ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry but I can't resist this. On Saturday a leaflet for the Green Party candidate for Mayor of London came through the letter box. Her name is Berry. Yesterday one from the Liberal candidate came through. Her name is Pidgeon.
SocialistPunk wrote:"Is the NHS a benefit?"Not sure what planet that statement belongs to. For an answer I guess we'd have to go back in time to a place before the NHS was set up and try to compare health care provision for us working class?I see this issue as one in which it could be possible for the SPGB to connect more with the public, via an issue important to us all. Yet statements like "Is the NHS a benefit?", shows how disconnected the SPGB are with other workers.SP, this is a discussion forum where the views of one member are not necessarily the views of all members or of the Party as a whole. A discussion took place on the NHS at the SPGB 2010 Conference. Here's the Report of the Proceedings on this item which shows a variety of views:
Quote:Item for Discussion from West London: “What is our attitude to the NHS?”Bond, West London In the forthcoming election, all the major parties have pledged to safeguard the NHS from public expenditure cuts, and the TUC is organising a rally in support of the NHS. Many workers value this public healthcare service. When the NHS was introduced in 1948, the Party regarded it as a capitalist scheme to save money, to get workers fit for military duty, and to appease workers’ demands for a better society. Since then the Party’s position seems to have softened. We now recognise that there is popular support for it, and that the workers do benefit from it, despite its inadequacies. What do other delegates think on what our attitude to the NHS ought to be?Martin, Central London Some American politician recently said that their recent healthcare reforms would impact their military effectiveness and spell the end of American imperialism. The NHS is commonly pointed to as a model of free access, though it still contains elements of private ownership, and some people are trying to bring it under greater influence of market forces. We don’t support the NHS; we support a world of free access. If you accept the idea of a national health service, why not a national food service, a national food service, and a national clothing service? And why not worldwide rather than national? We have to be clear in our propaganda that the NHS is still very much enmeshed in the world capitalist system. Perhaps we should put out a leaflet with the title “We don’t support the NHS”.Allen, East Anglian Regional I am extremely grateful to the NHS, as their only concern is my health. I also support the anti-smoking reforms. I know this isn’t socialism, but these reforms make capitalism much more pleasant to live in. I think the NHS is a wonderful institution.Buick, non-delegate We are prepared to concede in theory that some reforms can be in the interest of workers, and the NHS can be given as an example of this. Many party members applauded Michael Moore’s film Sicko as it indicted America’s private health care industry. We shouldn’t participate in pro-NHS demonstrations, but we should be present to hand out our literature.Corey, non-delegate Surely the Party is not being challenged over this issue. The capitalist system needs a healthy working class and healthy army recruits. I get necessary treatment under the NHS, but this is irrelevant. We want socialism, not the NHS under capitalism. The working class may be compelled to avail themselves of benefits offered under capitalism, but we should be demanding the whole cake.Kelly, non-delegate We’ve all used the NHS. In many parts of the world basic preventative medicine is not available; here we take it for granted. Any improvement in our health should be recognised, and we don’t want to alienate people by disparaging it.Shodeke, non-delegate I agree fully with Cde Martin’s statement. We want free access to goods and services for the world, not just health care here in England.Hart, South London We shouldn’t make a point of claiming opposition to the NHS, though we should recognise its limitations and restrictions. Americans are completely gobsmacked when you tell them you can walk into a doctor’s surgery here without paying money.Bond, West London I agree with Cde Martin that the NHS is enmeshed in capitalism, that doctors’surgeries and pharmacies remain in private ownership, and that the NHS is a capitalist rather than socialist institution. But for all its limitations, the NHS does benefit workers in capitalism.I see from the free copy of the Morning Star I picked up at the anti-Trident march yesterday that the Trotskyoid "Scottish Socialist Party" will be campaigning to stay in. There's an article by their co-spokesperson, Colin Fox, introduced as;
Quote:Vote for an EU free from neoliberal manipulation. Colin Fox argues that we have to vote to remain in the EU in order to change it from top to bottom, working with like-minded people throughout Europe to do so.A change from the usual line these people take, though the page opposite has a counter article by the paper's political editor, John Haylett, headed "No time to entrust Britain's future to a bureaucratic finance-capital cabal". Which might explain why some lefties have no problem campaigning alongside UKIP and even anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Right and Left unite against international finance capital.Meanwhile SPEW is promoting a Leave vote on the grounds that this will provoke a political and economic crisis from which they hope to benefit to build their vanguard party. But I still don't understand the position of the SWP which has made a speciality of seeking support amongst immigrant workers by campaigning to improve their situation, whereas the vote to Leave they are campaigning for will make the immigrants' position even worse than Cameron has negotiated. Maybe they, too, think that worse is better, the more discontent, the more material there is for them to work on. These Trotskyists or at least their leaders really are unprincipled and cynical manipulators.
