ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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).
You're right. Had Marx drawn up a detailed model of how a socialist (or communist, the two words meant the same to him) society might have worked, it wouldn't be of much practical use today, just of historical interest .After all, he knew nothing of the internal combustion engine or radio let alone atomic power and electronic computers or anything electronic. In fact this was one reason why he always refused to draw up a blueprint for socialism or, as he put it, write recipes for the cook-shops of the future.So he limited himself to saying what the basis of such a society would be, i.e common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, production directly to satisfy human needs and not for the market and so the disappearance of money, profits, working for wages, banks, etc. And of course democratic control involving the election of councils to run things. See here.We take the same position, though we have gone into more detail in this pamphlet as to how society could organise the production and distribution of useful goods and services with having recourse to markets and money:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativeEven this is outdated as it was first published in 1987 but have a read of it as it does deal with some of the questions you raise about how a moneyless society of abundance might work today.
I wonder whether, over this particularly vote, we shouldn't simply advocate abstention (ignoring) because the referendum is an irrelevant waste of time rather than our traditional practice of writing "WORLD SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper.
SocialistPunk wrote:Regarding the EU.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH21LEmfbQAnd this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StG4fFWHqgGood for ordinary elections too.
One thing we do share with anarchists — or rather they share with us — is aiming for a society without a coercive government machine ruling over people (the State). We say this is only possible in a classless society based on the common ownership of productive resources. We envisage the State being replaced by an unarmed, democratically elected and controlled central, regional and local administration.Some anarchists want to get rid of the State directly by taking it on in a head-on collision or by an armed uprising. Here's the same group as Socialist Punk recommends on where this would lead them:https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22I+fought+the+law+and+the+law+won%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
I still think, from the journalist's wording itself, that it's a reference to a US paper, which he says linked to us in Britain. According to this, there was a Deleonist publication of that name, published by the Industrial Union Party:http://www.deleonism.org/text/pf000002.htmActually, their platform there is no too bad. I'm not quite sure of its relationship to the New Union Party (I think they merged or something) but here's something from the January 2001 issue of the NUP's then paper the New Unionist which might explain why someone might confuse them with us:
Quote:The solution to money problems therefore has nothing to do with changing the way money works — and must work—in a capitalist system, but doing away with die need for money, which means doing away with capitalism.In an economic system owned by all the people we'd produce goods and services for our own use. Since we, as a community, would own the product of our labor there'd be no need to buy what already belonged to us. Goods and services would be distributed directly to individuals on the basis of need and the individual's contribution to the labor of society.Without exchange there would be no money, only a rational organization of production and distribution made possible by the abundance created by modern technology.What Bernie (mis)understands by socialism is of course far removed from this.
