ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
And vice versa. That the critique of religion led to a critique of the social conditions that gave rise to religion and that therefore mere anti-religious argumentation (atheism) would not get rid of it as long as the social conditions that gave rise to it persisted.
The young, pre-socialist Marx was more openly opposed to religion than later. In fact, he came to socialism/communism via atheism.
When asked, as a candidate, about cycles lanes, what I have replied is something like "nothing against it, but only vote Socialist if you want socialism, not merely more cycle lanes (or whatever)" (though, as a car driver, that's not really what I wanted to reply )
From "anarcho-communism in one (or two) cantons" to trade on a wider scale:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-northeast-idUSKBN16A0K2?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29&&rpc=401I think the administration there also imposes conscription, which is not very anarchist. Still, they don't seem to want to impose any particular religious practice on people and to be against discriminating against women.
jondwhite wrote:Following the discussion elsewhere, what is the party distinction between abstentionism, electoralism and the party approachThis is how wikipedia defines "abstentionism":
Quote:Abstentionism is standing for election to a deliberative assembly while refusing to take up any seats won or otherwise participate in the assembly's business. Abstentionism differs from an election boycott in that abstentionists participate in the election itself.I'm not sure this reflects actual current usage as the "election boycott", as practised by "left communists" and anarchists, is also called "abstentionism" even by them. The Conference motion is only advocating abstentionism in the first sense.In laying down that any elected councillor or MP should also not take their salary the motion is going beyond the "Sinn Fein" tactic in that the SF members of the Westminister Parliament do take money for offices, etc there. Which is sensible. As has been pointed out, that's what any elected Socialist should do: take the money and give it to the Party. I would have thought that this was obvious.Although this appears to be a question of abstract political theory speculating about what we should or should not do in the future (which is not up to us anyway) it does have a practical aspect. About how our candidates in elections should answer the "Acacia Avenue Question", e.g. are you in favour of a cycle lane in Acacia Avenue? The motion gets round this by effectively saying "that's not what we're about". But it would also give the impression that we are not concerned about more important questions that affect workers, such as twc's detriments that can be temporarily lessened.
twc wrote:Not permanently obtained “benefits for workers”. At best, temporarily lessened “detriments to workers”.I can go along with that, but not with not voting in favour of some of these temporarily lessened detriments if put before a local council or national parliament. By others of course. Socialist MPs wouldn't propose anything, nor seek election on the basis of obtaining a few temporarily lessened benefits.
Beyond me but what do our Audio Visual with their whiteboards think?Actually, I quite like the idea of "the world turned upside down".
That's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits than can be obtained for workers even under capitalism (not just by trade union action), e.g. health & safety laws. repeal of anti-union laws, less restrictions on meetings and publications, voting against a war. If world socialists elected to office, locally or nationally, are going to abstain on such issues, what's the difference between that and the "Sinn Fein" tactic of not taking their seat?
I know there's another thread that's been started on this, but participating in an election without a candidate doesn't open doors to the press like participating with a candidate does. And in local elections there is no extra cost to standing, just some extra administrative work (form filling and accounting).
What about this motion, down for discussion at this year's Conference:
Quote:This Conference instructs the EC to ensure that all Party candidates for public office shall stand on the basis that, if elected, they shall refuse to take office and shall repudiate any associated salary or other benefits.Another option, but a bit of a departure from the position the Socialist Party has held since its foundation — as if would be to renounce bringing about some benefit for workers when in a position to do so.
Found it. It's on page 1163 of Trotsky's The History of the Russian Revolution, published by Gollanz in 1965 (in the chapter "The Congress of the Soviet Dictatorship"):
Quote:The capital awoke under a new power. The everyday people, the functionaries, the intellectuals, cut off from the arena of events, rushed for the papers early to find out to which shore the wave had tossed during the night.Also this (by someone we know):
Quote:On the morning of 7 November the workers of Petrograd woke up to find that in the night the Bolshevik Party had assumed power, the Bolsheviks had carried out a revolution while they were asleep.I remember reading something by Trotsky in which he said that the workers woke up the next morning to find out that during the night they had seized power, i.e that they had slept through their revolution, but can't find it at the moment. Trotsky should know as he was the person in charge of organising and carrying out the coup.
Overthrowing the Kerensky government, which wanted to continue the First World Slaughter, was one thing and had popular support beyond the Bolsheviks, but dissolving the Constituent Assembly, which Russian revolutionaries including the Bolsheviks had called for for years, was quite another. The Bolsheviks did it, not to defend the anti-Tsarist revolution but to defend the rule of their party.
It wasn't just the Bolsheviks who were for the overthrow of the Kerensky government. Some Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were as well. Their criticism was that it was replaced by a Bolshevik government and not by a government of all the leftwing anti-Tsarist revolutionaries, i.e a genuine Soviet government. What they objected to was the Bolsheviks monopolising power. As we know the Bolsheviks just used the soviets as a cover for their coup. At an earlier point Lenin had wanted the Bolsheviks to seize power directly but Trotsky persuaded him to adopt this subterfuge instead.
