeans. But there is something we would not just like but we want because it only depends on us: we want to preserve a Hungarian Hungary.” While RT feature under the headline "EU ‘wiping out’ original population in favor of migrants"a David Noakes who declares
Quote:The EU believes in ‘divide and conquer’ so it’s deliberately sucking in as much immigration into Europe as it possibly can with the idea of wiping out, cleansing the nations in Europe so that the number of immigrants exceeds the number of the original population. In England, according to the Office for National Statistics, that will now happen in less than 10 years. The English will be a minority in less than 10 years in their own nation. So it’s a huge success for the EU to be moving aside the nations that used to live in Europe…We have problems in England simply because there are probably 40 million immigrants in England and the government won’t admit that, but there are 22 British towns now including London where the English are a minority. London is only 40 percent English, but there are towns like Bradford, that are only 10 percent English…
