ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You are right. It does say that on that Facebook page. It needs to be changed and will be if and when we can track down who manages that page.
It is not our main Faebook page which is here (with many more followrers — 4.6K as opposed to 929)
Good point. I don’t think we have ever claimed to be the second oldest political party in Britain, only to have been formed before the Labour Party.
In other words, this thread seems to have started off on a false assumption. Or, Mullrae, have you evidence that we have made this claim?
This article sounds as if it might be of interest to those still following this thread:
Some Historical Background for an Economic Interpretation of the War in Ukraine
I can get Sputnik on my phone but not my laptop.
Truss, in her speech to the UN yesterday, again openly stated that the the current payment-for-energy crisis for workers is due to the West’s siding with Ukraine in the Ukraino-Russian War:
“It’s a price worth paying because our long-term security is paramount. We cannot jeopardise our security for cheap energy.”
There you have it. It’s Guns before Cheap Energy.
I can get RT on my smartphone but not on my laptop. There are some good leads there, to follow up by checking elsewhere of course Like this one:
https://www.rt.com/business/563189-nouriel-roubini-predicts-recession/
If you can read it.
Not too sure about that. There have notoriously been rival Sikh and Muslim gangs in Slough.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/southall-sikhs-attack-muslims-in-feud-1269779.html?amp
Is it any different in principle from Rangers and Celtic fans in Glasgow?
Obviously playing the British “national” anthem was a provocation to supporters of an Irish Catholic football club (as it would be a crowd of socialists) but the reaction is a reminder that opposition to the British monarchy is not necessarily progressive. In this case it was an expression of support for Irish Republicanism, to which socialists are as opposed to as to British monarchism. Still, I suppose it is encouraging that even after a hundred years the British state hasn’t been able to brainwash all its subjects.
We are not the only people campaigning for socialism (as defined). See next month’s Socialist Standard (out next week but not on our website till 1 October). More people are coming to the conclusion that socialism is the way out.
Fortunately the spread of socialist ideas does not depend on our (or their) meagre efforts. Even if we or they disappeared the idea of socialism would still survive. Capitalism spontaneously generates the idea that socialism is the way out because objectively it is. The task of socialists (as those who have already come to recognise this) is to play their part in helping this understanding spread. It is not to convert people to the idea of some ideal society, but to encourage an objective tendency so that it progresses more quickly.
Reformists just muddy the waters. They might have a bit of a case if they combined reformism with propagating socialism (though this has been shown not to work) but they don’t even do this any more; they just accept — and even argue — that capitalism is the only game in town.
Remember, what we are talking about here is not a refusal to pay an unaffordable price increase but a campaign for a “fair” price for some commodity. The first is understandable, and unavoidable for some. The second is reformist and could only be implemented by a government; it certainly couldn’t be by some “grass roots movement”.
(I am assuming here that the demand and campaign is genuine and that it is not a Trotskyist-like “transitional demand”, ie a demand that those promoting it know can’t be achieved and are aiming that, when those they have got to support to the demand realise this, they will turn to something more radical. I could be wrong but we don’t know who or which group is behind it, so we can’t be certain.)
The other point is, if you are into reformist demands, why campaign just for a “fair” price for energy? Why not also for a “fair” price for bread or shoes or or a “fair” rent or even a “fair” mortgage repayment?
Reformism is just perpetually campaigning to try to get a “fair deal” for workers under capitalism but this is impossible because capitalism is based on the exploitation of wage-labour for surplus value.
Far more useful is to campaign for socialism, as a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of society’s productive resources with production and distribution directly to satisfy people’s needs.
I see that Don’t Pay is now calling itself “a grassroots movement demanding a fair price for energy for everyone”.
So no longer just a protest against the current increase in the price of gas and electricity bills but a fully-fledged reformist movement.
https://dontpay.uk/articles/day-of-action-1-october/
Not paying the increase because you can’t afford to is one thing but campaigning for a “fair price for energy” is another.
I’m not sure whether that’s a red herring or a wild goose chase. Maybe it’s both.
So it’s true. I always assumed that it was something made up by some anti-socialist journalist trying to be witty.
Interesting that Marx should write of his mother calling him “Karell” which is the Dutch equivalent of the German Karl ( and English and French Charles). She did in fact come from Holland. So I suppose Marx might have been eligible for a Dutch passport. One of his sisters went to live in South Africa where I imagine knowing Dutch might have been useful.
