[ALB]

And they'd offer us reformism-max which we could reject with contempt.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

The debate was recorded so should be available some time.

Here it is:http://www.mixcloud.com/davidallen3139/insight-with-adam-on-afrobeat-940-fm/Talking starts 5.58 minutes in.Incidentally the "Adam" is the interviewer not me.

[ALB]

Quote:

Quote:

If Scotland leaves the union, "Great Britain" will remain valid as a geographical term. The logical name for what remains will be the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (KEWNI). Ukip could restyle itself KEWNIP.PROFESSOR MARTIN WEST, Oxford.

Anyone for SPKEWNI ?

Just remembered. There would be a precedent. The name of the party Rosa Luxemburg was associated with in Russian Poland was "Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania", or SDKPiL.

[ALB]

Yes, I had a debate on the Scottish referendum with them and a LibDem on a local radio station in East London last night and it was amusing to see the UKIP representative repeat all the arguments for Scotland not withdrawing from the UK (not big enough internal market, not strong enough to survive international competition on its own, etc) as are put against them for wanting the UK to withdraw from the EU. Also, she was so against Scotland being offered a disproportionate amount of money to vote No that she forgot that UKIP has an MEP from Scotland (be interesting to see what he does if there's a Yes vote). The debate was recorded so should be available some time.

[ALB]

Interesting letter in today's Times from an Oxford Professor:

Quote:

Sir, In pondering what the rest of the realm would be called in the event of Scotland's secession, let us be clear about the meaning of the term Great Britain. It was not first instituted, as recently claimed, by James VI of Scotland when he acquired the throne of England; nor does it embody a claim to greatness, as your columnist Alice Thomson (Sept 10) supposes. Gret Britanee was referred to in 1474 in the instrument for the proposed marriage of Edward IV's daughter Cecily to James III of Scotland, and more than three centuries earlier Geoffrey of Monmouth used the term Britannia maior for the island of Britain as opposed to Britannia minor, which was Brittany.If Scotland leaves the union, "Great Britain" will remain valid as a geographical term. The logical name for what remains will be the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (KEWNI). Ukip could restyle itself KEWNIP.PROFESSOR MARTIN WEST, Oxford.

Anyone for SPKEWNI ? 

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think YMS may well be leading us to a place we do not want to be…Class interests are class interests…not sections or part of the class…not individual material interests. Class interests must be viewed in global terms, not national or regional terms or occupational/industrial terms.

I don't know what you mean. Where don't we want to be?

[ALB]

The other interesting thing about the campaign from the socialist point of view is confirmation of our argument that if you want reforms a better way to get them than reformism is to demand revolution. The SNP demands "revolution", i.e. independence, and when it looks as if they might win the ruling class offers more reforms within the system, so-called devo-max, to try to buy off the movement. Maybe in fact that's even what Salmond wanted from the start.

[ALB]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I think we should be concerned about what is being said on our Facebook by members of the Partyhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocialism/10152727706882700/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

Not necessarily. At last a debate amongst members on some political issue instead of the procedural matters that have dominated conferences and ADMs in recent years (and must be at least partially responsible for falling attendences, though maybe the internet is the new forum for debates). But a bit late. Our branch tried to get a discussion going on the Scottish referendum at this year's Conference but without much success.It is true that one thing we couldn't have anticipated then was that there is going to be a big turn-out. Which can't be a bad thing as it shows that when there is something to vote about that workers, rightly or wrongly, feel concerned about they will turn out to vote and in fact there is a sense that it will be a "historic" vote in political terms as a "yes" vote will change history. So, we can be confident that when socialism is really on the agenda workers will turn out to vote and ignore the anarchists and other anti-parliamentarists (or "andy pandies" as Glasgow branch call them). A high turn could be the one positive outcome.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Robert Fisk on the Irish/Scottish independence comparisons http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/scottish-independence-ireland-since-1919-is-a-lesson-for-scotland-in-what-a-yes-vote-means-9727596.html

What happened after Ireland got "independence" is indeed relevant to the debate in Scotland today but the subheading to the article is highly tendentious (though Fisk himself may not be responsible for it).

Quote:

Scottish Independence: Ireland since 1919 is a lesson for Scotland in what a Yes vote means.The last divorce from the United Kingdom was painful and acrimonious, but ended in harmony and prosperity.

