ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It probably is but that doesn't mean we should vote for it. Anyway, it looks again that it's not going to happen, so we can all sit back and relax.
Not bad as a blog. That's one of the problems to voting Remain: it also means voting for Cameron to remain as PM. We all know of course that the B in Brexit stands for bigot and the X for xenophobe so there's no problem in not voting for that.
This article, which he had something to with, on "Workers' and Peasants' Collectives in the Spanish Civil War", orginally published in Wildcat in 1986, is also good and relevant to this thread:http://www.af-north.org/Subversion/subversion_18.htmNote the subtle, but revealing, change of title from the original "The End of Anarchism?" to "The End of Anarchist Syndicalism?" Clearly, the AF doesn't like the anarcho-syndicalists.
Just been listening to a summary of what the papers are saying and am surprised as I didn't think they'd do it. But the Mail on Sunday has reproduced one of her articles urging a Remain vote while Cameron himself has also referred to her pro-Remain stance. It seems to be having an effect:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-coxs-death-sparks-eu-8226820#rlabs=2%20rt$category%20p$1On the other hand, one far right group is urging a Leave vote so that Mair's sacrifice will not be in vain:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3648446/Don-t-let-man-s-sacrifice-vain-Swastika-covered-vote-Leave-activist-shocking-support-Jo-Cox-s-alleged-killer-calls-MP-s-death-unfortunate-says-shouldn-t-stop-Britons-voting-out.html
Interesting couuple of hours in Kingston earlier today. Despite the announced suspension of campaigning until Monday, the Leave people were out leafletting as "Veterans for Britain" defending the British Army from being incorporated into a European one. The Remain people were about but not leafletting. The Leave people told us that the Remainers had threatened to take photos of them and send them to the Guardian (I'm sure that had them trembling in their boots). Those who discussed the referendum with us were evenly divided between Remain and Leave. Those for Remain argued that as "we" were in, "we" might as well stay, though one made the point that if the Brexiters were right and the economy boomed after Brexit more workers would be needed, from abroad of course. Those for Leave were divided. One said she was against the EU because it was "Marxist" (a new one on us). Another was a leftist who told us that Boris and Farage were "wankers". He was still going to vote with them though. Some people had already voted by post.We also discussed socialism with others and even sold three pamphlets.In the Druid's Head pub after we overheard a discussion about whether booze cruises to Calais to buy beer, cigarettes and wine would continue (the answer is no, unless Britain stays in the single market; otherwise it would be back to the old duty-free limits). Actually, this discussion was of more relevance to the working class than the other stuff the media and the politicians have been going on about.We are going to have to distribute the remaining few hundred leaflets door to door in some of the areas we distributed our GLA election leaflets.
Clearly a Brexiter then and done to help further Brexit. I can't see how they can wriggle out of this one. No wonder they've suspended their campaigning.
stuartw2112 wrote:Is this the place to discuss the In/Out referendum? If so, I must say I think the party's stand on this is wrong and shameful, even from its own point of view. One of the key issues in this referendum is workers rights at work. The EU guarantees basic protections; the Outers promise to tear them up. Hence there is a clear working class interest in the poll (and that's not even to go into all the other issues, where working class interests are also at stake). In calling for abstention, the SPGB is going against its own declared position on supporting reforms in the working class interest. I hope all members will consider rebelling against the party and voting for Remain.I don't think "workers rights at work" (ir anywhere else) is a key issue. They're basically nothing to do with the EU but with what workers in their unions can stop employers getting away with. Certainly, the EU doesn't seem to be effective in preserving workers rights in France. No, the only two arguable reasons for voting Remain are the two that have been aired here: (1) to maintain the free movement of labour and (2) to protest against the xenophobia behind the Leave case. People will make up their own mind how much weight to attach to these. I'd just point out that, even in the event of a Leave win, the free movement of labour stands a good chance of staying. British capitalism needs free access to the single market and there's no chance they are going to get this unless they agree to the free movement of workers.There are of course no reasons for voting Leave, as you also point out:
stuartw2112 wrote:Perhaps in the debate generally but not (I don't think, unless I slippery slipped up myself) from myself. What will inevitably result from Brexit is uncertainty – uncertainty we could well do without, a gamble for (as you say) the airy utopian dreams of the petit bourgeoisie. In this debate, give me the Big Bourgeoisie (and the labour movement) anyday.Actually, the capitalists financing the Leave campaign are not "petty bourgeois" but mainly filthy rich financiers who don't want their activities to be regulated by the EU. They are regulation dodgers. Workers would be complete mugs to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them.
I don't think she was murdered because she was Labour. I thought it was clear that it was because she supported remaining in the EU and was prominent in the campaign for this not just locally but nationally (she was, for instance, in a boat on the Thames opposing Farage and the trawler owners). This will be why they've suspended campaigning, especially the Leave mob as they stand to lose by this becoming too well known. And all the Remain mob have to do is sit back and hope for the sympathy vote. This could be the incident that swings things in their favour. Serve the Leave mob right for stirring up xenophobia.
Actually, apart from the title and the shots of Lenin, Stalin and Mao at the beginning introducing the whole three part series (and which she later said were distortions of Marx's views) it wasn't too bad, even good as a basic summary of Marx's life and views.
A man shouted “Britain first!” before shooting and stabbing MP Jo Cox just hours after Nigel Farage unveiled this. pic.twitter.com/DRHcStOeoB
— The Socialist Party (@OfficialSPGB) June 16, 2016
rodmanlewis wrote:There is no reason why we shouldn't continue discussing the subject just because capitalist politicians have decided, in the wake of Jo Cox's murder, to declare a halt on the subject.No wonder they have. She was a Remain supporter murdered by a Brexit supporter.
Here is Comrade Rab's criticism of the 1964 Triple Revolution proposal, still relevant today regarding similar schemes:
Quote:Let us examine the views of the Committee in closer detail. They propose to "break the link" between jobs and income. Excellent as far as it goes because it recognizes that the workers, in order to live, depend on wages, their only source of income. But it doesn't go far enough because it does not propose to do away with jobs and wages. Capitalism divides mankind into two basic groups: 1. Those whose income is derived from wages in any of its various forms (hourly rates, piece work, salaries, bonuses, commissions, etc.) These are the vast majority who work but do not own. And 2. The small minority whose income is derived from ownership in any of its forms (profits, dividends, stocks, bonds, titles of deed, etc.) These are the ones who own but do not work. (Of course, there are overlappings, but here we are dealing with the general nature of capitalism.) Wages have been well described as the badge of slavery. The very dependence on wages alienates workers from the products of their labor.To propose breaking the link between jobs and income while retaining the market economy is to misunderstand the objective of capitalist production — production for sale on the market. It is fantastic to imagine that capitalist enterprise can compete in the domestic and world markets without reducing labor costs. This is a prime essential. And it is this very drive for profits and reduction of labor costs which speeds the introduction of cybernation. The use of cybernation for the benefit of society is incompatible with the market economy.Further, the aim of redistributing income — the retaining of money — indicates the retention of a commodity society. The need for money arises from a scarcity relationship because of the need to facilitate the circulation of commodities. But money can play no role in obtaining the needs of life when they have become — through cybernation — as abundant as water and sunshine. In an economy of abundance, only the right of access by everybody to what is produced makes sense. The suggestion, then, for reorganizing society by "distributing effective demand" is merely another continuation of the status quo, a proposal — in effect — to distribute poverty among the workers through legislative measures revising the tax structure.
