alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LU have invited people to have their say at the founding conference on the 30th Nov where you require to register and be a founding member of Left Unity. Will the EC if prepared to issue an open letter to LU also be asked to authorise a member or members to attend and make known the party view. I am assuming since the party is not yet a formal political party an SPGB member can join it to make a contribution…then once it is formally declared a political party rather than an exploratory collection of individuals and existing parties at the conference, be the first to resign I would suggest that it is an opportunity to address an audience on our socialist principles and our own democratic structure but hopefully not with a long harangue.
Irish Left Review article on Sperber's book. http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/08/19/marxist/ "Marx was not a prophet but his diagnosis of capitalism is more relevant today that any time since 1945. He belongs, of course, to a past historical epoch and many aspects of nineteenth-century capitalism have changed considerably in the interval but our economic system has not fundamentally shifted its foundations; the same predatory beast inhabits us today, benefiting some people at the cost of impoverishing many others. "
Already lifted and re-edited for our SOYMB blog http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/08/philanthrocapitalism.html
I'm not sure you read the class anaysis right. ".This distinctive elite has not been recently recognised in previous forms of sociological class analysis- THOUGH IT IS CERTAINLY MANIFEST IN THE PUBLIC IMAGINATION" So indeed it is the workers who recognise the class difference , something the academics failed to previously to discover. The population of Great Britain, 44,634,000 in 1930. Union membership in Great Britain was, in 1930, 10.5 per cent of population. Of those actually in work, 1937 may be estimated as slightly more than 25% in Great Britain. 1910 it was 14% 1920 was a high-point , almost 43% but 1930 20% I believe the figure is now 23%. Ups and downs with the changes of types of occupations and, of course, the recessions. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5410.pdf Apart from the peaks such as the General Strike or the Miners Strike, the number of strike days has been fairly consistent since 1900 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/employment/picket-up/ "I save my support for things which I can have an influence over through my own actions. Reforming capitalism is something I can have no influence over." "I am saying that we need a revolution"…and just how much influence do you exercise over supporting revolution!
Ed said “workers decreasingly see themselves as members of any class let alone the working class” see this post http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/open-university-survey-class Or this one http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/comments/now-there-are-seven-%E2%80%93-or-are-there If one has to detect the single most important cleavage in Britain today, it is not between ‘middle’ and ‘working’ class, but between a small corporate elite and everybody else…This distinctive elite has not been recently recognised in previous forms of sociological class analysis – though it is certainly manifest in the public imagination.” my emphasis Ed said “There are no reforms in the interest of the working class.” No health and safety law, no environmental legislation ever protected the well-being of the working class? The vote was not a gain and once given couldn’t be so easily removed but insted extended? The NHS never gave the ordinary worker the expectation that his medical treatment should be free and available ?(despite NICE rationing) Ed said “trade unions have never been as weak since their early days” 2012 increase in union membership of 59,000 was driven by a rise among private sector employees, taking total membership in the UK to 6.5m. However, this is still higher than pre-40s – the peak was 13m in 1979 Support means to me endorsing the actions of others if we view them positive but not necessarily offering any material assistance o intervening as a political party. i support workers on strike but it doesn’t mean i want to lead the strike, stand on the picket line and determine the course of it . If a local community want to take direct action to stop a particular closure i support them but i don’t instruct them to do it. Support for me means agreeing with a certain thing. Old Solidarity always expressed it well, IMHO. “Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.”
Just to elaborate on how to approach the issue of reformism which i think will be a crucial difference in attitudes, i suggest support rather than committing to a party to participation since obviously as been pointed out on other threDS …what does support actually mean in practice? We are not against particular reforms and we permit members to engage in certain reformist activities through their trade unions and resident associations, PTAs or patient groups or whatever. Many of us refuse to put up with what capitalism imposes upon us without a fight. Thus, we may be involved in organisations and campaigns of a predominantly reformist nature, but as socialists our activity is guided by a set of priorities different from that of the majority of our fellow participants. Many on the "Left" promote campaigns even when they know that the aims are unrealistic in present circumstances – for example, while we urge people to resist the present cuts in our living standards and in public services, it would be hopeless in a recession to demand reforms which would involve vast increases in public expenditure. The Left make such demands in order to either recruit, or with the idea that people will somehow acquire a increased consciousness have hitting their heads against brick walls, rather than achieving the very obvious state of unconsciousness. We only get involved if the objectives of a campaign are on the whole worthwhile and realistic and we have a genuine personal interest in them as individuals. Since socialist ideas do not spring up from nowhere, but develop through a complex process of personal and learned experience, advances in the class struggle will inevitably be linked, to a greater or lesser degree, to demands for reforms. There can be no denying that major reforms and material improvements achieved have strengthened workers and widened their vision of what to expect from life. Increasingly, we have witnessed groups of workers acting independently and directly to acquire change. "Demands" are no longer always made on bodies such as Parliament. We also see a break down in the isolation of different struggles as they develop links between them, both theoretically and practically. So long as these struggles remain isolated, their victories will be very short-lived so it is essential that their participants develop an awareness of the need to aim at a simultaneous transformation of the whole of society, and not simply chip away at its parts which is what we as socialists seek to convey. Workers gained major reforms during capitalism's periods of expansion, precisely because these also helped in capitalism's own development and modernisation. Today, with the recession, even these basic reforms come under attack. Reforms to benefit workers are not impossible now, but they are certainly harder to come by. The old merry-go-round offers less and less and therefore revolution becomes more and more obviously the solution.
