ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
It’s a hanging offence in the Labour Party too as the case of Alistair Campbell shows, though it seems he might be reprieved on appeal. But there’s this from Wednesday’s London Evening Standard:
A Labour Party spokesman said: “To be absolutely clear, the way Labour Party members vote is a private matter. But publicly declaring or encouraging support for another candidate or party is against the rules and is incompatible with party membership.”
How could it be otherwise, even in our party, since how could you know how someone voted unless they said how they did?
If anybody wants to go the leaflets can be ordered or collected from Head Office. Not going myself as I don’t fancy being kettled. Both sides will be out for a fight. The police after having to be gentle with the Extinction people and the Black Blob because they are like that.
Robbo, this factsheet from the US National Cancer Institute should allay your residual worries about catching leukemia from living near an electricity pylon or using your mobile or computer or microwave or watching TV:
It also mentions the meta study you are looking for.
What all this means is that we can accept 5G as a technology that can be used in socialism, another technology advance which (like electricity distribution has done), makes a socialist world of abundance even more practicable.