What happened in Ireland after "independence" in 1922 is indeed a lesson for the debate in Scotland today, but the sub-heading is highly tentendious (though Fisk himself may not have been responsible for it).Things are ok today but it took working class conditions in Ireland some 50 years to catch up with those in the rest of British Isles. To start with, things got worse, as the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Ireland, our companion party there noted in 1949:

Quote:

But so far as the working class were concerned all that was accomplished by the achieving of national independence and self-government for 26 of the 32 Irish counties was a change of masters. The boss-worker relationship remained, though the British left; and the first Irish (Free State) Government soon settled down to its job of administering capitalism in the interest of its masters, the property-owning class of that part of Ireland.The conditions of the working class during the first ten years of the "Irish Free State" became apparently no better — in fact, deteriorated.

See from page 7 on of the pamphlet here. It gets worseA case could even be made out for saying that the working class in Ireland would have been better off if the 26 counties hadn't broken away as this meant that they were excluded from the social reforms which the British State could afford but which the Irish State could'.t. In any event, it's a travesty to say that "independence" brought "prosperity " to Ireland.

[ALB]

I'm not sure about that. Haven't most people already seen through the effing Labour Party (as we can now call the parliamentary parties) including those who vote for it, i.e they vote for it without illusions. So no need for us to spell out that the Labour Party won't do anything for workers any more than any other party.

[ALB]

I see there's a Party member on our Facebook page arguing for a Yes vote:

Quote:

The problem is, world socialism is not on the agenda. The choice is between yes and no for Scotland. If you spoil the ballot paper, it's not voting. Which aids and abets the status quo. A status quo which isn't in the interests of the working class of Scotland. If Scotland votes Yes, it would unleash a political demon. The spectre that Marx envisaged.

Quote:

Cannot believe Scottish socialists (members of Socialist Party of Former Great Britain) think they are doing right by not voting Yes

It is true that a Yes vote, resulting in the breakup of Britain, would result is a political crisis, a constitutional crisis, a fiscal crisis and an economic crisis, but I would have thought that this was a reason for not wanting the Yes side to win. I don't think we need to care about the first three types of crisis but it's workers who are always the victims of an economic crisis, so why provoke one when there's no need for one? I doubt, too, that the effect of these crises would be favourable for the spread of socialist ideas. I would expect them to exacerbate nationalist prejudices and tensions in both Scotland and England.I still say that, from a reformist/trade union point of view (effect on workers standard of living within capitalism) there is no case for Yes. It definitely won't make things better. The SNP's promises of free this and free that, better this and better that are just the usual politicians empty vote-catching promises. At best it will make no difference but I think the evidence is that it would risk making things worse and probably would. Actually, workers in Scotland seem to realise this as, according to the same opinion poll Alan mentions:

Quote:

Almost half of Scots, 48 per cent, now think that an independent country would be worse off overall … Similarly 45 per cent think that an independent Scotland would make them personally financially worse off.

I agreewith Matt  that the No campaign has made a big mistake to bus up English politicians to fake a "passionate" British nationalism. They should have left it to business leaders to announce their contingency plans in the event of a Yes vote. That would have done the trick for them better.Anyway, we are socialists and have adopted the only possible socialist policy of not taking sides and casting a write-in vote for world socialism.  I say only possible but when we first discussed this I did float the idea of voting No and writing World Socialism across the ballot paper to show our rejection of Scottish nationalism as well as support for World Socialism but there were no takers apart from a comrade from Wales who had done this in the referendum a few years ago on whether or not to set ip a Welsh Assembly..

[ALB]

I see the Conservatives too are considering changing their name because of the Scottish referendum to ET … Effing Tories.

[ALB]

I'm not sure that these are all scare stories. Of course the British State's Establishment doesn't want Scotland to breakaway because this would diminish their clout on the world stage and are no doubt exaggerating the economic consequences. But there will be such consequences which will have unfavourable consequences for workers. I suspect many workers realise this (and why I am confident No will win).If Scotland had been separate at the time of the 2008 crash they would have suffered the same fate as Iceland as they would have been unable to have bailed out the banks established there. As Left Keynesian Michael Roberts put it in that blog I mentioned:

Quote:

Both Ireland and Iceland were brought their knees by an oversized banking sector that took ‘hot money’ and relent it recklessly to destruction. The banks were bailed out in Ireland at huge and continuing cost to Irish households. Iceland was forced to devalue, creating sky-high inflation and it had to negotiate a deal for repaying lost bank deposits with the UK and Holland, again at a huge loss to the living standards of its small community (see my post, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/icelands-electors-how-ungrateful/). Scotland would face the same issue.

The banks are preparing to leave because they know an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to bail them out.I spoke to one member in Scotland and he told me he hoped that No would win because he was afraid of what would happen to his savings if Yes won. Are you putting your money where your mouth is and leaving your savings in Scotland? I wouldn't advise it.

