ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There are clearly some interesting ideas circulating in the area but I wonder how widespread they are. I remember "left communists" getting worked up by the formation of "workers' councils" in Iraqi Kurdistan in the uprising there against the Saddam regime in 1991. For instance:http://www.campin.me.uk/Politics/kurdistan/shoras.htmlWe know that there is nothing particularly remarkable about "workers councils" and that they tend to emerge in conditions where there has not been any local government structure (and that they are not necessarily politically acceptable — witness the 1974 Ulster Workers Council). But at least they show that workers are capable of taking things in hand.We had a member who came from Iraqi Kurdistan who had previously been a member of the Workers Communist Party of Iraq. He is no longer a member and is now back there. His account of politics in Iraqi Kurdistan was that it was dominated by two clans and that you had to show support for one or the other if you wanted a government job or other favour. (He said the best solution was to join both). I notice from watching TV that the head of the government there is called Barzani and that the man in charge of the armed forces there is also called Barzani (his son, I think).I would think that Kurdish nationalism is the dominating ideology in the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria. Not half as bad, I agree, as the barbarian ideology of the Islamists.
Here's Zizek's comment on Piketty:
Quote:As with everyone I of course admire Piketty's book. But I think that his solution, raising the taxes for the rich, is utopian. Why? For two reasons. First, Piketty is very clear about this point. He think capitalism is the only system that works. So he wants to keep the capitalist dynamics but just make it more just through higher taxes. I think in today's global capitalism you cannot do this. So would have to have some kind of global government which would be able to impose these higher taxes universally. But if we have this then we, radical left, already won. Then we no longer live in the same capitalist world. So Piketty's solution presupposes that we already won.Next point: even if, let us say, some social democratic government were to introduce higher taxes, in order to elect and maintain this measure other changes will have to follow. You cannot have capitalism the way we have it, just with higher taxes. And here I see the problem. I am more of a pessimist – this doesn't just go for Piketty, this goes for Paul Krugman, Joseph Stieglitz and so on. Yes, we should begin with what they propose, but we should be aware that this is just the beginning. And the problem is what comes next. Where much tougher measures are needed.It's here. Scroll down to entry for 8 October at 2.59 pm.
gnome wrote:2008 Conference resolution wrote:It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely. This resolution supersedes the 1986 and 1988 Conference resolutions respecting the use of the Party's names."(emphasis added)
Young Master Smeet wrote:….where confusion is unlikely to occur.The possibility of confusion occuring is always likely. See here, for a very recent example:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11077637/Ukips-radio-rant-candidate-Elizabeth-Jones-worse-than-Katie-Hopkins.html
This is a defeatist argument. Next you'll be arguing that we should not call ourselves "The Socialist Party of Great Britain" either because the possibility of confusion with a similarly named organisation will always be likely. In fact, whatever we call ourselves, the "possibility" (not a word that occurs in the resolution) of confusion will "always" exist.When people try to steal your name you've got to make a stand at some point. You seem prepared to hoist the white flag and surrender the name "The Socialist Party" to the ex-Miliitant Trotskyists. Like the late Rev Inane Paisley, I say "No Surrender" and "Never, never, never".They are the confusionists. We should challenge them every time they use our name (I did in a comment on that news item sent to the Daily Telegraph) not roll over and let them have the name. They are not the Socialist Party. We are. They are not even socialists.
The last fifty years? The only thing that comes to mind is the incorporation of ecological theory. You could add, even though they were first put forward in the previous thirty years (but they were refined and developed, especially the first, in the 1950s and 60s)(a) the cultural criticism of capitalism of the Frankfurt School, i.e criticism of the poor quality as well as the lack of quantity (material poverty) of life under capitalism.(b) the theory of state capitalism and of a collective owning and exploiting class on the basis of them monopolising the state where the means of production are state owned.
I think we need to draw a distinction between our "emblem" on the ballot paper (which is an immediate issue) and a general logo (which has been discussed for over 20 years without being able to come to a decision).We are registered with the Electoral Commission to contest elections under our full name of "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". They will not let us use or register as a variant "The Socialist Party". What we can use (and do) is "The Socialist Party (GB)". I suppose, because we have registered "World Socialist Movement" as a variant, we might be able to get away with our emblem saying "The Socialist Party World Socialist Movement". Also, we are entitled to register three different "emblems", so we could register both.This is an immediate issue that needs resolving before next year's general election and cannot wait for a Conference resolution but we could get an indicative vote at ADM in a couple of weeks. Unlike the less immediate but still important issue of a general logo and the not at all immediate issue of a complete change of name.
Trouble is that since the first space flight cosmonauts noticed that longitude lines could not be seen from space
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.
