ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I see the Conservatives too are considering changing their name because of the Scottish referendum to ET … Effing Tories.
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.
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.
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.htmHere'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.SocialistPunk wrote:It's pretty obvious why no mention of parliament is spoken of, as in Britain, it wasn't until 1918 all men over twenty one got the vote and 1928 that all women over twenty one got the vote.So as parliament was not the route of obvious choice for the workers to bring about socialism in 1904, does anyone know what the SPGB had in mind then?I don't think that that is correct. There are, in the end, only two ways to gain control of political power: the ballot box or an armed uprising. Since the early party didn't contemplate an armed uprising the only alternative was the ballot box. The early party accepted that adult suffrage would be best but argued that, even on the basis of the restricted franchise of the time, the working class made up a majority of voters and so could win control of the state via elections and parliament if they wanted to. This reply to a correspondent from the November 1913 Socialist Standard explains this:
Quote:We have received the following questions from Mr. John Drysdale. Our reply is appended.(1) Would you kindly let me know your attitude toward Adult Suffrage?(2) Do you think the working class have a majority at the ballot box with the franchise they have now?(3) Do you think the working class should use the franchise they have got in their own interests before the Socialist Party should fight for more? (1) Our attitude towards Adult Suffrage is as follows :While Adult Suffrage would be a useful measure for the working class, to enable them to more quickly and completely take control of political power when they understand how to use their votes, yet as the working class have a franchise wide enough for the initial steps of their emancipation, it is not the business of a Socialist Party to spend time and energy in advocating the extension of that franchise, but to educate the workers in how to use the voting power which they already possess; hence the business of a Socialist Party is to advocate Socialism only.(2) The working class are overwhelmingly in the majority at the ballot box, as is shown by the following figures :According to "White Paper" No. 478 on " Parliamentary Constituencies (electors)" for 1913, there are 8,058,025 voters on the Register. Of these 4,895,840 are in the Counties and 3,111,062 in the Boroughs, while the remaining 51,123 are University electors.In the Counties the Owners number 637,608, the Occupiers 4,086,829, and the Lodgers 171,402.In the Boroughs the Freeholders and Freemen number 54,854, Occupiers 2,824,923, and Lodgers 231,285.It may be accepted that the Owners, Freeholders, and University electors are members of the capitalist class. They number 743,585.The Lodgers may be taken as members of the working class, the few exceptions to the contrary in this case being probably balanced by the few very small property owners in the first case, and they number 402,687.We have left, the Occupiers, who number 5,911,752. Who are the Occupiers? An answer is found by looking at the rent of private houses is given in the In. Rev. Report. Of the 1,473,214 houses that come under their survey only 1,088,631 are of the yearly rental of £25 and upwards. It is a poor capitalist whose house is not estimated at more than £25 per annum, while plenty of slum property is rented above his amount. In addition, many houses that are let out in tenements are returning a total rental of £60 or £70 a year. Still others are Occupiers under the Service Franchise who are servants.We will, however, suppose that all the occupiers of Houses of £25 and upwards are members of the capitalist class, even then we get:Total Electorate …… 8,058,025Owners, Freeholders, University Electors and Capitalist Occupiers 1,832,216Working-class Occupiers & Lodgers 6,225,809 Or more than 3 to 1.(3) Certainly. In whose interest should they se it if not in their own ? It would be absurd to urge them to use it in anyone else's interest.The full article is here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1913/no-111-november-1913/franchise-questionsSee also this manifesto for one of the 1910 general elections:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-76-december-1910/general-election-our-manifesto-workers
Vin Maratty wrote:Perhap the party should commission a survey to find out the effect the inclusion of 'Great Britain' has on the perceptions of the party?We had this discussion in the 1980s and the solution that emerged:1. The retain the full name of "The Socialist Party of Great Britain" for legal anf international contexts.2. To call ourselves "The Socialist Party" for propaganda purposes (meetings, elections, adverts).3. To use "World Socialist Movement" more.To try to unravel this by changing (1) will just stir up introversy. And be unnecessary as the "Great Britishers" have already lost the argument as well as the vote. What could be done would be apply (2) and (3) more strictly and more consistently. In most contexts members should already not be referring to us as "The Socialisr Party of Great Britain".
