ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
BTSomerset wrote:seeing as hardly anyone outside 'hard left' politics has heard of the SPGB,
Actually we are known well outside the hard left. Amongst the soft left too and beyond them to people who are interested in politics generally and of course labour historians. And there are many other writers, essayists and bloggers like the one Vin has drawn attention to on another thread some of whom will be ex-members. I agree that this is still only a small percentage of the population in general but it's the same minority which would be interested at first in some new (ly named) party. So why throw away the progress we have already made in getting known amongst such people?It would be bonkers to change our name and throw all this away. I mentioned before what I think is the way forward. It's to keep our official name (with its history) but emphasise more that we are part of a World Socialist Movement, a name we have also registered with the Electoral Commission and used on the ballot paper for the recent Euroelections.We have also registered "World Socialist Party (UK)" as a variant of our name and so could use this on the ballot paper now without having to change our full name.The words "World Socialism" are also on the emblem, to go against our candidates' name on the ballot paper, which is presently under consideration and which will also be registered with the Electoral Commission.It could be something like this:In any event, if we are going to have an emblem on the ballot paper (which we've not had before though we could have) for next year's general election we'll have to use some compromise like this, if only because we've not got the time before then to go through all the Conference Resolutions, Party Meetings and Party Polls that trying to change the party's name would involve.
Surprisingly the person who came nearest to this was a representative of the bankers who complained:
Quote:Ruth Lea, economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, says the phrase "the top 1%" should always take wealth into account."When it gets into the press, it's about earnings rather than wealth. It is not what I believe to be the concept of rich."Many people would assume the top 1% are all bankers but it also includes landowners and long-standing family businesses, she says."In a society like ours, which is still class-ridden, there's an amazing acceptance of extremely wealthy people who have inherited the wealth. They don't come in for the criticism that the likes of Bob Diamond (chief executive of Barclays Bank) comes in for.She's right. Inequality of wealth ownership is more fundamental than inequality of income.Actually, I thought it was a useful article.
Half way to where? To forming a Labour Party Mark 2 to fail in the 21st century just as the existing Labour Party failed in the 20th century! Personally, I don't think he'll go very far in that direction any more than Len McCluskey will. More interesting is whether the RMT will drop its support for TUSC, leading to the demise of yet another reformist outfit and leaving SPEW's strategy in tatters.Anyway, here's SPEW's comment on the result:http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/19321/01-10-2014/continuing-bob-crows-legacy-after-rmt-electionWe've come across politically a couple of the losing candidates: Steve Hedley (who called us Mensheviks at one TUSC election meeting) and Alex Gordon (who headed the petty nationalist No2EU list in London in the recent Euroelections).
I like the quote too, even though I can't see Harry quoting Gramsci. Far too pretentious. In fact does anyone know if it is really a quote from Gramsc?. Perhaps it's a quote from Harry.On the other hand, I can imagine Harry saying this:
Quote:He captivated the small audience by way of an account of the progression of his life across continents and epochs, and the people he met at socialist world congresses, including Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and Stalin – though Bukharin was by far the one he would have preferred to meet down the pub for a pint.I agree that Bukharin would have been the best of this bad bunch !
People are missing the point (as well as going round in circles). We don't need to change our name. Just use a different version of it. In fact I think we've found a good enough solution which gives us the best of both worlds: our legal name remains "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"; we normally call ourselves "The Socialist Party"; and we add "World Socialist Movement" when appropriate.What needs to be resisted is the temptation to reintroduce the full name as our usual name, which some comrades haven't been able to resist (witness the recent votes to reintroduce it on the front page of the Socialist Standard and on the fascia of Head Office). That's nostalgia rather than presenting ourselves in the best way.
