alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"asking how working without wages, would work?""Tell them like those in the non- state organisation, the RNLI, voluntarily and without recompense risking their lives in storms at sea for the welfare of others and the common good of society. And there exists a waiting list of suitable applicants to join it, recruitment is not a problem
i have witnessed your exchanges on various forums, Robin, and you have my appreciation for what you do and the flack you receive on those discussion lists defending the SPGB positions. I am sure other members share my sentiments. I have always considered that the SPGB are part of the thin red line as it is sometimes called and our disagreements with the other components of it are comradely disagreements. But those can become heated and occasionally requires to be cooled down and time usually does that. One old member with personal bonds with individuals in the expelled Socialist Studies group i recall could never come to express the same sort of acrimony as some others could. I referred earlier to a position where when the protagonists know one another so well, we tend to over-step the mark in civility whih we are most generous with regards other visitors and guests. As i once said on Libcom, we can all sit and share a pint and discuss where we differ…(okay …i did add i'm not going to be the one buying the round). And on this discussion list on another thread i also said i would probably change pubs !!
Shame that. We coul have simply submitting this Welsh version of the Internationale with a simple statement in Welsh …"For world socialism vote Socialist Party" and contact details. Would have been better than bugger allBut too late is too late…ahhh well…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFNWlL7PsDI Maybe the comrade might use it in their campaigns…play it as warm up to their meetings
jpodcaster wrote:"(a) they are keeping alive the discourse of socialism, whether or not you agree with their definition of it and (b) It does seem to me to have a genuine connection to working-class people and their organisations/communities and seems to be far more representative of working-class interests in the here and now, rather than what we'd like them to be at some point in the future. "These are personal observations and Stuart made earlier anecdotal evidence for it. But actually where is the empirical evidence for (b) Which community/labour orgnisations have thrown in their hat…other than as individuals…vis a vis the criticism that we should go beyond encouraging our individual members to be active in the community and unions and somehow inject ourselves as an orgainisation into reform campaigns. As an organisation we do just as much as others in highlighting the flaws and problems of capitalism for particular sections of it, but we go further than Oxfam for example – we link these to a general critique of capital. As for (a) to take an extreme example national socialism keeps the discourse on socialism alive if we disregard its definition but a more approprite example would be state socialism (state capitalism). The definition of socialism is crucial. It is not incidental. Again back to (b) and LU being more representative of working class interests in the "here and now". As i said …it possesses a wish list of reforms, with no chance of achieving them, no chance of pushing the Labour Party to a more left position to achieve them as a proxy, the reality is that it is the "Right Unity" that is forcing Labour to adopt more right wing policies in regard to immigration. And here in Scotland , the vacant left space you desired by LU was swiftly filled by the SNP, who did possess the practical political power to implement change and that is why electors opted for them. Reformism is supported because it is "realistic in the "here and now"…and that means voting realistically for the body to gain them and forget how watered down they become in the process. So there is no better "here and now" stance for LU, no more than all those people who say…socialism is a great idea and i agree but you'll never get it so i'll stick with the status quo and keep on hoping…and every time i am disappointed , i'll switch to another better, more improved with nicer packaging brand of reform. Once more to break the chained reliance on reformism that the people have in their heads won't be solved by making the reforms more radical, adding a bit more honey to the sweet and sour mix of the daily grind …or acquiescing to their prejudices as the right wing and some other leftists do. I recall you being at Make Poverty History and the G8 in Scotland, you want real example of connection with communities?..then you will recall the number of churches turned into sleeping quarters, the mobilisation of the churches in transport and logistics in getting half a million people to a provincial city. Using your and Stuart arguments, i say go and join your local church. The fight is indeed the discourse of socialism as you say…and the different definitions cannot be swept so easily under the rug. In the 20s and the 30s would keeping the discourse alive mean support for Russia and Stalin and ignoring that the unemployed Minority Movement was CP front, despite its worthy object. Or were we right to take a stand against the CP despite their popularity and public endorsements by cultural icons of their time? Rant over, apologies for picking on you
"Homes For Londoners"…a slogan that i think is unwise, so easily misconstrued in a very parochial nationalist way."Homes for the Poor", would have been slightly better but still not perfect…so what about the "middle income" Londoners, don't they deserve homes!!
