ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Saw Andrew Neil grilling some non-entity called Eagle who wants to topple Corbyn. Pathetic, inarticulate and whining. If they think they'll do better under her they're deluding themselves.
KAZ wrote:And, since the involvement of the anarchists in the Generalitat was, if anything, detrimental, what can be the place of the political revolution (the 'Parliamentary Road')?Is what way was it detrimental? I would have thought it made sense to have some control over the official machinery of government if only in order to prevent it being used against events on the ground — as in fact happened after they were excluded and the so-called "Communists" took over control of it.The lesson must be that it is vital to gain control of political power at some stage of the socialist revolution. Incidentally, I don't like the term "the parliamentary road". I know we have used it, but we shouldn't really as it gives the mistaken impression that we think socialism can be legislated into being by an Act of Parliament (or even a series of Acts, as most in fact of those who use the term envisage). Whereas in fact we only want to use parliament as a stepping stone to gaining control of political power to use it to uproot capitalism.
There was already a thread on this here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/living-utopia-anarchists-and-spanish-revolution-film-norwich
Just to clarify, the American SWP has nothing to do with the British SWP. It is the premier Orthodox Trotskyist sect there, i.e holds that the USSR was a "defenerate workers state" (while the SWP holds that for most of the time it was a form of state capitalism). Nowadays they have transferred their allegiance to Cuba. Their Brirish affiliate, the Communist League, stood against us in the recent London elections and got even less votes than us.
I agree, but it must have been a vote against something on the part of the 37% of the electorate who voted Leave. It certainly wasn't a vote for anything (as we are now seeing). What would they have been voting against? Not the corporations or capitalism, maybe against what capitalism had put them through but mistakenly blaming this on the EU and/or foreigners. But it's not all doom and gloom. After all, 35% didn't vote against foreigners (and 28% didn't express an opinion either way)..
In our leaflet for the referendum we said:
Quote:In order to do business, there will have to be arrangements with other governments, especially those that neighbour Britain. Pretty much all free trade agreements have an arbitration process, which will mean courts telling the British government what to do in order to comply with the treaties it signed.Just read about the existence of a Court, similar to the European Court of Justice, which deals with cases concerning member countries of the European Economic Area that are not members of the EU (Norway, Iceland, Leichstenstein — the other members of the EEA are the 28 EU member states including Britain). So, if in the end, Britain has to opt for the Norway solution, i.e if it withdraws from the EU but not the EEA, so as to get free access to the single market, then Britain will be subject to its rulings. It is situated in Luxemburg.http://www.eftacourt.int/the-court/jurisdiction-organisation/introduction/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA_Court
alanjjohnstone wrote:lso in the Kinnock speech was thisQuote:In 1918, in the shadow of the Russian revolution, they made a deliberate, conscious, ideological choice, that they would not pursue the syndicalist road, that they would not pursue the revolutionary road – it was a real choice in those days. They would pursue the parliamentary road to socialism.What's interesting about this part of Kinnock's speech is that he mentions the word "socialism" which has been taboo in the Labour Party for years. The ironic thing is that most of the anti-Corbyn plotters in his audience wouldn't identify with this. They believe in the parliamentary road, yes, but not to "socialism" (however defined) but to manage capitalism, to "responsible" capitalism, while it's Corbyn, McDonnell and their supporters who still adhere to the old Labour policy of the gradualist, parliamentary, reformist road to "socialism" (actually, state capitalism). They are not syndicalists or revolutionaries.Since they know their labour history and see socialism (however defined) as a desirable system of society, we can have discussions with them (and Kinnock) as to the best strategy and tactics to get to socialism. You couldn't have that discussion with most Labour MPs any more than you could with a Tory MP.
There is no doubt that in 1847-8 Marx did support Free Trade even if only as the lesser evil or as a rope supports a hanging man. It was part of his general policy of supporting the "progressive bourgeoisie" against its enemies, both because he believed (at that time) that a bourgeois revolution in Germany would be rapidly followed by a "proletarian revolution" and because he held that capitalism still had a role to play in developing the productive forces.The passage from the Communist Manifesto you quote is the programme that he, Engels and the others in the Communist League advocated a victorious "proletarian revolution" should adopt (but should a revolution was never really on the cards, as they later realised.Both positions share the same underlying (and justified) assumption that, in 1848, the material basis for a socialist society had not yet been created. Since this has now existed since at least the end of the 19th century this argument is now of academic interest only and what Marx may or may not have advocated in 1848 is of no contemporary relevance.Even so, Marx came up with a good description of what Protectionists in effect argue:
Quote:It is better to be exploited by one’s fellow-countrymen than by foreigners.Brexiteers too and, apparently, a large section of the working class in this country.