In regards to the Socialist Platform, to engage first ourselves in debate i suggest the following "improvements" to the Socialist Platform. 1 tick= to our own object2 "Its state and institutions will have to be replaced by ones that act in the interests of the majority."Amendment, “Once captured and under the control of the working class the state will be appropriately modified and transformed for the interests of the majority until this role is redundant and it withers away”= D of P 63 tick= D of P 34 tick'= D of P 45 “The
Party opposes all imperialist wars and military interventions.” Amendment – delete "imperialist" so to read “opposes all wars” "It will work with others across Europe to replace the European Union with a voluntary European federation of socialist societies."Amendment delete "Europe" and insert world and delete " European federation" and substitute "world federation" 6 tick = D of P 5 7 tick = D of P 7 8 “…theParty will participate in working-class campaigns to defend all past gains and to improve living standards and democratic rights.”Amendment delete "participation in" and substitute "support" 9 tick 10 tickWhen i did it the results were 80% agree work still defines your class position in the twenty first century. 48% disagree that the nature of work has changed and the traditional distinctions about ownership of the means of production don’t mean anything any more. 82% agree class is about inequalities and the working class still experiences lack of power and control over their lives.
To guage the content of LU i suggest a visit to their discussion list http://forum.leftunity.org/main/index.php Ex-member SW (i may be mistaken about identity) is arguing for a citizens income to free "everyone from the necessity and compulsion of work" Another poster is involved with Parecon I find that those who are members of the Left are strangely quiet as if deliberately not wishing to enter discussions, leaving dabates to the non-aligned and holding their fire for the battle of the platforms at the November 30 Convention. The Party should have something detailed and comprehensive prepared at least for this …we should go beyond simply a short leaflet and give the participants the respect for being politically nuanced enough to be given an extensive response
I may have misrepresente our position against reformism…its not just a tactical issue but one of principle…we don't want those who desire only reforms to flood our party and water down our determination to place socialism in the forefront of our activities. When workers vot for the party it is a vote for socialism, not for this reform or that one. It is a mandate for revolution.
' I wonder whether we shouldn't call their bluff and invite them to meet to compare their "statement of aims and principles" with our "object and declaration of principles"? ' Do it. Address an open letter to them to discuss unity with ourselves based upon our own Declaration of Principles and an amended version of their own one We can be pedantic in agreeing that the state will exist in a modified form as it withers away completely . In regards to reforms , their statement doesn't say they will advocate or propose reforms but rather participate in campaigns defending past gains and improving living standards …all our disagreement is that we leave much of this up to the trade unions responsibility and for our members as individual in particular campaign organisations …save our school, hospital or fire station, for instance …its a tactically approach …of delegating the task to the appropriate and more qualified sections of our class. I suggest this open letter is agreed at the next EC and submitted to them in the name of the party by email to the Left Unity website and also left on their comments box and placed prominently on our own homepage and blogs. (cc-ed to WW, Workers Power et al)
Edinburgh and Glasgow branches were consulted about standing in Scotland for the Euros but decided they were unable to do so. London branches i believe will be concentrating their resources on the London Assembly elections rather than the Euro-election. A election video will be hopefully made for the Euro.
I’ve been using Marxist archive a lot recently and when it comes to language the early 20th C up to the 20s certainly used a lot of language and phrases that overlap with our own. So much so that with some tinkering i can cut and paste passable SPGB posts for our blogs from various sources. i am also minded of the attitude Maxton of the ILP who was able to present himself as all things to all people with use of terminology – see the debate Hardy held with him. I think it was Marx who once said, you don’t reach a judgement by what they say about themselves (or how they say it) but by what they actually do. The jury isn’t even still out on Left Unity, we still listening to the evidence, and so far we do recognise the names and groups and it is all the usual suspects. i know it i possible and it is something we all hope will happen in the future because it is a necessary part of the revolutionary process, but i just don’t expect Rees, German, and a host of others to change their spots in a road to Damascus epiphamy. They still camoflage their real objective under the cover of unity, alliances with non-socialists and words. Stop the War Campaign is still their template and i very much doubt it can be easily transferable to an actual political party. I hope i am wrong and you are right about an evolution of ideas. I have detected a shift in the Left jettisoning the baggage they used to carry, but still they talk of stepping stones and transition towards socialism which has not become an immediate demand.
And, of course, we still have TUSC, RESPECT and the Green Party. I think you are right with an earlier comment that all those now wishing to form a new party should join an existing one and the Greens would be the obvious choice. I would be interested to know their case against such membership. Galloway's RESPECT and Scargill's SLP have already been tried but the personality cult within those thwarted any differing factions. SPEW in TUSC aren't going to yield their influence to permit any interlopers.