I agree. I'm sure we wouldn't. But there are other organisations that have. For example this one founded in 1985.They lost a recent court battle to protect their name.Another possible legal battle over a name is TUSC:http://www.tusc.co.uk/
I think you are right. I hadn't realised this before but as a geographical term "Great Britain" refers only to the main island in the British Isles, i. e excluding, as you say the over 1000 smaller islands surrounding it as well as the island of Ireland. At least that's what wikipedia says:
Quote:Great Britain also known as Britain /'br?.t?n/, is an island in the North Atlantic off the north-west coast of continental Europe. The island has an area of 229,848 km2 (88,745 sq mi), and is the largest island of the British Isles, the largest island in Europe and the ninth-largest in the world.With a population of about 61 million people in 2011, it is the third-most populous island in the world, after Java (Indonesia) and Honshu (Japan). It is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands.The island of Ireland lies to its west.The island is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, constituting most of its territory: most of England, Scotland, and Wales are on the island, with their respective capital cities, London, Edinburgh, and Cardiff. Politically, Great Britain commonly refers to the island together with a number of surrounding islands, which constitute the territory of England, Scotland, and Wales.So the "Great Britain" in our title obviously refers to the political unit. Of course the "Great" in the political title still has a geographical connotation rather than being about illusions of grandeur even though that's not how many British nationalists see it.Another pub quiz question and answer is: What do Irish nationalists call the "British Isles". The Atlantic Archipelago.
Fuzzy83 wrote:At the moment I am in favor of non-profit enterprise where people can be invited to work together and reap the collective benefits. I'm looking into an IT workshop and a community farm.This wouldn't really be socialism, but only one way of surviving within the capitalist system, an alternative to working for a wage for some employer especially if you can't find one to take you on. But the "commanding heights" of the economy would still remain capitalist and this would affect and severely limit these small, marginal co-operatives.In fact, in legal terms, "not-for-profit" does not mean that such enterprises don'thave to seek to make a profit, but that any profit made has to be ploughed back into the business and cannot be distributed to individuals. They do have to make a profit, however small, just to survive. And of course, being in capitalism, they have to sell whatever they produce or whatever service they provide, and this in competition with other enterprises producing for the same market.The fact is that there is no way-out within the money-wages-profit system. The only lasting way forward is to make all natural and industrial resources the common property of all (or of nobody, the same thing) so that they can be used to turn out what people need and the application of the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". The end not only of production for profit but of working for wages, the market and money. In short, socialism.
jondwhite wrote:Interesting that this BNP decline is also attributed to the minor successes of UKIP and not any antifa activity.Good point. Alternately, Unite Against Fascism, SWP, etc have suceeded in their campaign to stop the BNP by urging people at elections to vote for any party except the BNP. Many have by voting for UKIP instead. Now they have to campaign against UKIP instead.
Capitalism being a world system, its replacement, socialism, can only be that too of course. The fact that capitalism is a world system is one reason why national governments are unable to reform it to make it work for the benefit of all but have to give in to world market pressures to give priority to profits and profit-making, inevitably to the detriment of the majority who depend for a living on having to find an employer to pay them a wage or salary.
One from yesterday's London Evening Standard:Like most men with broken legs, he was philosophical.LBird won't like the answer.
Quote:Apparently Left Unity have written to Class War to discuss their respective plans for next May's General Election:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/left-unity-requests-election-talks-with-class-war/There's telling them:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/class-war-rejects-left-unitys-request-for-election-talks/
I see Ian Bone's Class War Party will be contesting it:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/holly-smith-will-fight-rochester-and-strood-for-class-war/
From a report of the recent meeting of LU's national council:
Quote:Election sub-committee report and any related motions. Tom Walker moved the report from the Elections sub-committee. He outlined the 15 responses received so far from branches regarding plans to stand in the General Election. Seats that may be considered included Hackney, Lambeth, West London, Brighton, Stockport and Bristol. He suggested there would be a maximum of 12, and called for fully democratic selections. He added that target seats would enable LU to discuss with others on the left – what he didn’t mention, at any time, was the Conference resolution agreed on LU being part of the largest ever left challenge in the 2015 General Election! During the discussion, Norwich announced they were considering standing in the General Election , and Leicester in the Council elections onlyOnly 12 seats! We could match that but then we're not claiming to be the leftwing equivalent of UKIP.. Further proof that they are in the same league as us (Third Division South by the look of it).Note that their candidates would be up against Socialist opposition in Lambeth and Brighton as we'll be standing there too.
