ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Meanwhile in another part of Brixton ….http://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/the-cult-next-door-bbc2-documentary-tells-story-of-brixtonbased-cult-the-collective-and-leader-a3450966.html
Ah, but what is the "working class"? Not just industrial workers of course, but anyone obliged by economic necessity to go out and try to sell their ability to work on the labour market, i.e , with their dependents, over 90% of the population in this part of the world.
Quote:The alternatives to all that may not be very exciting but they are essential. Those of us who advocate a revolution to establish a society based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need, whether we call ourselves anarchists, communists, socialists or whatever, need to maintain a revolutionary intransigence, serving as a class memory – the “thin red line” so to speak.But also, we need to be practically engaged in struggles as and when they arise – involved, whether active within or supportive externally to those “oases” of class struggle I mentioned earlier. This also means being proactive in things such as residents’ groups, claimants’ organisations, autonomous workplace activity… or by establishing or re-establishing such organisations but without repeating past mistakes.Nothing wrong with workers, including revolutionaries, taking part in these sort of groups, but this is defensive and reactive (like the unions). And there are dangers in an organisation doing this, both for the struggle and the organisation.Best for revolutionaries to concentrate on the "thin red line" part. Anyway, what happened at the meeting?
The total amount of "money" in existence doesn't have to equal the total amount of debts to be settled any more than it has to equal the total amount of prices to be realised — because, of course, money circulates. So this is not necessarily a problem.But there is another aspect: how is "total debt" is calculated? There could be(and probably is) a lot of double and more counting going on, as this commenter has pointed out:
Quote:Are we sure that debt numbers are not double/triple/quadruple counted? It seems that the more intermediaries, the more debt (which can still be a problem) which can create a problem nonetheless but a different sort of problem (counterparty risk). What I mean is that if A lends to B at 3% then B lends to C at 5% then C lends to D at 7% and D lends on to E at 9%, is that counted as 4 units of debt when in actuality only one unit must be serviced?Confirmatio in a piece in today's Times that what appears in Hansard is not necessarily what a MP actually said but rather what they meant to say:
Quote:Hansard reporters, of course, have long "improved" the language of British politicians. One Hansardista recalled a speech by an elderly Tory in which she could make out only two words clearly: "cold war". The rest of his oration was gibberish but she created what she thought was his argument and sent it down for his approval. His only change was to capitalise cold and war.jondwhite wrote:I think it's about being an open and participatory party with the key word in the warning being 'separate'. Incidentally what do the likes of Lars T. Lih say about the way the Mensheviks operated and Iskra etc.Here's what we said about the Mensheviks in the April 1932 Socialist Standard. In short, we didn't think much of them apart from a few individual one:
Quote:THE PROGRAMME OF THE RUSSIAN MENSHEVIKS AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONARIESA reader at St. John, New Brunswick, asks the following questions :—What was the programme, or principles, in brief, of the Mensheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries, now under a ban in Russia? Have these extinct organisations much in common with the S.P.G.B. ?Yours, etc., M. WASSON.Reply.In order to make our comments on these Russian organisations understandable we must first give some facts about them. The "Russian Social Democratic Party," which later split into two separate bodies, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, was formed in 1898. Its aim was declared to be Socialism. Its energies were largely taken up with problems of organisation, with the struggle for immediate demands (such as the right to organise in trade unions, the shorter working day) and with resisting the efforts of the Czarist Government to suppress its propaganda. From the first there were two wings in the Party, and in 1903 at the Party Congress at Geneva a split developed. The following statement concerning the split is taken from "The Labour International Handbook," published in May, 1921, by the Labour Publishing Co., Ltd., London. The Editor, R. Palme Dutt, is a well-known Communist."It is important to note that there was no disagreement on the programme, which was adopted unanimously. The difference was one of tactics, and concerned (1) the importance to be attached to illegal work; and as the difference developed (2) the question of co-operating with bourgeois parties of the left." (P. 286.)A Unity Congress was held in 1906, but the two sections continued to keep their separate organisations and journals. In 1912 they ran candidates against one another in the elections for the Fourth Duma ("Handbook," p. 287).Both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks claim (and still claim) to be Marxists. The "Socialist Revolutionary Party, " formed in 1901 did not claim to accept Marxist principles. They advocated and practised political association, which both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks condemned."In their social theory they