[ALB]

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 !

[ALB]

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' organisations

Of 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.

[ALB]

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).

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[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 ?

[Author]

Posts