ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes crackpots who want us to abandon the material basis for socialism that has been built up under capitalism. Anyway it could only happen on the basis of the common ownership of the means of life ( it’ll never happen under capitalism) but I can’t see people in socialist society wanting to go back to using stage coaches and bullock carts.
What did you expect him to say ! Something like?
”I pledge that, if elected as president of the executive committee of the US ruling class, I will at all times pursue their interests at home and abroad, irrespective of what this might involve for workers in America and other countries.”
That’ll be the day.
“From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.” — Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 3, chapter 46.
Not a bad article. It confirms the observation on the thread about the wsws site that from time to time there is some interesting stuff there.
I liked this bit:
“The morning that the event was to take place, the AFROSOCialist Caucus demanded that Reed’s talk be cancelled and instead that there be a debate of his “class reductionist analysis versus our intersectional socialist analysis.”
Yes let’s debate it but with a slight change of title; class reductionist analysis versus anti-socialist intersectional analysis.
That’s the second of Craig Murray’s blogs I’ve read. This one is good. He obviously knows what he’s talking about. I might start to read his blog.
Yes that site is run by members of one of the many Trotskyist groups. This one which calls itself the “Socialist Equality Party” and originated from one of the factions within the WRP and its US section. They are orthodox Trotskyists whose only difference with other such groups is that they have a different leader. Otherwise it’s the same (the Bolshevik coup was a workers revolution, the USSR was some sort of workers state, workers need to be led by a vanguard party dangling impossible returns in front of them, etc).
Here are a couple of articles on Trotsky and Trotskyism in general:
Belorussia seems to be a pretty artificial and pointless country (as capitalist states go). Landlocked with a population of less than 10 million most of whom speak Russian. But you are right the Russian ruling class is not going to allow it to move into the NATO sphere of influence.
Incidentally, on looking at it again, that video of policemen throwing away their uniforms seems too good to be true and may have been done by actors. Still, it was a nice thought.
“there is a tendency for males to “dominate” females such as expressed in such forms as income distribution etc”
I think you are struggling there a bit, Robbo, to try to defend a proposition that has been decisively rejected by the Party.
Of course there is discrimination against various groups under capitalism (for various, contingent historical reasons) and we are against it, denounce it and say that the emancipation of the working class through socialism will mean the emancipation of all humans.
Maybe this is just a question of language again, but to talk of “domination” raises the question of who is doing the dominating. The working class, men and women, are definitely dominated by the capitalist class including female capitalists but do males dominate women in the same sort of way?
The term is best used for actions by a state. Otherwise you get into the absurd situation of saying that one section of the working class (men in this case) dominate and oppress another section (women); in which case there is a gender struggle as well as (or, in the case of the narrower kind of feminist, instead of ) the class struggle.
In any case, women struggling for equal pay is not a struggle against “male domination” but an entirely legitimate trade-unionist struggle against employers.
That’s a revealing article which shows where misidentity politics leads and how “race reductionism” it is dangerously divisive. Of course it’s an argument between reformists as to which reforms to demand and how to campaign for them but Reed is making a good point.
For another similar position see this article by someone who knows the Party and agrees that the aim should be the abolition of commodity production and wage labour (but who thinks the movement to bring this about should be one of all humans not just the wage-working class):
” Adam. You are not surely suggesting a sort of entryist strategy is being employed to “attract” feminists, in your narrower sense, into the Party , whether or not these be genuine socialists?”
I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think those behind the motion want to admit non-socialists or reformists but, to be perfectly honest, I do think they want to attract women who think that capitalism should be defined as a “male-dominated class society” and that “capitalism and patriarchy are aspects of the same thing” (the terms in inverted commas are from their own circulars). This is not a Marxist view, but is the view of many feminists in the narrow sense who would no doubt denounce us for rejecting it as “class reductionists”.
If condemning sexism amongst socialists had been the aim of the motion why did it not explicitly say so? If it had, it would have been carried unanimously.
My guess is that the aim of those who proposed it was to try to attract “feminists” in a much narrower sense than your definition (of anyone, man or woman, who stands for equal treatment of men and women).
However, I don’t think that’s why most of those who voted for it did so. They probably shared your definition and/or were concerned about the gender imbalance in the party.
Yes. The more significant motion carried from 2019 Conference (overwhelmingly by 84 to 10) was this one:
This Conference rejects the definition of capitalism as “male-dominated class society” and the view that “capitalism and patriarchy are aspects of the same thing”.
Capitalism is based on the subordination of the working class to the capitalist class,which is not the same thing as the subordination of women to men. Conference further notes that the more advanced capitalism is the less the discrimination against women.The basic problem with that resolution (which is hopefully in the process of being rescinded) is that it does not define “feminism”.
This has allowed both sides of the argument to put their own interpretation on the term — you to mean simply standing for equal treatment of men and women ( which would mean that — a good thing — most people are “feminists” even if they don’t describe themselves as such, which many perhaps most don’t); comrade Marcos and many others in the party to mean anyone who calls themselves a feminist. Clearly not everybody who calls themselves a feminist can be a member of the Party even if they also call themselves “socialists” or “Marxists”.
It is all very well those who support the resolution saying that’s not what they mean but they should have said so explicitly in the motion.
So, if the resolution is not rescinded, another vote will be required to define what the word “feminism” means.
Robbo, you say that “men and women should be be treated equally and that sexism of any kind has absolutely no place in a revolutionary Socialist Party” and that that is the extent of your “feminism”. I could go along with that as long as that was the extent of what is meant by “feminism”. That would mean, as you point out, that a socialist must be be a feminist.
The trouble is that the motion proposed last year was badly drafted (“a person can be a socialist as well as a feminist”). This could mean simply that somebody who believes that men and women should be treated equally can be a socialist. Which is true; in fact if you don’t believe that then you can’t be a socialist. It also implies that someone who believes this doesn’t have to be a socialist. Which is also true; in fact most believe who believe this aren’t socialists but are either open supporters of capitalism or reformists.
But it is so badly drafted that it could seem to mean that a socialist has a choice of whether or not to be a feminist. Which is not true if feminism has the minimalist meaning that you say it has. As you point out, a socialist must be a feminist if feminism means simply standing for equal treatment of men and women. Everybody involved in this debate stands for that.
The motion can also be interpreted as saying that someone who is a feminist in some other sense (for instance someone who analyses society in terms of patriarchy rather than class or who believes that women should organise separately from men or who campaigns for reforms to try to achieve women’s equality within capitalism) can also be a socialist. Which is not true. And which is why it has aroused such strong feelings against it, especially as some in favour of the motion do accept and use the concept of “patriarchy” (which last year’s conference explicitly repudiated).
If the motion had simply said “ a person who stands for equal treatment of men and women can be a socialist” or “a person cannot be a socialist unless they stand for equal treatment of men and women” there’d have been no problem even if it was just stating the obvious.
If, as you say, that is all that it means it doesn’t matter which way the vote goes. If it is rescinded that changes nothing. If it is not rescinded that changes nothing. But if the aim is to avoid ambiguity it would be better that it gets rescinded and we can go back to the drawing board. Which could be in the course of happening as we speak. We will know by the end of the month.