Perhaps you are rght …PTA a very poor example, very middle classish !! and showed my age too, Robin…. But the point i was trying to put across was people like John Bisset combined his socialist propaganda and being active in his community on local issues. Brian Johnson too is deeply involved in claimants and welfare issues. I could go on. Neither presents it as an either or question , working for reforms to improve your or another persons life is not an anathema for socialists. In the letter column of the Weekly Worker in the past weeks i have been disputing those who seek their "reforms" (reforms are a double-edged blade) to keep out foreign workers and i have been arguing for open borders for all peoples because immigration controls are not liberatory and only brings grief. I should know, i have been intimately affected by them. You make a point on how we classify reforms. The party had an early debate about unions being reformist but that approach was overwhemingly rejected. So we do support such things as legal right to picket and to take secondary solidarity action. An early Standard issue explains:"Although the bettering of the conditions of existence by way of political reform is impossible, it is not the same as regards the conditions of fighting, and it appears to us to be possible to make easier the struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist middle-class.To distinguish between the conditions of fighting and the conditions of existence is not to split a hair. The difference is real……By the very fact of capitalist production the proletariat is at war with the bourgeoisie. This struggle is sometimes hidden, at other times visible to the eyes of all, but it is without truce. Far from becoming less evident, conflicts increase daily. Some reforms would render the attacks of the proletariat more powerful, those of its adversary weaker, and would make the effort easier and more efficient…"Another article quotes approvingly Bebel: "we avail ourselves of all means for bettering the condition of our comrades the workers. We do not spurn reforms; but what we do refuse, and that in the most explicit manner, is the coming to an agreement with any faction whatsoever of the middle-class [read capitalist class], no matter by what name it may go. An agreement of this kind cannot be of any other consequence than to make Socialism responsible for the oppression which the capitalists exercise over the masses of the working-class…"
Stuart, who am i to defend Caroline Lucas but the link you gave doesn't really say too much. Here is Lucas at Occupy defending her reformism and promoting her choice of reforms. http://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2011/11/caroline-lucas-speaks-at-st-pauls-anti.html As a person who just earlier confessed to have been giving consideration to joining the Labour Party to dismiss the Green Party as an option ….well what is there to say…not much at all.
I'll leave it to the Manifesto stuudy group to nit-pick chapter and verse of it but i always assumed , ""first of all settle matters with its own national bourgeoisie…" simply means that the British workers, for instance, cannot wage the class struggle against the French capitalists, nor can the French workers wage the class struggle against the British employers, but that the British bourgeoisie and the power of the UK State can be attacked and defeated only by the British working class. Nothing partiularly profound , just common sense, and in these days like the immediate demands, probably not 100% relevant since we now have more transnational companies, more international regulatory bodies like the IMF and of course the EU Parliament. Jools, one thing that can always be said about the SPGB members, despite the allegations, and that is we are not clones of one another and do disagree. But am i right that Glasgow branch comrade Gardner was involved as a moderator for a time in WIC and was it not that many members argued that WIC was not a political party and co-operation and collaboration was permissible. Whether they did or not is a completely different issue, and a question not just for the SPGB to answer.For sure, there were comradely disagreements between the SPGB and WIC just as they are within the SPGB and since we all pretty well known to one another as the saying going "familiarity breeds contempt", things are posted but frequently in language that is regretted. This forum itself has had its own history of such conflicts in communication but was eventually resolved because our object and reason for being were shared. As i have suggested, and time will tell who is right and who is wrong, LU may not share same aims and agree on same priorities of action and activities. Even reformists it seems fall out over what reforms to advocate. We shall wait and see how they are resolved when they become exacerbated by various possible scenarios.
I forgot to add, Stuart, regards LU reformism and offering a platform of the reforms, and our case to break free from conventional political partyism and parliamentarianism , you'll find we were all in agreement with Occupy's reluctance to provide one and critical of those who later came along to impose their pet programme upon it. Along with its no leaders principle, this absence of a call for reforms and the drawing in of all the single issue groups under one banner , was one of the aspects that we all admired and saw as a step forward. These foundations were something we could have (and should have) built upon. I sadly see no grounds to support any collaboration or cooperation with LU.