[ALB]

I was almost (well, almost almost) convinced of the case for voting No on "economistic" grounds — that a breakaway state would disrupt ordinary people's lives and risk making them worse off — when the No campaign decided to play the British card, revealing that it was a contest between Scottish and British nationalism as we'd said it was all along.  I still think workers in Scotland would be mugs to vote Yes. though. Salmon is coming across more and more as a nasty little nationalist of the populist kind. I have to confess that I am looking forward to seeing the look on his face when he loses.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The case presented by the SLP against a parliament in socialism is not simply one of power but also of competence.But ALB is well aware of this since he transcribed the article for the internethttps://www.marxists.org/archive/paul-william/articles/1918/11/melting.htm

Here's another transcribed article from the Marxist Internet Archives, also concerning William Paul. It's typical of the polemics that used to go on at that time (and for some time after) between the the SPGB and the SLP.http://www.marxists.org/archive/fitzgerald/paulbook.htmThe relevant part to the discussion here is the second part, especially where the idea of forming now, when most workers are non-socialist, the economic organisation to run production in socialism is criticised. Note that the need for such organisation in the future is not denied:

Quote:

In addition to the claim that the Industrial Union furnished the “might” and “power” to overthrow capitalism, the S.L.P. claimed that these unions were the “embryo” of the Socialist Republic; that they provided the “framework” or “skeleton” of Socialism.This silly and childish “Utopianism” the absurdity of which we exposed long ago, would hardly require notice here but for the change of attitude that is now adopted. To lay down here and now the details of what the organisation of production will be under Socialism is on a par with Bellamy’s Looking Backward.In the first place we have no means of knowing at what particular step in the development of capitalist production and methods a sufficient number of the working class will be converted to Socialism to carry through the revolution. The details of the economic organisation must depend upon the particular stage of development at that period. Moreover, the majority of the working class will then be Socialists—otherwise the attempt at revolution will be a fiasco—and they will have the requisite knowledge and ability to construct their economic organisation in conformity with the conditions then prevailing. It is, therefore, easy to see how foolish is the attempt to settle now the details of an organisation that will be called upon to act then. Even when the I.W.W. was first launched we pointed out that capitalism then was outgrowing the “Industrial” sub-division and large combinations of capitalists were controlling whole groups of industries. The increase of this factor that has since taken place and which looks as though it will extend still faster under the form of National and Municipal control as a result of the war adds further strength to this point. In addition it has to be remembered that economic organisations formed now have to fight the battles of wages and conditions of employment now. But to do so with any hope of success they must enrol as many as possible of workers in the particular businesses they are dealing with. This means the enrolment of Socialists (a small number of the workers at present) along with the passive and active anti-Socialists, all in the same union. This fact shows the utter impossibility of forming a Socialist economic organisation until a majority of the workers in a particular occupation have been converted to Socialism. Hence the farcical failure of the various attempts to form “Industrial Unions” before a sufficient number of the workers have accepted these particular teachings.In the book now under review the question of Industrial Unionism takes so subordinate a place and is so watered down, compared with the former claims of the S.L.P., that if the term “Industrial Unionism” were left out the ordinary reader of the Socialist would fail to recognise this attitude as being the one taken up by the S.L.P. How much has been given up the following quotation will show:"We see, therefore, that the function of the future administration of society will be industrial. The constructive element in the social revolution will be the action of the Industrial Union seizing the means of production in order to administer the wants of the community. True to the dictum of social science, that the embryo of the future social system must be nourished within the womb of the old system, the revolutionary Socialist movement sets out to build up within capitalism the industrial organisation of the workers which will carry on the administrative work under Socialism on behalf of the community. Thus Industrial Unionism is the constructive weapon in the coming social revolution."(Pages 197-8.)This very general and greatly modified position of the S.L.P.’s claims for Industrial Unionism shows how far they have come—implicitly, at any rate—to admit the correctness of our attitude on economic organisation. What the title of the future economic organisation will be is really guess-work now and is only of small importance, though the misleading, anti-Socialist, and Utopian associations covered by the term “Industrial Unionism” will certainly go far to discredit it in the minds of the workers as they become Socialists. Much more educational work requires to be done, however, before such an organisation can be started, for it is only as the workers learn that they are slaves, and clearly grasp that the essential factor in their emancipation is the control of political power, that they will build up the Socialist organisations, political and economic, necessary for the establishment of Socialism.The nucleus of the political organisation exists now in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The economic organisation cannot be started until numbers fulfilling the conditions laid down above have been converted to Socialism.

[Author]

Posts