ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think Hedges must have read the May/June 2014 edition of Radical Philosophy where the passages from Blanqui will have been quoted::https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/auguste-blanqui-heretical-communisthttps://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/blanquis-bifurcationshttps://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/the-radical-gapThe passages he quotes from Blanqui' aren't up to much either.
What a load of crap (Hedges's article) and pretentious with it. But it does say he's a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. If he's not a miserable Protestant he sounds like one!. Pity because some of his other stuff has been ok. Don't think he can be trusted on Blanqui either since he says that Blanqui was involved in the Paris Commune (he would have liked to have been but was in prison elsewhere) and he doesn't give any source for the quotes.PS. Just looked him up on wikipedia and he's a Presbyterian minister. So I guessed right.
The other one is just as bad:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/labour-relationship-business-yvette-cooper-party-leadership-corporation-taxThey have to be pro-business of course. Labour supports capitalism as it is and, given a large private sector, it is private businesses pursuing profits that drives the economy. Being pro-capitalist and anti-business doesn't make sense. So, they've got to let business have its way, as in fact when it power they've always done., putting profits before meeting people's needs.
Just got back from an Indian restaurant where I ordered "non vegetarian thali". What's the world coming to when normal food is described as "non-vegetarian"?
Yes. And it's maintained by their continuing support for it. The ruling class can't just switch it off. Political democracy is not just a matter of laws. It's a reflection of a level of political consciousness already attained.By the way, what's that Nazi site you refer us to? I agree they should be concerned about these new laws being used against them. We'd oppose that too.
Before the scaremongering and speculation here gets out of hand, here's a more balanced view of what is likely to be proposed:http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/prospector-blog/what-does-theresa-mays-extremism-crackdown-involve Extremism as "the ideology which drives terrorists". Hardly a definition that could include us by any strength of the imagination. Still an infringement of free speech, though.
Vin wrote:Do we seek to end 'parliamentary democracy ' ?No.
Vin wrote:The 'freedom of the market' ?Yes, but where does the proposed legislation say it will be a crime to advocate the end of the "freedom of the market"?
Vin wrote:Do we not seek the revolutionary overthrow of Britain and 'British values'?Yes.
Vin wrote:The legistlation would give the state the power and the legal means to shut the party down.They've already got that legal power.
Vin wrote:Whether they use that power we will have to wait and see. See if 'our enemies' defend us.Oh dear, all is lost !
Vin wrote:Alb, that sounds like the establishment line. Do you really believe that . If the state has a law to shut revolutionaries up and stop them communicating, it will.Miners were charged en masse with criminal damage, riot, breach of the peace, assault and obstruction, to name a few. The Government will use existing laws against the workers' organisationsOf courese as long as the capitalist class control the state that's par for the course. But the lesson is not that we should join with some people who support capitalism to try to stop those in control of the state trying to give it new powers of repression but to emphasise the need for workers to win control of the state so that it can't be used againstthem and us. That's what we should be stirring up ! Unfortunately we seem to be on our own about this as nearly all the other genuine socialists around are opposed to trying to take control of the state out of capitalist hands.
Seven of the candidates and 3 of the election agents were there and discussed the election campaign and the vote and various documents that had been submitted for the meeting. There will be a Conference Proceedings type report in due course but give the minute-taker a break. He's at Wembley at the moment watching Preston play Swindon for promotion the Second Division (or whatever it's called now).
Sorry but I don't follow the logic of your argument. The Stalinists whatever they say are not opposed to capitalism, so in opposing capitalism we are not joining with them. The SWP, on the other hand, will be genuinely opposed to the proposed Tory laws though for quite different reasons to ours. Also of course, as is being suggested, we don't have to join with anybody to oppose the proposed law. We just (say we) oppose it.
Vin wrote:Which is why I draw attention to the proposed legistlation. Some members seem to think we are not 'extremists', which I finding amusing.That wasn't what we were saying. We were pointing out that, although we could in theory be legally classified as "extremists", this proposed law was not aimed at us and was not at all likely to be used against us.Passing a law is one thing. Implementing it is another as public opinion has to be taken into account. This proposed law is aimed at Islamist extremists and will be able to be implemented because there is widespread public support for it. That widespread support does not exist for using it against the likes of us.Denounce it? Why not? As it's aimed at "non-violent extremists" it is an infringement of the principle of free speech which we have always upheld.Join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law? I don't think so, especially as the most vocal of them will be supporters of Islamist extremists like the SWP crying "Islamophobia". And remember of course that the Islamist extremists if they got power wouldn't simply ban us; they'd behead us.(Even so we defend their right to say we should be beheaded, but drawing the line at them actually doing it.) Best leave this sort of thing to Liberty. That's what they're for.Incidentally, it appears that there is also opposition to it within the government itself and the civil service:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11622552/Theresa-Mays-proposal-to-censor-TV-was-opposed-by-cabinet-colleague-leaked-letter-reveals.html
I can't see how we can (or do) say that going through parliament is the only possible way to socialism. It's the obvious, the easiest, the least messy, and the most openly democratic way to do it and that's why we advocate it and criticise those who say we should ignore or try to by-pass the state. But if, once there's a majority in favour of socialism, the ruling class foolishy and suicidally were to decide to suspend parliament this can't and wouldn't prevent the establishment of socialism. It would just make it take a little longer and be messy but it would happen. In this hypothetical scenario I'd imagine mass strikes and civil and military disobedience would have to be resorted to instead to dislodge the ruling class. But this is all hypothetical. What we can say is absolutely essential is a majority desire for socialism.
Incidentally, I don't think it's true that the Party held our annual conference there till at least 1974. I think the last time will have been sometime before the war (that of 1939-45, that is). Somebody should ask the site on what they base their statement.
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.
