ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I thought that the SLP of America used to call Russia “industrial feudalism”.
I never understood why they were reluctant to call it a form of capitalism. Maybe because at one time they also thought it might be some sort of “proletarian state”.
A 53 percent turnout with some 40,000 votes cast suggests an electorate of over 80,000. I don’t know the electoral system in Seattle but I would conclude that it was not just the electors who took part in the election she won that were voting in this recall vote but a wider electorate. Which of course would not be democratic or at least not a true recall vote. It would be an attempt by opponents to overturn an election result.
Now a stupid Tory MP has accused the Chief Medical Officer of wanting to impose a “socialist state”.
Where do they drag these people up from?
A comrade who has skimmed through Tyner’s article says that it
“Argues that that use of money was suspended for a while, rather than money being abolished. Supposedly a hybrid of state capitalism and non-market socialism, with emphasis on exporting rice for profit. The author does say that Marx wanted a moneyless classless stateless society.”
Maybe we will mention it in the Socialist Standard.
I think a war is like a strike (or vice versa) — the best war like the best strike is the one that doesn’t need to take place because the threat is enough.
China has threatened Russia with sanctions if it invades Ukraine? That doesn’t sound right. Are you sure?
A comrade has sent in this leaflet with the comment: This is from the Young [Sic]ialists’ programme for the Xmas bazaar. As usual, they con local shops to donate.
That reminds me. Jack Mosse has replied to our invitation to debate saying he would prefer something less confrontational than a set-piece debate between opposing speakers. We should be able to accommodate on this but the new covid restrictions probably rule out any meeting for the time being.
Also the new Irish state used the same currency as the rest of the British Isles and even decimalised in 1971 at the same time as the UK. It was only later in the 1970s that the Irish pound came to differ from the UK one.
Some Irish nationalists and republicans had long recognised that the only way an Irish state could become independent of the England was to be come dependent on some other big state, the only candidate being Germany. Which was finally consolidated when Ireland joined the Euro in 1999 while the UK stayed out.
Actually it is obvious that when the socialist movement gets off the ground a revolutionary trade union will too (whether from scratch or from transforming the existing unions or splitting from them). But today it is far too early to form one or expect one to emerge because they are so few workers who want the classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society that socialism will be. In that interview the person interviewed says that his CNT in Spain has about 5,000 members. I can’t imagine that the IWW in Britain has even half that number.
This motion proposed at a meeting of Party members in 1906 shows a widely held view at the time:
“Urges its members, while not neglecting their ‘first duty,’ to advocate the formation of an industrial organisation based upon the irreconcilable antagonism between the capitalist class and the working class, and having as its object the taking over and adminstering of the means of wealth production ; such industrial organisation to be affiliated to or working in complete unison with The Socialist Party, thus ensuring that the class struggle shall be waged as effectively as possible on both the industrial and political fields.”
It would have been premature then (and was accepted by the Party) as it is today, but the logic can’t be challenged, even if makes the anarcho-syndicalist’s hair stand on end. A revolutionary socialist trade union would have to be linked somehow to the socialist political party for the reason stated.
I read that interview and see that, in the circles involved, “reformism” means becoming more like an ordinary trade Union. The ironic thing is that becoming more like an ordinary trade union makes them of more use to workers and so more acceptable from our point of view. Not that we regard the struggle over wages and working conditions, even through the existing unions, as “reformist” but as the defensive aspect of the class struggle.
I can see why they regard this as “reformist” as they think that unions should be revolutionary in the sense of aiming to overthrow capitalism. But capitalism could never be overthrown by economic action alone. That requires political action but they reject that.
I note also that some of them are also members of the ordinary unions and that some hold elected office in them at local level. I think the IWW do too (not sure though). Nothing wrong with that. Some of our members do too. Even done it myself.
Someone who follows this forum without being signed up has sent this explanation:
“You may be aware that the international that the IWW has now formally joined is something of a breakaway from the formally historical anarcho-syndicalist IWA associated with the Spanish CNT now split. All part of a drift to a wider international network of ‘base unions’.
It exercised numerous discussions on libcom including this:https://libcom.org/forums/thought/iww-or-iwa
The UK Solidarity Federation is still part of the IWA though they are themselves a bit flexible on the political leaning of their target audience.”
I don’t follow developments in the anarchist milieu but what, DJP, is the split in the Spanish CNT? Looks as if the UK IWW will have joined the less dogmatically anarchist faction? But why join either?
The trouble with Freudian-type theories about the working class being psychologically conditioned to want capitalism is that, if valid, they would prove too much. It would mean that socialism would not be possible as these theories don’t suggest a way in which the majority could become unconditioned (how their psychology can be changed) under capitalism. It’s the “who will educate the educators” problem again or, rather, what will uncondition the unconditioners? Marcuse drew a Leninist conclusion from this and argued that a minority (in his case, the marginalised and the declassed) would have to overthrow capitalist rule and after that uncondition the rest of society. However, history shows that a minority revolution leads to minority rule.
I still think that when humans encounter a problem and there is a solution they will find it by using their ability to reason. We always have.
Well, yes, if you put it that way. Most people don’t “get” the socialist case. Otherwise we’d have socialism or be well on our way there. But that doesn’t prevent some of them understanding some of what we are saying, as for example on taxation. No need to beat ourselves up over us supposedly not getting this part of our case across.
