ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The only one that could bear this interpretation is point 10 of the general reform demands that calls for a reform of the tax system:
Quote:Progressive income and property taxes to meet all public expenditure, so far as these are to be covered by taxation. Duty of making one’s own return of income and property. Succession duty to be graduated according to amount and relationship. Abolition of all indirect taxes, customs, and other financial measures which sacrifice the collective interest to the interests of a privileged minority.In the online version of the Party's pamphlet there is a misprint as in the last part the words "interest to the" after the word "collective" do not appear, rendering the sentence meaningless. No doubt this can be corrected. (Incidentally, the version on the Marxists Internet Archive omits point 3 in ours about universal military training and a people's army to replace a standing army (as in Switzerland). I am not sure why.)Apart from that point, all the other reform demands are either to extend political democracy or intended to protect the industrial working class. The Party's first three pamphlets in fact were Kautsky's first three sections of the theoretical introduction he wrote to the Erfurt Programme (translation with his permission and approval: see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/handicraft-capitalism-karl-kautsky-1906). In 1899 Kautsky wrote a book on The Agrarian Question.In the first decade of the 20th century there was a controversy within the SPD over whether and to what extend to appeal to small peasants with the Revisionists around Bernstein advocating this and the party moving in this direction.
The latest, revised proposals put Head Office on the boundary (literally) of two proposed new constituencies: one called "Brixton & Vauxhall", the other "Battersea & Clapham". Clapham High Street is the border and Head Office will be on the side in Battersea & Clapham:https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6485?postcode=SW47UNAnticipating something like this was why we decided to contest Battersea rather than Vauxhall in the general election.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:French Group (“Civilisation without money”)The Party has been contacted by this group seeking collaboration.Agreed that cde Buick responds inviting further contacts.Is there any further background to this group available?
Here is their website (in French):https://www.civilisation-sans-argent.org/They seem to be an offshoot of the general Zeitgeist/Venus project movement. They stood a candidate in the elections in France in June this year. He got 40 votes:http://www.voter-a-m.fr/2017/
No, that is not my position. Not at all. I am not advocating fracking. My position is that we as Socialists should not be opposed to fracking on principle as, like with other technologies, it could in theory be made safe and, if need be, used in socialism. Trade unions support all sorts of things to maintain jobs, e.g. building submarines to carry nuclear weapons, just as Nimbys oppose all sorts of things.
Quote:We are rejecting their consensus on the safety of GMO, on fracking and nuclear energy through parliamentary legislation.It is not entirely clear. Is this Paul Mason or Alan Johnstone talking, i.e who is the "we"? The Socialist Party has never rejected GMO, fracking or nuclear energy as such. Genetic engineering has huge potential benefits and nuclear energy may have to be retained to combat global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. And who, not even supporters of capitalism, believe that the safety issues involved in these (and other) productive methods can be addressed merely by "parliamentary legislation"? They will be overcome by technology which may indeed not be fully adopted under capitalism because of cost and profits considerations but which could be in socialism.
Apparently the Spanish government relies on the Basque Nationalist Party (among others) to get its legislation through, a bit like the Tories' reliance on the DUP here.
robbo203 wrote:And, of course, as is to be expected there will be those on the Left who will rally to this reactionary cause like flies settling around an open woundToo true, though I'd have said like around a pile of shit. Here's an example from one of the 57 varities of Trotskyism (I'm not sure which):https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/puigdemont-fears-the-consistent-struggle-for-catalonia-s-independence/I see they want the Basque Country, Galicia and Valencia to break away too. Talk about dividing the working class. Misidentity politics gone mad. Whatever happened to "Workers of the World, Unite"?.
Socialist Party Head Office wrote:Matters Arising: The EC notes with concern that Tabrez Julaha Ajlaf is going on campaigning for his reformist parallel organization defying our repeated caution that our members are not allowed to run any parallel political organization “as an infringement of the Principles and Rules or detrimental to the interest of the Party”. MSC: That we once again ask him to dissolve his parallel union “Unemployeds, Youths and Workers Cooperative” immediately. – Agreed.I don't know if other comrades have noticed but every month these Minutes contain a criticism of this comrade. I don't know what his organisation is — it could just be what used to be called a "claimants union" in Britain (in which case it wouldn't be "refirmist") — but his contributions to our facebook page are good.
At least that would be better than UBI, though, as you say, it would have the same downward effect on wage levels. Pity it isn't the response of the capitalist class in an attempt to divert a growing socialist movement !
Young Master Smeet wrote:I slightly fear this might lead to a roata (shudders)Why the shudders, sounds like a good place to end up:https://www.lonelyplanet.com/honduras/bay-islands/roatan
Our review of one of his books here:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Istvan%20MeszarosI think he was better known for his book on Marx's Theory of Alienation.
This pamphlet "Socialism As a Practical Alternative" provides a description of how the prtoduction and distribution of wealth could be organised without money especially chapters 4 and 5:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative
There are two separate issues (1) whether or Catalonia should break away from Spain and become a separate, capitalist state, and (2) whether there should be a referendum on the question. The reaction of the Spanish government has shifted the debate from (1) to (2), which has enabled the Catalan regional government to win sympathy and support on that basis rather than for the less popular breakaway from Spain.While Socialists have no sympathy or support whatsoever for setting up yet another capitalist State and are implacably opposed to Catalan as to all other nationalisms, our position on the referendum can be, as Vin points out, more nuanced — even if the question on the ballot paper was irrelevant the vote should not have been prevented. I imagine that if there was a socialist party in Spain it would have taken the same attitude as we took to the Euroreferendum here — that it was an irrelevant side-show and that those who wanted socialism should write "socialismo mundial" across their ballot papers. Abstention would have been another option, but generally we favour taking part in elections where they are called, even if only to cast a write-in vote, just to show we regard them as a potential weapon a socialist working class can use to win political control and end capitalism.Actually, although it is being denounced for brutality, it was not in a position to employ its full (paper) power. The New York Times reported the Spanish Minister of Justice as saying:
Quote:Most polling stations stayed open on Sunday, he said, “because the security forces decided that it wasn’t worth using force because of the consequences that it could have.”On the other hand, it will have had some support in other parts of Spain from Spanish nationalists.