Actually, in the quite different historical conditions of the time, in 1848 Marx made a speech in favour of Free Trade as against National Protection. Engels explained why in his 1888 Preface to the publication of Marx's speech:
Quote:To him, Free Trade is the normal condition of modern capitalist production. Only under Free Trade can the immense productive powers of steam, of electricity, of machinery, be full developed; and the quicker the pace of this development, the sooner and the more fully will be realized its inevitable results; society splits up into two classes, capitalists here, wage-laborers there; hereditary wealth on one side, hereditary poverty on the other; supply outstripping demand, the markets being unable to absorb the ever growing mass of the production of industry; an ever recurring cycle of prosperity, glut, crisis, panic, chronic depression, and gradual revival of trade, the harbinger not of permanent improvement but of renewed overproduction and crisis; in short, productive forces expanding to such a degree that they rebel, as against unbearable fetters, against the social institutions under which they are put in motion; the only possible solution: a social revolution, freeing the social productive forces from the fetters of an antiquated social order, and the actual producers, the great mass of the people, from wage slavery. And because Free Trade is the natural, the normal atmosphere for this historical evolution, the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created — for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favor of Free Trade.In other words, he supported Free Trade as he held that this would help capitalism develop quicker, so paving the way for socialism. Now, of course, capitalism has long since built up the material basis for a worldwide society of plenty for all.Having said that, I can't see Marx favouring a country opting out of a larger tariff-free market that had already developed. That would be a step bacward in terms of capitalism becoming a more and more global system. But then, of course, for us today, capitalism is already global enough and we don't need to support any further globalisation under capitalist conditions. That can, and should, take place more rationally in a frontierless socialist world where the natural and industrial resources of the planet have become the common heritage of all.
Interesting development in the dispute. Following industrial action a deal is negoriated by their union and put to a vote of those affected (as, ideally, should always be the case) but is rejected (by 58% to 42% on a 68% turnout). I'm not sure what happens next. Logically, a new deal should be negotiated (and put to a vote) but it looks as if the employer is going to impose the rejected one. In any event, so far the workers involved and their union have conducted their campaign in an exemplary manner.
Yes "socialism" would have to be defined, otherwise it would be like the recent vote for an undefined "Leave". The Trots and other Leninists would be able to claim that it was actually a vote for their aim of state capitalism ruled by them.
Actually he (Fox) is quite a disreputable character, as recorded by wikipedia. I remember the scandal about his lobbyist friend, but hadn't realised there was more:
Quote:In the expenses scandal, he was the Conservative Shadow Cabinet member with the largest over-claim on expenses, and as a result, he was forced to repay the most money.[3] In 2010, he was appointed Secretary of State for Defence, a position from which he resigned on 14 October 2011 over allegations that he had given a close friend, lobbyist Adam Werritty, access to the Ministry of Defence and allowed him to join official trips overseas.alanjjohnstone wrote:Brexit – No changehttp://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/07/04/eu-accused-trying-push-through-toxic-trade-deal-ahead-brexitGlobal Justice Now have released an expert opinion on CETA and Brexit which argues that if the UK doesn’t formally leave the EU before CETA is ratified, then it would be tied into the trade deal for a period of twenty years after announcing any intention to leave the deal.What makes these people think that a Brexit Britain would be opposed to such a deal with Canada? The Brexiteers argued that Brexit would allow Britain to sign such deals directly with other countries instead of as part of the EU. Also, the silly pro-Remain Treasury report trying to predict what things would be like in 14 years time in 2030 if Britain left (concluding we'd all be worse off, of course) was based precisely on Britain doing a deal with the EU similar to Canada's. See, for instance, here.Don't think much of their "expert opinion" either. It seems just to be that of a post graduate student studying for his PhD.
If the referendum had been on an In/Out one on EU workers rather than formally on the legal question of the intergovernmental and trade arrangements of the UK capitalist class I'm sure we'd have taken a different position. Even so, we did of course denounce xenophobia and nationalism in our leaflets and articles as well as pointing out the world nature of the way out, eg in our leaflet:
Quote:If we want practical control of our own lives, if we want to confront these problems, we have to organise on a worldwide basis, not a national basis. We need to join with the vast majority of the world who do not own it, in order to bring the world under the democratic control of everyone …What else could we have said or done?
Some people said that a Brexit vote would unleash a carnival of xenophobia. Unfortunately it seems to be happening. I met somebody from Portugal (and Portugal has been in the EU since 1986) who said that their daughter had received one of those letters from another schoolkid to take back home to their parents telling them to pack up their bags as people had just voted for them to leave. I suspect that this is more widespread than the media are reporting.And now whether or not to "Send 'Em Back" has become an issue in the Tory leadership contest whereas it never was in the referendum campaign, only "Stop 'Em Coming In". It seems that some of the candidates reckon this could be a vote-winner amongst the backward sections of society who are members of the Tory party, many of whom could well want this. One is the candidate who once called the Tory party "the nasty party". Presumably she banking on this being the case.