looked above all to the peasants and the development of agricultural communes with a large local autonomy" ("Handbook," p. 288.)The "Socialist Revolutionary Party," with a predominantly peasant membership, was much larger than the other parties,whose members were chiefly in the towns. The Mensheviks were less numerous than the Bolsheviks.The "Left Socialist Revolutionaries" were a wing led by Spiridonova and Kamkov, who gave general support to the Bolsheviks in their seizure of power in 1917. They had seven seats on the Council of Commissaries until early in 1918, when they resigned as a protest against the Bolshevik policy of making peace with Germany.The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries still have organisations and journals, with headquarters in Berlin.In 1920 when a British Labour Delegation visited Russia the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries each issued a full statement of their position. These were included in the Report of the Delegation (Published by the Labour Party and Trades Union Congress, London).If the Mensheviks could be judged solely on this declaration of Socialist principles there would be little to find fault with.The S.R. declaration, on the other hand, contains little about principles, and is not in any real sense a Socialist declaration at all. It is merely a propaganda effort to justify the tactics of the S.R. Party and to blacken the Bolsheviks.The important thing is that the Menshevik document referred to above, although issued by the Central Committee of the Party, does not give anything like a full and true picture. Rather it represents the views of certain individuals on Socialist principles, completely divorced from the actions of the Party. This characteristic of the Mensheviks is one often found in the Labour Parties of Western Europe and elsewhere.Let us look at certain of their actions.The Mensheviks permitted their member to support the war—-in flat contradiction of' the Socialist principles they were supposed lo understand and accept.The Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries (and the Bolsheviks) belonged to the Second International before the war. They accepted the absurd claim that that body and its affiliated parties were Socialist.The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries are still affiliated to the "Labour and Socialist International " and still push the reforms which make up the only stock-in-trade of that non-Socialist body.It will be seen, therefore, that the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries have no more in common with the S.P.G.B. than any of the other reformist parties which find it convenient to cover over their reformist programmes with a gloss of Marxian phrases and ideas.ED. COMM.This article from 1921 is relevant:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1921/no-206-october-1921/communist-party-australiaIt even quotes the same passage, against the idea of vanguard party:
Quote:"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole," the answer is : "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."Actually, it's a very good article which shows we were on to the dangers of "Leninism" early.
Article here making the point that truth is the first casualty in war:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n03/patrick-cockburn/who-supplies-the-news
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Unfortunately Yunus, the erstwhile leader of the vanguard of the revolutionary working class got lost and couldn't find the building,Thanks, but it doesn't strike me as being unfortunate that there wasn't an SWPer alongside Clifford. Just the opposite. Good thing he didn't turn up !
Apparently the motion was carried 105-93. No doubt someone who was there will be able to tell us more.
I see that Tory Surrey County Council is going to hold a referendum on this issue of raising council tax to help fund social care:http://news.sky.com/story/surrey-to-hold-referendum-on-15-council-tax-rise-to-fund-social-care-10734359The result will be interesting. I wonder which way individual socialists would/should vote (and we do have some in Surrey)? Another referendum dilermma.
This is not really off topic course ! There's some introductory articles on this site which deal with some of the objections raised against socialism:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/introductory-articles
It's printed A2 size paper, then followed three times making a 16-page uncut and unstapled booklet. To read it you have to open it and then it's a broadsheet.
Dave B wrote:He did write a seminal book on philosophy for dummies.That's Russell of course, not Wittgenstein.
There is also this from India. He has just contacted us and asked what we think of his articles:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.htmlDon't be put off by the Hammer and Sickle — it's a criticism of that as an emblem.
We have always said that in the end all governments have to give to priority to profits and conditions for profit-taking — or risk provoking an economic downturn. Traditionally, we've applied this to Labour governments but it also applies to Tory ones. Normally of course they don't need any prompting to do this, but the present one seems bent on a course which would threaten the profits of the dominant section of the British capitalism. Will they continue or will they back down? We'll see. And if there'll be an economic downturn after 2019. But, as the apartheid regime in South Africa showed, a government can pursue for a long time, before giving in, a policy that is not in the best interest of profit-making and so of capital accumulation.
