ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
All the media are recording that
Quote:his Who's Who entry includes his pastime as "generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism."I ask him about whether or not Ocolan's scheme for moneyless self-governing communes was being implemented. Here's his reply:
Quote:I am not that well read on Ocalon I must admit, but my time in villages and towns the dollar is very much king as is the Syrian pound, believe it or not, but you need a small wad of them to buy a coke. From what I saw there is no monopoly on goods, from the basics to smart phones prices are affordable and reasonable even in a state of war when it would be easy to exploit the situation for profit, this to me though is a speaks more of the character of the people rather then the policies, while I am sure there is a black market I was never offered anything illicit even as a "rich Westerner". Civil projects are raised on their merits rather then their profit margin such as agriculture and small industry, construction, machine works ect, all positions of power in these companies are granted on election of the workers so the best people to perform given tasks are not promoted past their ability and can resign or be replaced if needed.Report from comrade who happens to be in (former East) Germany at the moment:
Quote:Just found a refugee welcome centre at Rostock Station. Clothes and food. Also offer place to stay. 1000 to 1500 dealt with at weekend. Young people (30 to 40), mostly students. No older people (one guy thought there ought to be sympathy from post war expellees). No lefty bandwagoning but most probably in groups as were reluctant to talk of this. Organised by facebook.SocialistPunk wrote:This discussion is essentially about more than Corbyn, it's about SPGB strategy.The SPGB doesn't have a strategy and all attempts to adopt one have failed (eg over the name we call ourselves by). Members argue the case in their own way. Some emphasise what's wrong with capitalism; others what a nice society socialism would be. Not being a "democratic centralist" party, they can't be forced to argue the case for socialism in a way they don't want to. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's the way it is.
The last Labour Conference we went to in Brighton was a sad affair. Too much security (they were in government then) so you couldn't get near the delegates and hardly anybody else there apart from somebody selling the Morning Star. I imagine this time it will be like the good old days with all the usual paper sellers back there as well. In the past Jeremy used to buy them all, including the Standard.
Melvin Harris was the first Party member I met. We were both born in Newport, Mon. At the time I was living in Newbridge in one valley and he was living in Cwmbran in the next one. He was working as a night telephonist (in those days women weren't allowed to work at night).The obituary is inaccurate about his relationship with the Party. He first became associated with it as a schoolboy and was one of a number who formed the Newport branch of the party just after the War (the Second World War, that is). During this period he engaged in a lengthy correspondence with Anton Pannekoek which unfortunately has been lost. He did later leave and lectured for the old National Council of Labour Colleges not the Labour Party. I don't think he ever joined the Labour Party or ever had any illusions about it. He was also an expert on the DeLeonist SLP of America (there's an article somewhere about "socialist industrial unionism").He remained a member after he moved to London and wrote a few articles for the Standard but eventually dropped out.
Interesting statistic from a YOuGov poll reported in today's Times:
Quote:About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. About 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats, 10,000; Conservatives, 3,000; Ukip, 3,000; other parties, 6,000; did not vote, 8,000.(These are voters not party members). Doesn't bode well for the Greens. Corbyn seems to being taking back from them Old Labour's clothes which they stole.
Today's Times quotes Sanders as commenting on Corbyn's election:
Quote:At a time of mass income and wealth inequality throughout the world, I am delighted that the British Labour party has elected Jeremy Corbyn as its new leader. We need leadership in every country in the world which tells the billionaire class that they cannot have it all. We need economies that work for working families, not just the people on top.That front cover is aimed at saying that we shouldn't rely on any politician to do anything for us (subtext: but should act for ourselves). And, anyway, textual deconstruction shows that Corbyn isn't criticised as much as the other two. Look at it again …Anyway, discussions as to whether a particular politician is sincere or not are irrelevant. It's not a question of what they want to do. It's a question of what they can do. Not even a saint can make capitalism work in the interests of the working class.We have never denied that some politicians are sincere (I'm sure Corbyn does sincerely want to improve the lot of the working class and the poor within capitalism) or that some are not (I'm equally convinced that Duncan Smith is a sanctimonious bastard), but so what? And we have always said that political democracy is important to the working class. So why this "no different from Stalin" crap?
Vin wrote:We have to criticise his form of 'common ownership' and recognise it is not the same as Stalin's.Or we will look stupid.We've never said or even implied that his "form of common ownership" is the same as Stalin's (which wasn't even a form of common ownership, except by a collective exploiting class). That would make us look stupid but we've never said it was or even that "the remove nationalised model that prevailed in post-war era" was.
Vin wrote:Corbyn's criticism of the old clause 4 is the very same criticism we make of it.We criticise Clause 4 because it includes "of exchange" which implies the existence of markets, banks, etc. I don't think that's his criticism. In fact I don't think he would criticise its wording at all. His criticism would be of the way the term "common ownership" was interpreted by previous Labour governments who provided for the state-owned industries to be run by state-appointed boards while he wants there to be some sort of "workers control" of them. Not at all "the very same criticism".
Actually, if you want an immediate solution to an immediate problem then there's no point in voting for the Green Party except perhaps in some places in local elections. You'd have to vote for a party that had a chance of forming the government at national level. In practice, the Labour Party which might just, perhaps, deliver it maybe if economic circumstances allow.More effective would be to organise with others in the same situation in a trade union, claimants union, tenants association or whatever (depending on the immediate problem). We have never opposed this or denounced it as reformist. In fact it's what we say about what to do "in the meantime". We don't get involved as a party as our aim to propagate socialist ideas, though individual members can, do and have done.
imposs1904 wrote:A Tom and Jerry front cover would be a bad idea. Please don't.It was only meant as joke (the was the clue), too tempting given the names of the Leader and Deputy Leader. I just thought I'd be the first to make it (though I got from another member). Don't worry it's not going to happen.
Vin wrote:What if 'Labour leaders' become delegates?Actually, Corbyn does seem to be a genuine democrat who wants Labour policy to be decided by the membership instead of being handed down from on high. Whether he will be able to deliver on this is another matter, especially as his deputy, Tom Watson, is a machine politician and has already stabbed him in the back this morning over NATO and Trident. He was the man who tried to overthrow Blair to make way for Brown and could be the man to organise a coup against Corbyn when the time comes. It looks as if it's going to be another episode of Tom and Jerry (another idea for the front cover? )
I thought I'd check on what SPEW, SWP, TUSC and LU are saying about Corbyn's election.Here's SPEW:http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/21392/12-09-2015/corbyn-victoryThey want to be invited back:
Quote:At the same time the party should be opened up. All those who have been forced out or expelled in the past for fighting against cuts and for socialist ideas should be invited back.The SWP are not so keen:http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/41297/SWP+statement+on+election+of+Jeremy+Corbyn+as+Labour+Party+leaderHere's TUSC:http://www.tusc.org.uk/17115/12-09-2015/victory-for-jeremy-corbyn-now-lets-build-a-movement-to-stop-the-tory-cutsBe interesting to see if they really do stand against Labour in next year's local elections.Here's what LU said before he was elected.http://leftunity.org/jeremy-corbyn-a-new-moment-a-new-movement/Of note these passages:
Quote:Left Unity understands that some of its members will view joining the Labour Party as the avenue for supporting this new movement. Some have already left in order to campaign and vote for Jeremy. We wish them well and recognise that in ending their membership they are not renouncing the shared politics which drew them towards our party in the first place.(…) We will introduce a ‘friends of Left Unity’ category whereby those who have chosen not to remain members can continue to receive our newsletter and participate in joint discussion and common action on issues that unite us.They seem to accept that many of their members will drift back to Labour.