Surely concerns over "power" are more an anarchist concept whereas Marxists are more concerned about "ownership". When you argue with them an important part of their case, for instance, against using parliament is that socialist MPs would inevitably abuse this position and betray the workers. But why "inevitably"? Only if you think that there is some propensity for humans to want to exercise some power of others, i.e, the human nature argument.It is the same in socialism. Why would those elected or delegated to positions in socialism abuse or want to abuse their positions? In fact, how could they? With everyone having free access to what they needed they wouldn't be able to allocate themselves any material privileges. And they wouldn't have any armed forces at their disposal to enforce their will.Having said this, of course I'm all in favour of checks and balances on elected people or delegates, eg shorter terms, rotation, recall, regular reportback meetings, etc. That's part of what a genuine democracy is and socialism will be a participatory democracy. It's just that I think the danger of abuse of "power" may be exaggerated and that therefore we won't need to prioritise direct democracy as the ideal to be resorted to as much as possible.Anarchists see this as the ideal because they don't want individuals to have to "obey" any decision that they haven't taken part in deciding. I agree with YMS on this one. I don't want to wake up every morning in socialism and switch on my computer to be confronted with hundreds of decisions to vote on. I'm prepared to delegate all but the most important to elected councils and committees and get on living my life rather than voting all the time.
I thought I'd look up the position of the old Socialist Labor Party of America (now more or less defunct) on this issue. Here is what they said in Socialist Industrial Unionism: The Workers' Power by Eric Hass, first issued in 1940 (but this is from the 1977 edition):
Quote:The mission of the political party of labor may be briefly stated:1. It is to agitate, educate, clarify the issue and lay bare the true nature of the class struggle;2. It is to place the issue of collective ownership squarely before the people by adopting a platform based on this single demand and by nominating candidates to contest elective offices; finally3. It is to complete its mission the moment its candidates are elected, by adjourning the political State sine die and by itself disbanding.According to the biblical tale, Samson destroyed himself when he destroyed the Temple of the Philistines. Except for the fact that Samson was blind and the political party of labor has its eyes wide open, the parable holds. Instead of taking office to govern, the candidates of the political party of labor will take office only to abolish political office. It captures to destroy, in the same sense that a conquering army captures, only to destroy, the fortifications of the vanquished foe, though blood and treasures were poured out to secure possession of these fortifications. The political State is the robber citadel of capitalism, and can serve capitalist purposes only. The political State is a weapon of suppression and oppression — a weapon designed to enable the skinners to keep in subjection the class that is being skinned. The true Industrial Union is a tool designed to direct the processes of production for socially useful purposes. Hence the victorious workers will turn the reins of government over to the administrative councils of the Socialist Industrial Union!In other words, quite similar to LBird's scenario except that power is to be handed to the "Socialist Industrial Unions" rather than to "Workers' Councils" and they don't mention the armed forces.It is obvious that the SLP and us came from the same stable and outsiders might not notice the subtle differences in our position (but both them and us did at the time!), I still think they are wrong, if only because they are advocating a species of syndicalism.
Article on Islam as non-socialist and pro-capitalist here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1214-october-2005/islam-and-socialismSome modern currency cranks like Islam because of its supposed opposition to interest (supposed, because it's all hypocrisy as Islam accepts interest under another name).http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1257-may-2009/cooking-books-1-theology-interestOn the other hand it is true that there's nothing of interest is Islam.
