ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In our case, yes since the only acronym we have in our emblem is GB and even they know what that means.
Of course it is. That's our registered name. The others I listed are, as I said, "variants" of it , which parties can also register and, if they want, use on the ballot paper instead.
They are offering us a free replacement variant of our name (instead of having to pay the usual £25). What about EsPeeGeeBee?At the moment the variants we have registered are:The Socialist Party (GB)SPGBThe World Socialist Party (Britain)The World Socialist Party(EU)The World Socialist Movement.I can't check because their website is no good either.I think slogans such as "Abolish the Wages System" and "The World for the Workers" might be allowed. At least they used to be.
alanjjohnstone wrote:contary to ALB's arguement that workers accept the need for austerity, i think it is that they see no victorious outcome in fighting it and for the time being accept the inevitable passively.ALB actually wrote:Most workers seem to accept the capitalist necessity for austerity at the present time or don't think there's much they can do about it.Another criticism yesterday of Corbyn for saying what we say (and said):
Quote:Meanwhile, it emerged yesterday that in a speech two years ago, Mr Corbyn questioned spending "shed loads of money" commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War.In April 2013 Mr Corbyn said: "The government is apparently preparing to spend shed loads of money commemorating the First World War. I'm not sure what there is to commemorate." He attacked the "mass slaughter of millions of young men".The name of the scumbag journalist who wrote this is Michael Savage, the Times's Chief Political Correspondent.
The headline news today is "Cameron backs down over plan to bomb Syria". Once again, it's not because of demonstrations but because he doesn't think he'd get a parliamentary majority in favour, even though a number of prominent Labour MPs would back him but he can't be sure of enough of his own MPs.
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:where were the "working class struggles"?Are you being serious?
Yes. Of course every single worker is involved in the class struggle every day whether they realise it or not, but as this is a constant it could be invoked to explain everything or nothing. I thought you had in mind something more conscious and organised than this such as strikes. As even the Trotskyists are lamenting, unfortunately there is no organised industrial struggle going on against austerity. Most workers seem to accept the capitalist necessity for austerity at the present time or don't think there's much they can do about it.If there had have been "workers struggles" against it the government might not have tried to cut these payments in the first place, let alone later modify them (and it remains to be seen how, probably some transitional arrangement for those already getting them with new claimants getting less as originally envisaged).And of course enough workers voted Tory in the general election a few months ago, including at least one on tax credits who protested on Question Time the other day and said she had, to return a Tory government with a mandate for further austerity. I think it was Eugene Debs who said that the sound of a policeman's truncheon on the head of a striking worker was an echo of their vote for one or other capitalist party.To be credible we need to respect the facts and reason logically..
Interesting meeting but poor turnout. Yehudi Webster argued that the appeal to establish a world without commodities (goods produced for sale), wage-labour and money should be addressed to all humans appealing to their reason, not just to a section of them such as the working class (however defined). Party members defended socialism as having to be the outcome of the class struggle between the working class (defined as the vast majority in society compelled to try to sell their labour power to live) in pursuit of their economic interest and the tiny minority capitalist class who owned and controlled the means of production. Members with a memory or knowledge of past Party controversies will recall this as a recurring point of disagreement. The talk and discussion were recorded.
Maybe to some extent except where were the "working class struggles"? Party political factors, including within the Tory party, seem to have been more important. Ironic from a leftist point of view that once again (as over preventing the bombing of Syria a year or so ago) parliamentary action should have been more effective than demonstrations.
But we do "support" all technological and scientific advances as making a socialist world of abundance all that more feasible. We have never been part of the anti-technology brigade but see the libertory potential of technological and scientific advances. It's not these as such that are to blame but the misuse of them under capitalism. I'm sure GMO technology will have a widespread application in socialist society.
Vin wrote:I think tax credits is what concerns most workers or the need to use food banks.Most workers? Most workers are not on tax credits or have to go to food banks. I don't know what the exact figure is but it won't be much above 10%. Our appeal must be to a much broader section of the working class and on a wider basis than the fact that some members of the working class are on or below the "poverty line". What about those who are not?
Important election today in Turkey. If the ruling Islamist party loses and power passes to the secular opposition party, in coalition with the Kurdish nationalists, then there would be a complete change of Turkey's policy towards Syria. The main opposition party, the Republican People's Party (CHP), comes from the same secular nationalist stable as the Baath party in Syria and is in fact sympathetic to the government there.
Here's the text of the leaflet that is being prepared for distribution at the demonstration in London on Sunday 29 November:
Quote:Too Little Too LateThat’s the most that will ever be done under capitalism about the problems that global warming will bring.The way the capitalist system works rules out the effective action at world level that is needed to begin tackling the problem. It even encourages economic activities that contribute to it.Capitalism is based on production being controlled by profit-seeking enterprises which, supported by governments, compete on the market to buy resources and sell products. This competitive pursuit of profits is the essence of capitalism. It’s what capitalism is all about and what prevents any effective action to deal with climate change.Nobody can deny that global warming is taking place. Nor that, if it continues unchecked, it would have disastrous consequences – such as rising sea-levels and increased desertification – through its effects on the climates of the different parts of the world. There can only be argument over what is causing it. Most scientists in the field take the view that it has mainly been caused by the increase in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere largely as a result of the burning of the fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas.If this is the case, then one part of any solution has to be cut back on burning these fuels. But this is not happening. In fact, on a world scale, their use is increasing. This is because this is currently the cheapest way of generating the energy to drive industry – and the logic of capitalism compels the profit-seeking enterprises that control production to use the cheapest methods. If they don’t, their competitors will.What is the solution? First, the competitive struggle for profits as the basis for production must be ended. This requires that the Earth’s natural and industrial resources become the common heritage of all humanity. On this basis, and on this basis alone, can an effective programme to deal with the problem be drawn up and implemented, because production would then be geared to serving human interests and no longer to make a profit for competing enterprises.There will be those who say that we haven’t the time to wait for the coming into being of this, in their view, unlikely or long-distant solution, and that we must therefore do something now. In this age of apathy and cynicism when any large-scale change is dismissed, this may seem a plausible argument but it begs the question. It assumes that a solution can be implemented within capitalism. But if it can’t (as Socialists maintain), then concentrating on something now rather than on changing the basis of society and production will be a waste of valuable time while the situation gets worse.
