[ALB]

Quote:

So the party advice to the trade union movement for the upcoming anti-union legislation, also part of the Tory manifesto, is that the working class voted for it – so lump it.

You're right, Vin. This passage does not express the party position on trade unionism. We've always said that workers should organise into trade unions and should defend the right to strike. Here for instance is the start and end of a leaflet we put out in 1971 headed "The Right to Strike!":

Quote:

YOU ARE RIGHT to demonstrate your opposition to the government's Industrial Relations Bill which is designed to restrict the right to strike. As long as the means of production are owned by a privileged minority, either privately or through the state, the strike will remain an essential weapon to defend the living standards and working conditions of wage and salary workers.Industrial organisation and action, including the proper use of the strike weapon, has the general support of THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN. Under capitalism all workers must organise in their places of employment to resist the pressures exerted by their employers, often with the backing of the government. This resistance is an essential part of the class struggle between the owners and non-owners of the means of production which is built into capitalist society.The LIMITATIONS of STRIKE ACTIONBut industrial action is basically only defensive. It is limited by the fact that in the end employers can usually depend on the support of the government and also by the lack of a full understanding amongst most workers of the real nature of the class struggle.(…)POSITIVE ACTIONTHE   SOCIALIST   PARTY   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN   urges   you, therefore, to look beyond militant trade unionism and to consider taking action to establish a classless society in which people would not have to work for wages and strike to get a living, but would have free access to what they needed in accordance with the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".As Marx advised trade unionists in Britain more than a hundred years ago: "Instead of the conservative motto 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword—'ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM'."

This was why I said that the proposed Tory legislation to further restrict the right to strike was a more immediate and relevant danger to the interest of the working class than their proposed legislation against "extremists" which, as others here have pointed out, is not aimed at nor realistically likely to be used against us. 

[ALB]

I don't where that photo came from but it comes very close to being nasty, anti-semitic stuff. Brand isn't and doesn't claim to be a Marxist, but anti-semites typically associate the Rothschilds and Marxists as part of some joint Jewish world conspiracy. Where did it come from?

[ALB]

I don't suppose they'd be interested any more than us in petitioning the capitalist state not go ahead with legislation for which the government has just got a mandate and which has probably got widespread popular support. The only way to have stopped it was not to have elected a one-party Tory government and to have hoped that the LibDems were in some coalition government as they were the ones who had blocked these proposals up to now. But I think even Alan would baulk at that. Also, these other groups that do stand for a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless world are smaller than us and so our combined efforts wouldn't make the slightest difference.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

Our case would have to be changed radically if we refused to join in the call for free expression and democracy. We would look foolish advocating the ballot box if there were no elections for example.

Agreed. That's why we have always "joined in" the call for political democracy, as in places where it doesn't exist. Our case has been that the socialist movement should do this on its own, separately from other, not anti-capitalist groups which may also be calling for this. As we said in the 1978 edition of our pamphlet Questions of the Day:

Quote:

In many of the less developed countries political democracy does not yet exist. The governments there, whether representing the old landowning or the emerging capitalist class, stifle criticism and threaten the organisation of opposition parties and even of trade unions as plots to overthrow them. In such circumstances socialist activity is very difficult and the workers (being only a minority of the population), besides trying to organise into a socialist party ought also to struggle fo get the freedom to organise into trade unions and win elementary political rights. As in the the advanced capitalist countries, however, this should still involve opposition to all other parties in order that the socialist issue shall be kept free from confusion.

[ALB]

Derek Wall describes himself as a "Green Marxist". Without agreeing with us (obviously) he quite likes us and spoke at one of our summer schools. At the moment, besides being a Green Party official and candidate, he is one of the advisory editors" of "Socialist Resistance", the official UK affiliate of one of the Trotskyist Fourth Internationals (descendants of the old IMG). I don't suppose he's a Trotskyist himself. I think he just likes their "ecosocialism" (as they know officially call themselves). He also writes regularly for the Morning Star. So he's a bit eclectic.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Could we cooperate with others in opposing the ongoing curtailment of our freedoms as workers and citizens to organise without mounting threats to that?

No, that would be the thin end of the slippery slope that would lead to the end of our party as a distinct socialist party (as you well know). We'd attract people who were more interested in that than in socialism and end up at best as a group merely opposing the worst aspects of capitalism.The sort of thing we should do is denounce these measures ourselves, along the lines of what we did about 1994 Criminal Justice Act over which a similar fuss was made before it came in.:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1995/no-1085-january-1995/criminal-justice-act-icing-cake

[ALB]

Came across this curiosity when searching for something else:http://another-green-world.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/green-party-candidate-endorsed-by.html

[ALB]

This is amusing:http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-launch-attack-labours-left-5717707So much then of the SNP-Left Labour united front against austerity ?

[ALB]

That's up both in votes and percentage terms, from 1057 to 1324 and from 2.41 to 3.11%. She's SWP, so it looks as if they've got a bit of a mini power base in Tottenham. She was TUSC's second best result, after ex-Labour MP Dave Nellist in Coventry, with 1769 or 3.91%. All the others were under 1000 and 1.6%. In other words, in the same league as us despite their vote-catching reform programme (which, presumably, most people felt/knew wasn't deliverable any more than they thought socialism was feasible at the moment).

[ALB]

TUSC have now produced a list of their results with a commentary:http://www.tusc.org.uk/txt/338.pdfThe last section is headed 'Candidates not in the TUSC umbrella'. It doesn't include us (or Class War), presumably because they don't think that we'd ever agree to (they're right) but, curiously, they include the National Health Action party, a single issue, left-liberal party which did considerably better than them but which would probably never agree to shelter under their umbrella either and would be foolish if they did as that would only lose them votes.

[ALB]

If they planned to introduce something like the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878 in Germany that would be something to get worried about. It starts off:

Quote:

Societies [Vereine] which aim at the overthrow of the existing political or social order through social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors are to be prohibited. This applies also to societies in which social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors aiming at the overthrow of the existing political or social order are manifested in a manner dangerous to the public peace, and, particularly to the harmony among the classes of the population.

That would cover us explicitly.Actually, while it caused great inconvenience to the German Social Democratic movement it didn't work to suppress it and was eventually repealed in 1890, largely because they couldn't stop more and more people voting for the SPD.  That's what would (hopefully) happen if they tried it on the socialist movement here at a later stage.

[ALB]

I would think that this is of more immediate and realistic concern for the working class:https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-bf5d-The-most-vicious-assault-on-basic-labour-rights-anywhere-in-the-West#.VVhMi1KebTQAnd the Tories dare to call themselves "The Workers Party" (mind you Labour dare to call themselves "The Labour Party").

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

I would also suggest the introduction of a limit to the number of posts an individual can make in any 24 hours.

Don't agree with that. That would rule out the cut and thrust of short quickfire responses. More generally, I think we need a lighter rather than a heavier touch, allowing threads to wander a bit off the topic. Srill, I'm not volunteeering !

[ALB]

Neither.

[ALB]

To expect applications to join is a bir premaure, but there have been 50 requests for an information pack and free 3-month trial subscription to the Socialist Standard.

[Author]

Posts