You live and learn. Or do you? Here's what wikipedia says about Great and Little (or Lesser) Britain:
Quote:Brittany (French: Bretagne [bʁə.taɲ] ; Breton: Breizh, pronounced [brɛjs] or [brɛχ];[1] Gallo: Bertaèyn, pronounced [bəʁ.taɛɲ]) is a cultural region in the north-west of France. Covering the western part of Armorica, as it was known during the period of Roman occupation, Brittany subsequently became an independent kingdom and then a duchy before being united to the Kingdom of France in 1532 as a province. Brittany has also been referred to as Less, Lesser or Little Britain (as opposed to Great Britain).(…)The word "Brittany", and its French, Breton, and Gallo equivalents "Bretagne", "Breizh" and "Bertaèyn" derive from the Latin Britannia, which means "Britons' land". This word has been used by the Romans since the 1st century to name Great Britain, and more specifically the Roman province of Britain. This word derives from a Greek word, Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) or Βρεττανίαι (Brettaniai), used by Pytheas, an explorer from Massalia who visited the British Islands around 320 BCE.(…)After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, many Britons settled in the Western part of Armorica, and the region started to be called Brittania. However, the name Armorica persisted for some centuries, and it had not fully disappeared until the 5th century.[10] Later, authors like Geoffrey of Monmouth used the terms Britannia minor and Britannia major to distinguish Brittany from Britain.At least this means that a revived socialist party in Ireland would not have to call itself the Socialist Party of Little Britain.The other ironic thing of course is that the present-day descendants of the Ancient Britons would be the Welsh not the English.
Blog item here analysing from a Left Keynesian point of view (that the blogger imagines to be Marxian) the possible economic consequences of the implementation of a yes vote:http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/scotland-yes-or-no/His conclusion: (which seems fair enough) is:
Quote:At best, the majority of the Scottish people will find little difference under Holyrood than under Westminster and it could be worse if a global crisis erupts again. Scotland as a small economy, dependent on multinationals for investment, still dominated by British banks and the City of London and without control of its own currency or interest rates, could face a much bigger hit than elsewhere in terms of incomes and unemployment.So independence would not bring dramatic economic improvement to the majority of Scots; indeed, it could mean a worse situation. But then the decision on independence is not just a question of the economy and living standards. That brings us back to the issue of the Scottish and English/Welsh (and Irish) working class sticking together in the struggle against British capital. Will an independent Scottish capitalist state strengthen that in any way?alanjjohnstone wrote:Indeed when the Irish Republic got its independence, there was hopes of a cultural/language revival, with Irish mde a compulsory school subject and a requirement for any government jobs. It failed utterly.Yes, in the 1970s we had a member of the old Haringey branch who came from Ireland. Because he didn't know Gaelic he couldn't get a job in the Irish Post Office. So he came over to London and got one in the British Post Office instead.Incidentally, there's an interesting talk at Head Office this Sunday by a guest speaker on "The Strange Death of Labour Ireland 1912-1922" which should have some relevance for the Scottish referendum. iN fact, that's why we've organised it.More details here:http://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/events/176391572/
I don't think that, in the event of Scotland breaking away, we would need to change our full name. Maybe just adopt another name for our activity in Scotland. There's a precedent for this, in this resolution carried at 1992 Conference after the members of the Irish (All-Ireland) party transfered to the Socialist Party of Great Britain:
Quote:This Conference notes that circumstances have led to the transfer of the Irish comrades to membership of the Socialist Party of Great Britain for the time being. In view of the political work put in since 1949 under their previous name, Conference agrees that, if Belfast Branch so desires, it can continue to operate under the name of "The World Socialist Party (Ireland)".Mind you, we've not yet tried contesting elections in the Republic under our full name. But then we don't contest elections in GB under it either (We use "The Socialist Party (GB)").
Brian wrote:What about a self-destruct strategy? Capture parliament to use it, to destroy it?This is the same sort of debate, about the state, we've had in the Socialist Party for 30 or so years. The position at the moment (Conference resolution carried in 2004):
Quote:That the 1984 Conference Resolution, 'This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State', be rescinded and replaced with: 'That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use'.I know it doesn't specifically mention parliament as an "instrinsically useful function", though personally I'd have thought a central, elected decision-making body would be …I can understand why some members and sympathisers don't like us talking of "parliament" surviving into socialism as today, in view of the antics and ineffectiveness of MPs, "parliament" has become a dirty word. I'm not sure that this is an encouraging development as it is not just anarchists who are anti-parliament but fascists too. In fact, hadn't the rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s something to do with many workers blaming "democracy" rather than capitalism for their problems? So I don't think it's in our interest to go along with any anti-parliament sentiment.
