ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Fuzzy83 wrote:My only problem about globalisation is it gives too much power to corporations to exploit workers.For example the main reason people are angry about immigration is because the amount of jobs vs the amount of workers. It creates a even hostile economy for those trying to get a foot on the job ladder.
I'm not sure this can be blamed on globalization as such. It probably has more to do with capitalism going through one of its slumps with increased unemployment meaning more competition for jobs. True, though, globalization — capitalist globalization of course — does place workers in an even weaker position compared to their employers. But the answer is not to try to counter the effects of globalization by trying to retreat behind the frontiers of the so-called nation-state but to move forward to global socialism.
Fuzzy83 wrote:I almost feel sorry for the SWP/UAF and the EDL/BNP because they are caught in a repetitive cycle that solves nothing.I don't know about feeling sorry for them but it's true that street-fighting between these rival gangs gets nowhere.
Fuzzy83 wrote:What are your opinions on the SWP? There is a lot of drama and controversy surrounding them on the left-wing?Not much. We see them as one of a number of vanguardist groups that seek to lead the workers by offering them simple slogans that don't go beyond capitalism because they think workers can't acquire a socialist understanding direectly or on their own.
Fuzzy83 wrote:Do you think EDL members can change if someone like myself spends the time showing them how to unplug from the matrix and see the system for what it is?Of course we think people can change their views, even "fascists" and racists. If we didn't think this we might as well give up.
Fuzzy83 wrote:Is the TUSC a complete out of the EU group like UKIP is or do they want to offer a referendum?It's not so much TUSC that are just another anti-EU group as No2EU, though both are supported by the same people (the RMT union and the old Militant Tendency who now call themselves SPEW). In fact SPEW claims to stand for the "Socialist United States of Europe" rather than an "Independent Britain". I don't think they call for a referendum but if there was one I think they would call for a vote to leave the EU (just as they called for a vote for Scotland to leave the UK).
Fuzzy83 wrote:Personally I believe the EU courts of human rights is something we shouldn't give up too easily because its the only thing stopping us from having another Nazi state.Yes, it is revealing that those who are always preaching "human rights" to other governments should want to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights (which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the EU but is separate). But I don't think it's the only thing stopping us having another Nazi state ! The main thing stopping this is that the vast majority don't want this and wouldn't stand for it.
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/