Stuart, i did not read that Gnome disavowed union action to protect and improve wages and just as important working conditions. Or that the disabled or homeless or any other particular section of the working class should not organise to improve their situation. Nor did i read into his comment that people in communities should not get together and do something now for ameliorating particular problems with their environment. He as you know full well was critical of reformISM as a political solution, not to reforms to protect living standards and perhaps improve the quality of life for the disadvantagd in the world. Many individuals within the SPGB participate in such groups as tenant associations and PTAs. My earlier point was that at this moment in time the SPGB is not a mass socialist party and that we realistically and honestly know and accept our limitations. I often refer to a different situation such as the Socialist Party of Canada and their relationship with the One Big Union as something that may well be part of our own future strategy but i am fully aware that it may well not be because UK these days is not Canada in the early 20th C and the unions are not the same. My point is simply our connection and our interaction with the broader working class movement changes and adapts when we ourselve grow into a bigger organisation and our influence spreads and socialist aspirations go beyond "something nice to think about " to "something we can get now".Despite your belief that the LU is doing something now, which all evidence says manifestly it isn't , they join the ranks such as ourselves who will find frustration at our lack of progress in persuading workers to even vote for us much less join and take part in activities. There may be some truth in what you say about LU bringing a bit more public awareness of the possibility revolutionary change (and Adam keeps reminding us of this in regards to Occupy and Brand) but i have seen much more media coverage concentrating on the SSP and the much bigger fears of local Labour Party mandarins of its possible effect on their vote. But these are simply not enough. The SSP probably had a more "radical" and appealing agenda than the LU but their vote was just a percentage or few above our own miserable showing. As i said, the problem is within the consciousness – or more accurately the absence of such – of the working class. They remain chained to the idea of beneficial reforms and support the party which can realistically deliver them. By supporting a plethora of reforms , you simply reinforce the working class shackles. LU simply offers a different menu that they believe will be more appetising to the taste of the working class but the workers look at the Dish of the Day and the price it has to pay.You have added just one more extra task to your efforts as a socialist…to convince your co-members in LU of actually what it is and forget that the focus of the debate should be on how to achieve it – (such are the differences of myself and Gnome in arguing against eachother on approach, perhaps ) But more happily, i don't require to propagandise for socialsm inside the SPGB and can devote my energies to concentrate on using what knowledge and experience i may possess to try and persuade workers outside of the SPGB of the necessity of dumping the whole edifice of capitalism, and not just bits of it. As you now know, instead you are side-tracked into justifying just one aspect of a reform programme within your own group. And if you publically promote it contrary to its now official policy, you expose the much proclaimed Unity as a mere chimera. The more such disputes arise, the more disunity and eventually disintegration. Come home, Stuart….struggle for socialism not half-measures of snake-oil medicines
I’ll even add, engage with the voluntary sector such as Oxfam if you really want to do something now.
stuartw2112 wrote:I think LU's work is less harmful than the SPGB's since it doesn't propagate the idea that doing something now is somehow not worth the hassle.Where has the SPGB ever said that class struggle was not worth the hassle? On the contrary, we invariably urge resistance to the government and employers. Stop the caricatures, its not worthy. What we have done (candidly admitting our own present weakness) has been to leave it up to those who can actually do something such as trade unions and offer them our support, (granted, for all that is worth) and with all honesty, adding that it will not be suffice to solve workers problems so don't get too carried away and never stop doing something. LU on the other hand simply post what adds up to a tokenistic wish list of demands, some shared, some not shared by others, on a website that has not got the remotest chance of being implemented through any political efforts of LU since they like ourselves are very unlikely to be elected when they eventually decide they will put up a candidate and like us have no deep connection with the labour movement and can only offer similar moral support as ourselves. We share the same impotence. Stuart, if you really want to do something now, either work though existing organisations such as the unions or the Green Party, both in better position to more effectively campaign and lobby for those demands you think necessary on the short term to defend or advance workers' interests.
A more common sense down-to-earth explanation on how banking works and money "created".Quote:"Investment banks make enormous profits by skimming pennies off the top every time financial instruments are issued, traded, or retired. They may make mere fractions of a penny. But all those fractions add up.The big banks can double or triple these gains by working with money that they borrow overnight at very low short-term interest rates. They also lend these funds out to companies for a few days or weeks at a time on a variety of financial markets. Again, the pennies add up.The result is that investment banks are assembly-line money machines. They practically print money. They make profits that are inconceivable in any other line of business. ….. Contrary to popular perception, the bank bailouts didn't just give money to the banks. It lent money to the banks….When a recession hits and tax revenues decline, governments stay in business by borrowing heavily. Investment banks that levy a financial transactions tax must be able to do the same – or collapse into bankruptcy. That is how a recession turns into a financial crisis. Recessions occur in the real economy….The 2008 financial crisis came almost a year after the beginning of the recession in 2007. The financial crisis didn't cause the recession. The recession caused the financial crisis….'http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22882-sixteen-for-16-number-7-make-the-bankers-squealOf course we can question the aurhors solutions..a regulated financial industry, but no need for any credit creation narratives to explain the real world of banking…its all about borrowing and lending.
Citizens income article in the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/08/citizens-income-instead-of-benefits
