ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I went to a meeting last week at which the speaker quoted from a Labour Party document in which the word “socialism” was defined. The document (a discussion not a policy one) entitled Alternative Models of Ownership advocated workers cooperatives and municipal ownership. The passage reads:
“What we have presented, as an alternative, amounts to the first steps in challenging that dominant model of ownership and control. We have shown, in simple, practical terms, how a government committed to addressing those profound, structural problems could implement key policies that would rectify them. Its goal would be nothing other than the creation of an economy which is fairer, more democratic, and more sustainable; that would overturn the hierarchies of power in our economy, placing those who create the real wealth in charge; that would end decades of under-investment and wasted potential by tearing down the vested interests that hold this country back
The historic name for that society is socialism, and this is Labour’s goal.“ (emphasis added).
Actually, state-subsidised producer cooperatives is what Ferdinand Lassalle advocated in Germany in the 19th century and which Marx criticised in part III of his Critique of the Gotha Programme. So the Tories who are denouncing Corbyn and McDonnell as “Marxists” have got it wrong. They should be calling them “Lassalleans”. Not sure, though, that this would have any contemporary resonance.
Some of these greens aren’t half misanthropes. And this one is illogical with it. There is only one species that is biologically capable of managing the biosphere in an ecological way and that’s us, homo sapiens, so there’s no point in running us down. We are the only hope of the planet. And how does she think that humans could practise what the original inhabitants of America used to do if parts of the Earth continue to be owned by private individuals, capitalist corporations, or national governments? The passage she quotes from us doesn’t even use the word “ownership” with its possible connotation that the owner can do what they like with what they own.
She also distorts what our leaflet said by omitting what immediately followed:
“on the basis of ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’. Free of ownership by the few and the rule of ‘no profit, no production’, this is the only framework within which problems such as global warming, growing inequality and wars can be tackled for good.”
Yes, he would have been sent it. In fact, two comrades ensure that anyone mentioned in the Standard gets sent a link to the reference. They get some responses, even if only a thank you.
They would have inherited the same position even if some of them would have been embarrassed by it. At the time this policy was adopted in 1911 it did cause some members opposed to a minority of Socialist MPs voting for reforms to leave. More on this in this from the June 2004 Socialist Standard:
In February 1910 a letter from “W.B. (Upton Park)” was sent to the Socialist Standard asking “What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?” The perspective of this small group of members was that no reform of capitalism could ever be supported by the party claiming to represent working class interests as it was not the job of socialists to take part in the running of capitalism. Any attempt to do so would run counter to the famous ‘hostility clause’ of the Declaration of Principles.
The Standard ’s reply on the matter,backed by the Party’s Executive Committee, stated that each issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democratically. This did not satisfy the members who had raised the question, who formed a ‘Provisional Committee’ aimed at overturning the position espoused in the Standard’s reply and who set their case out in an ‘Open Letter’ to Party members, arguing that socialists were required to oppose measures introduced by capitalist parties on each and every occasion. This was again rebutted firmly by the EC who contended that it would be ridiculous for socialists, by way of example, to oppose a measure designed to stop a war in which the working class was being butchered.
Believing this approach to be a violation of the principle of ‘no compromise’ several members resigned over this issue during 1911, a small number going on to found the Socialist Propaganda League. The SPL’s principal speaker and writer was Harry Martin, Snellgrove having been one of those from the Provisional Committee later to rejoin. Though Martin was sympathetic to the Party in all other respects, he continued to denounce the SPGB’s willingness to engage in ‘political trading’ in pamphlets and on the outdoor platform until his death in 1951. One of the SPL’s pamphlets, From Slavery To Freedom, was critically reviewed in the Socialist Standard in November 1932.
Finkelstein has form on criticising socialism, real socialism that is (let’s give him some credit for that). But also in not responding. Since he didn’t.
Cooking the Books: Answer on a Postcard (to Lord Finkelstein)
The < em>Surrey Advertiser has duly published today that letter of correction under their (good) heading of “Our alternative to leave or remain” and layout;
I am afraid your description of our policy in your piece on the European elections in the Surrey Advertiser on May 17 (pages 12 and 13) was mistaken.
