ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think they adhere to the social contract theory of government as set out in the US Declaration of Independence. That they see the government as having broken its side of the bargain is their justification for resorting to civil disobedience, ie, of any obligation to obey the government
Hence the over the top language they use about ‘betrayal’ and the government being ‘traitors’. Some of their foot soldiers actually appear to believe this student essay stuff.
I have just worked out why they think that ‘their’ government has ‘betrayed’ them. It will be because they subscribe to the myth that the government exists to serve and protect the people and that, in not doing enough about climate change (more specifically in not spending money on properly insulating all homes in Britain), the government has failed in its ‘duty’ and, worse, has betrayed those they are supposed to protect.
In other words, they subscribe to the conventional view of what governments are there to do, whereas in fact of course government are there to protect the interests of the rich owning class. It is their government not ours.
Their political consciousness has not evolved beyond the view of those who vote for parties to form a government to do something for them. They are naive reformists even if their tactics are to break the law to try to pressurise the government into adopting the particular reform they want.
I can answer some of those questions. At least 5,500 of the 9000 leaflets that we printed were handed out in Glasgow and elsewhere (more elsewhere as it happened). If it hadn’t rained in both Glasgow and Cardiff most of the rest would have been too. Those left over will be handed out later in Liverpool and London. 30 members throughout the country took part in this activity.
The QR experiment turned out to be a success and will no doubt be tried again. A full report will appear in the December Standard but I am sure Paddy will be able to go in more detail on that aspect before then if you want as well as about accommodation etc in Glasgow.
I think it is more a question of them sending themselves to prison, but who cares if that’s what they want. They seem to be consenting adults.
“Betrayed by my government” — what a pathetic slogan. It shows that they are still nationalists and are appealing to people who are still nationalists. Talk about the blind misleading the blind.
A loose grouping of parties with more or less the same object and declaration of principles already exists called “the Companion Parties of Socialism” or the “World Socialist Movement”. All attempts to make this more formal have come to nothing.
I don’t think that a single World Socialist Party would be practicable or even desirable. One reason would be language. Our Indian companion party holds its meetings in Bengali and if we had a party rather than a group in Italy they would hold their meetings and communications in Italian.
Then there are different political and legal conditions in different states. Much of the time of the EC of the SPGB is taken up with matters to do with UK law (the EC is a purely admin body, it doesn’t decide policy). Similarly, why should decisions about whether to contest an election in one country be subject to a decision by a vote of members all over the world (SPGB Conference decisions go to a vote of the whole membership)? We had a vote once on whether smoking should be allowed at our Head Office (the decision was no) but why would members in America or Australia have needed to have a say in that? And why should members in Britain decide the attitude towards trade unions in India where workers’ union are more like political parties (which is why our Indian party is more opposed to them than we are to those here)?
Personally I would be strongly opposed to transforming ourself into an organisation that only existed in cyberspace. The Revolution might not to be televised but it won’t take place on the internet. It will be real people organising on the ground, in the places where they live and where they work.
No. That’s just the personal view of one isolated member not living in this country and who has earned himself the nickname of Private Fraser !
It’s still there Wez. Post #224341 above. Of course if the trots are true to form (and still exist) they will try to infiltrate and take over the mass movement for world socialism too.
Still thinking about Monbiot and his call to “build the greatest mass movement in history” to deal with climate change, it’s going to take as much time and energy to do that as to build up a mass movement to make the Earth’s productive resources common property. So why not concentrate on that?
However, I suspect that he is seeking to provide a justification for climate activists (his audience) to carry on what they doing, only more.
This won’t make any difference as actions for something as vague as “climate justice” or to get “world leaders” to do more than they can are ultimately futile. As long as capitalism lasts there will always be an opportunity for this sort of thing, allowing participants to think they are doing “something now” while in reality wasting time that could be better employed.
Meanwhile the problem continues.
It wasn’t your bad but please start any new thread under the World Socialist Movement section as the appropriate place.
I see that the outcome of COP26 has sent Monbiot completely off the rails. Instead of moving on to becoming a socialist he has regressed to supporting XR tactics.
Here he is in yesterday’s Guardian:
“Our survival depends on raising the scale of civil disobedience until we build the greatest mass movement in history, mobilising the 25% who can flip the system.”
Granted, he doesn’t agree with XR that 3.5% is enough to flip the system but it’s the same idea of a movement to bring pressure on governments to do more to combat global overwarming, especially as he is not saying what he thinks the system should be “flipped” into.
It will of course take the “greatest mass movement in history” to create the framework within which the problem of global warming (and many other problems) can be effectively and lastingly tackled — the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth’s productive resources.
But that needs to be a conscious movement for that, not a movement to bring pressure to bear on “world leaders” to try to get them to do something that the capitalist economic system won’t allow them to do.
Or maybe he is thinking like a Trotskyist — that you mobilise people to demand something that is impossible under capitalism, banking on them turning against capitalism when the demand is not granted?
Anyway, he is all over the place.
In Britain they are called ”Chelsea tractors” after an upmarket area of London where there is no need to have a four wheel drive vehicle costing tens of thousands of £s. In fact there is no need to have them in any part of London.
No capitalist state is going to allow unrestricted immigration. What a world we are living in where the action of some capitalist states effects or tries to effect regime change by direct intervention or sanctions and then has to deal with wave of economic migrants their actions have caused.
Despite the rain (Glasgow is definitely not the place to go for a vacation) they did manage to distribute half of the 3000 leaflets they had.