Actually contributions are not voluntary. What is voluntary is the amount of the contribution that a member chooses to pay. They are still expected to make a contribution, i.e pay something but not a minimum fixed amount.
Actually, the leaflet did continue the Glasgow tradition (it was based on a Glasgow Branch leaflet) by baldly stating that "A campaign against Trident means support for capitalism, the cause of war" or in full context:
Quote:The problem is not Trident. It's war. Getting rid of Trident makes barely a dent in the global killing machine fuelled by capitalism's wars over our bosses' markets and resources. A campaign against Trident means support for capitalism, the cause of war.We know what this means — as it was edited when published as an article in August Socialist Standard, "A campaign against Trident alone leaves the cause of war –capitalism – untouched") but it is not certain that this is how this passage will be immediately taken by others. The marchers might think they were being denounced as mere supporters of capitalism. And, after all, our intention is not to alienate people who can see that there's something wrong with capitalism but to get them to read on and consider our argument.Still, in the olden days, we sometimes used to call CND the CCW — the Campaign for Conventional Warfare, which I suppose objectively was what it was, though I think we got a better hearing when our leaflets started along the lines of "you are right to protest against nuclear weapons but".
We were there. Three members distributed a few hundred leaflets (we didn't bring enough, as usual). Also sold more Socialist Standards than we normally do, probably because of the front cover (March issue) on the centenary of the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916.We didn't need a special leaflet as the new, glossy "The Problem is not the Tories … it's capitalism" one mentions Trident saying "The problem is not Trident, it's war" and that "getting rid of Trident makes barely a dent in the global killing machine fuelled by capitalism's wars over our bosses' markets and resources". Many said they agreed with the leaflet's title.
ALB wrote:What is important is that they are not likely to put off as soon as they read or hear the word "socialism".Actually, in terms of how we word our leaflets, adverts, etc, it doesn't matter what those favourable or not against "socialism" understand by it. What is important is that they are not likely to put off as soon as they read or hear the word "socialism". So it is significant that the number of people in this position is, apparently, going up. That can only be good for us. I wonder what result a similar opinion poll would give about the word "anarchism". Not as favourable, I guess.
Anyway this exchange has brought out why we prefer to speak of "world socialism" rather than "international socialism" since the first implies a world without states and without frontiers while the second implies that nation-states have relations with each other however close. Nit-picking for some perhaps but as you pointed out an important distinction.
