ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don't think you can just blame De Valera for Rome Rule. The other lot who ruled before him (he came to power only in 1932) started the process. He didn't "transform" the new Irish State into a theocracy, though he could be said to have consolidated it with the Irish Constitution of 1937. It was never anything else. After all, one of the first acts of the independent Irish State was to abolish divorce (with only WB Yates voting against).
Yes, Home Rule did turn out to be Rome Rule for forty or so years though, another irony, literal Home Rule, in the sense of devolution within the UK as opposed to political separation, would have mitigated perhaps even avoided this (certainly its worst excesses).On the other hand, the presence of a bloc of non-Tory, Catholic Nationalist MPs in Wesminster would have changed the course of British politics too.It's all changed now of course. Ireland is just another more or less secular and socially liberal capitalist state. You can't hold back progress for ever, just delay it.
When Mason was in Workers Power Osborne was in the Bullingdon Club, so they've both got pasts to live down, though Osborne always was a Hooray Henry while Mason was never a revolutionary Marxist only a Trotskyist.
imposs1904 wrote:Paul Mason posted this on his Facebook page about five years ago.That can't be right. More like five days? For example, his book on Postcapitalism only came out last year.
I agree it's unfair to call Bakunin a bomb-throwing terrorist. I don't suppose he ever threw one. That phase of anarchism (which was real) didn't begin till a decade or so after his death in 1n 1876.
For those who can't access the link, here's what it said:
Quote:Teenagers will soon be able to study anarchy as part of the government’s A-level reforms.The political philosophy syllabus will include anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin, the bomb-throwing 19th-century Russian revolutionary regarded as the grandfather of terrorism, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the radical French thinker who suggested that property is theft.The decision to include anarchism comes after ministers climbed down in a row over feminism.You sound enthusiastic enough about this month's issue that you might even be persuading North London branch to sell it in pubs on the Holloway Road The habituals there might find it a welcome change from An Phoblacht.
Charlessroyal wrote:The "Universal Basic incomw: Something we can all agree on?"is an effective article. The Canadian Government gave a lot of money to several families living in a small town in Manitoba. And I agree with that too.You mean this article? It's noti something we can agree with as we disagree with the concept of a monetary income, i.e with people having to buy what they need. We are in favoiur of a society of common ownership and democratic control where people wouldn't have "incomes" but have free access to what they needed. There are also some reformists who argue that even under capitalism it is better to let people have some things free (eg health care, transport, phone calls) rather than give them money to buy tthese services.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Fine Gael and Fianna Fail to form coalition? does this mean the Civil War's finally over?Something will be over when these parties drop their silly names, i.e Tribe of the Irish and Soldiers of Destiny. At least Ourselves Alone means something even if it's quite impractical.
Here's a good leaflet on a typical "Save the NHS" campaign:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/whittington-hospital
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".