We were not advocating so-called “Lexit” (a leftwing Brexit).
We are not a petty British nationalist party.
We were for neither Leave nor Remain as, in both cases, capitalism and so the problems it causes would continue.
It exists in the EU and would in a Brexit Britain.
What we were proposing as the alternative to both Leave and Remain was replacing the capitalist system of ownership by the few and production for profit by common ownership, democratic control and production directly to meet people’s needs, not just in Europe but throughout the world.
The Surrey Advertiser have replied saying they are going to publish in this week’s edition (out on Friday) the letter correcting their mistake that we stood for Lexit and explaining our real position on Leave or Remain. I am sure they will but I check on Friday.
The result for Milton Keynes is now up on the council website. It’s 104 out of 61,425 (0.17%), compared with 182 out of 65,481 (0.28%) las time. Another indication that our vote dropped less in Leave than in Remain areas (Milton Keynes voted Leave in almost exactly the same proportion as nationally.)
I don’t mind going to this one in a couple of weeks to distribute any leftover leaflets. It’s organised by the Marxist Humanists who have gone completely off the rails over “Trumpism” (including, sadly, Andrew Kliman):
Donald Trump–An Extraordinary Danger to the World. What We Can Do
Birkbeck College, Room B18
Mallet Street, London WC1E 7HX
7:00 pm Tuesday, 18 June, 2019Yes it is odd as the Surrey Advertiser is not the rag that most local papers have become. It is still in broadsheet format and has 3 to 4 pages of letters. In fact I have had a couple published in recent years.
I don’t know why they have ignored my email corrections (sent to the letters page). Maybe they didn’t get through or something. This time I have written so I am sure there’ll be a response, hopefully positive.
Despite a reminder the Surrey Advertiser has refused to publish this correction to their mistake in saying that we stood for “Lexit” as a “pro-worker EU exit”:
“I am afraid your description of our policy in your piece on the European elections last week was mistaken. We were not advocating so-called “Lexit” (a leftwing Brexit). We are not a petty British nationalist party. We were for neither Leave nor Remain as, in both cases, capitalism and so the problems it causes would continue. It exists in the EU and would in a Brexit Britain. What we were proposing as the alternative to both Leave and Remain was replacing the capitalist system of ownership by the few and production for profit by common ownership, democratic control and production directly to meet people’s needs, not just in Europe but throughout the world.”
Their formal complaints procedure is being invoked with a view to obliging them to publish a correction.
This response from Oxford to our leaflet distributed there by Royal Mail is evidence for that interpretation:
Hello, I’m just writing to wish you success in this election, and to admit that sadly, as much as I wanted to vote for you, the voting system forced me to choose a party (Greens) with similarly progressive views, but hopefully a better chance of gaining a seat.
If a sensible and fair system such as STV was in place, you would certainly be my top ranked party, and I imagine many more would choose you as well.I believe the top priority for this country (and indeed the world) is to implement fair voting systems, so that people will be free to vote for parties such as yours without the fear of their vote being ineffective, i.e. not represented in the final outcome.I agree 100% that capitalism has failed, and global socialism is what we need to strive for. Once again I wish you all the best.Here’s a comment from Philip Collins, one of Blair’s speech writers, in today’s Times on how he perceives Corbyn’s position on Europe:
He thinks Europe doesn’t matter much. In fact, it is a token of the new political divide. He thinks he is being vague on a second-order issue; he still thinks class is the primary point.
If Corbyn (or his speech writers) really thinks this, then he’s right. From a class point of view, it doesn’t matter much whether Britain is in the EU or not; it is a second order issue. The only difference between Corbyn and us would be that while he thinks reformism is the way forward we think socialism is.
However, if Collins is right and the perceived divide is now “cultural” between “lifestyle liberals” and those who favour “traditional values” then that would explain not only why Labour did badly in the Euroelections but also why we did worse than last time too.