Of course, I realise that and it wasn't a serious suggestion but was one that would have been understood immediately by anyone aware of the history of the SWP. To spell it out, they were originally formed as the "International Socialism Group" and their slogan, on their publications, etc was
Quote:Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism.But I suppose not all members are Trotskyist-train-spotters or need to be. But at least it confirms what we were taught in Speakers Class that irony never works as people take you literally.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:or maybe "Neither London Nor Brussels but International Socialism".UH-OH And be mistaken for the SWP…
No, to embarrass them (but it looks as if I have put a every time I say something likle this).I see that the SWP did debate this issue at their Conference last month and that some of them have been proposing abstaining or spoiling their ballot paper:
Quote:Call for left exit in EU referendumConference debated what position to take in the coming referendum on the European Union (EU).Joseph Choonara from the central committee argued that the SWP should campaign for Britain to leave the EU. He said, “The basis of our argument is a question of political principle.”Joseph outlined how the EU is “driving through neoliberal politics in the most brutal way” from the TTIP trade deal to the blackmail of Greece.“It’s a sign of solidarity with Greek comrades to argue for the break-up of the EU,” he said.But Barry from Bradford argued that the situation was different from Greece. “This is a ruling class faction fight,” he said.Dave from Bristol said the main beneficiaries of a vote to leave would be “David Cameron and Ukip”. He argued for a campaign of active abstention. Some argued for a campaign of spoiling ballots, but other delegates said that this would mean not taking a clear position.Sally Campbell from the central committee said that it was more than just a than a fight at the top. “This will shape the debates in the workers’ movement,” she said……Conference voted overwhelmingly to support a left-wing, internationalist, anti-racist vote to leave in the EU referendum.Don't worry, Alan, I'm sure there'll a sort of special issue of the Socialist Standard in June, an EC statement and a leaflet. Whether there'll be enthusiasm from members to get involved, or whether the general public will be interested, can't be predicted. At least it might make Conference at Easter more interesting than discussing changes to our rulebook or committees' terms of reference.It's going to be an odd campaign. Cameron has not in fact negotiated anything new. All he has done is frozen the UK present relationship to the rest of the EU. He hasn't undone anything, merely at most prevented anything changing. The envisaged new EU legislation making family allowances paid to migrant workers for their children back home to be what they would get there is just removing an obvious anomaly from a capitalist point of view and benefits other member-states too.So the STAY/YES campaign will in effect be campaigning for no change, to keep things as they are. It will be the LEAVE/NO campaign that will be proposing to change things. So, if we are going to judge a proposed reform on its merits and as to how it will affect the growth of the socialist movement, that's what we are going to have to judge. Personally, I can't see it has any merit whatsoever. By legally restricting the free movement of workers, by whipping up nationalism to the detriment of the spread of socialist ideas, and by provoking an economic crisis even though this might only prove temporary, it's going make things worse. So it's definitely a NO-NO. Just thought, that would make a good slogan NO2NO (not being serious, Alan ).Also, it's going tobe the NOs that will be making the running. They'll be more motivated. UKIppers, Tory backwoodsmen and recklessly ambitious politicians like Boris Johnson, open opponents of socialism and everything we stand for. I still say that one of the best ways to get in on the debate will be to embarrass those calling themselves socialist for wanting to get involved with these people. We might stand a chance of winning some over to our position which on the face of it is more in line with the other ideas they profess.As to "mistakes we have made", the front page of the June 1989 Standard "Don't Fight the Poll Tax. Abolish thee Wages System" must be in the running. Only came across it again when looking for our manifesto for the European elections held that month, the first time we contested them, in the Tyne and Wear constituency where our candidate was Tim and the title of our manifesto was "Euro-Capitalism or World Socialism?" This time it'll have to be a bid more unwieldy: "Euro-Capitalism, British Capitalism or World Socialism?" or maybe "Neither London Nor Brussels but International Socialism".
I wasn't suggesting that we do nothing during the campaign period but, that if we opted for abstention or a boycott (I'm not pushing that we should, especially as we've already gone on record as saying we're going to cast a write-in vote for world socialism), we should say this in our leaflets and meetings and why. And, as I also suggested, I think we should concentrate on hammering those claiming to be socialist campaigning for an OUT vote. We should do this anyway..
Yes, there is a gap between the official TZM publications (some of which are quite good) and the views expressed by individual TZMers. As you say, some of these are awful, eg currency crankism, conspiracy theories, banking reform as a transition to a moneyfree society, etc. Others are not so bad, but don't amount to much more than charity work.I think this arises because TZM pursues a different policy from us. We want an organisation composed of people who know and understand what we want (a worldwide classless, stateless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control) and so only admit people who do; which is why at present we are small. TZM has adopted a different approach: get as many people as possible involved and then educate them in TZM principles. Which means that they may be larger but that many of them won't and don't really understand what TZM stands for (a moneyless world of abundance).
