ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think it's got something to do with the role of the vanguard party. You've got the Bordigists, as super-Leninists, at one end of the party spectrum (like this lot who have just emailed this to us) and the Pannekoekians, who reject the whole concept of the party, at the other. This lot seem to be near the Bordigist end more so, perhaps surprisingly, than the ICC.I think that arguments about the precise day that the Bolshevik revolution degenerated also come into it.
Just looked at this. I think you're exaggerating a bit, Brian, but he says one thing that's very true:
Quote:The biggest obstacle to Revolution is your belief that it's impossible.http://russellbrand.com/revolution/youtube/Anyway, we shouldn't put down someone who's playing a role in re-introducing the word "revolution" into political discussion, especially as he's taking it away from the view that it's an armed insurrection led by an elite vanguard.I've signed up to his mailing list to see what sort of other stuff he'll be putting out. Maybe just publicity for his coming book (which should also be interesting).
Surely, Ozy, this kind of scenario for present times is refuted by the other one on the same sort of subject you posted the other day:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/06/not-even-climate-change-will-kill-off-capitalismIt seems to be another example of Zizek's saying that the end of civilisation is seen as more conceivable than the end of capitalism.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is his interview with the Socialist Standard from the 1970s online?No (not yet) but here's the front cover of that interview in the Januaet 1980 issue:The introduction to the interview reads:
Quote:Tony Benn may be the next Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain. Almost alone among the Labour leaders, sunk in a gloom as they are after their party's defeat last May, he offers a plan for Labour's future, with an optimism that they will one day once again get power over British capitalism.So we were surprised when he agreed to be interviewed by the Socialist Standard about his policies and attitudes as he expresses them in his recent book Arguments for Socialism. Defenders of capitalism are notoriously difficult to persuade to match their case against ours. The interview (which Tony Benn preferred to call a debate) lasted an hour and our published account of it has needed to be abridged.In truth, Benn's plan for Labour's revival is little more than a paper thin assumption that, with a few constitutional changes, his party will be able basically to alter its nature. It will, he hopes, be able to throw off its past as a party which has run capitalism firmly in the interests of the capitalist class and begin to run society in the interests of the majority. There is no evidence to support this assumption; indeed after every electoral failure Labour tries to bolster its confidence by telling itself, and us, that it can and will change.Benn's political ideas are basically that if there are enough small reforms imposed upon capitalism the system will, in a way which has yet to be explained, suddenly stop being capitalism and become socialism. In the case of Benn, even this shaky argument might have been a little stronger if he had been able to give any idea of what socialism is or even to know whether the Labour Party stood for socialism.He claims that reforming capitalism is "doing something", as opposed to socialists who are "pure" and "impotent". This is a familiar, not to say exhausted, argument – one which continues to exist only because those. like Benn, who put it forward do so by ignoring reality and experience.The working class have had plenty of time to become familiar with Labour governments and with Labour politicians who – no matter what the effect of their anti-working class policies, no matter how obvious their failures to eliminate capitalism 's problems tirelessly assure us that a vote for Labour is a vote for a better society. This, again, flies in the face of reality.One final point. Benn, as we have said, is a leading politician But his justifications for capitalism, and his objections to the principles of revolutionary socialism which are uncompromisingly put forward by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, were exactly the same as those we confront all the time, wherever we are and whenever we state the case for the new society of common ownership.Naturally, there will be an assessment of Tony Benn's political life and positions in the April issue (by, as it happens, one of those who interviewed him 34 years ago).
That reminds me. Following an EC decision last year we sent the following declaration to the Electoral Commission on 10 January:
Quote:DeclarationWith regard to the Scottish Referendum of 18 September 2014 and with a view to being designated a “permitted participant” in it, the Socialist Party of Great Britain hereby declares that it will campaign for the outcome to be “Neither YES Nor NO” on the grounds that whether or not Scotland is an independent country is a non-issue for the majority as whether they are governed — and austerity imposed — from Edinburgh or London is irrelevant.They replied:
Quote:In your letter you declared for neither Yes or No. The legislation requires that a permitted participant identifies the outcome for which you are campaigning. In the referendum there are two outcomes Yes or No.In a further email they explained that if we registered to campaign for, for instance, No we could then campaign for what we wanted. In fact, it appears that you can register for No and campaign for Yes and vice versa:
Quote:Any campaigner registering as a permitted participant in the referendum has to identify the outcome for which they are campaigning. You will see that the form has a Yes or a No option and PEF online has the same. Clearly it will be up to you which outcome you identify with. There is no requirement in the legislation that you then have to campaign for the outcome you have identified.We haven't taken the matter any further yet. It's due to be discussed at our Conference over Easter in AprilThere is no requirement to register as a "permitted participant" unless you plan to spend over £10,000. Which I don't suppose we will be. So in any event we will still be able to distribute leaflets putting over the socialist position on the referendum, whether vote NO and write WORLD SOCIALISM across the ballot paper or just write WORLD SOCIALISM across it.
I see you are winning the argument with others joining in to support you, but isn't the Idler a Party member?I wonder what these assorted leftists would say if we were debating with No2EU (who, incidentally, we should try to debate before they disappear after Bob Crow's funeral) who are appealing to the same prejudice.And if they think that UKIP is any sort of threat in the area (Clapham and Brixton) they should look at recent local by-election results there, where both us and Elizabeth Jones have stood:http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=103&RPID=23950518http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=106&RPID=23950506http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=105&RPID=23950512In the Euroelections we'll be taking on Nigel Farage himself as he's one of the MEPs for the South East region where we'll be standing too. .
What is wrong with these people? Can't he see that the only people who would gain anything from Scottish independence would be local politicians who would become big fish in a small pond? "Petty nationalism" is the right word. Even the capitalists there are against it. As far as workers are concerned, it will either make no difference or make them worse off. My own view is the latter. Just look at what happened in Ireland. I can't think of a single reason in favour of it. Anyway, I don't think most workers in Scotland are going to be stupid enough to vote for it.
From today's Times:
Quote:Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at City University's Cass Business School, said that Mr Sutherland's resignation was the result of a stand-off between "democracy and managerialism". He said: "Mr Sutherland wanted to introduce typical managerial reforms such as restructuring, selling off parts of the firm's businesses and streamlining governance procedures. Traditionalists in the group want to preserve the values of democratic decision-making and the slow and unwieldy processes this entails. It is difficult to see how you can reconcile these two very different visions."In other words, can a capitalist enterprise succeed in making profits while being run democratically? I wonder what lessons Peter Tatchell will draw from this as one of the "baby step" reforms he advocated in his recent debate against us was to introduce democracy into the boardroom.
The French translation is now available as a leaflet that can be downloaded and printed:http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2014/03/11/emparons-nous/
52 is not a good innings. I agree he was a good trade union leader (and of course he was a leader) who was committed to furthering the interests of his union's members and negotiated better wages and conditions for them. His political views were of course wrong. In fact his death will have political consequences as both TUSC and No2EU, the left nationalist list he was due to head in London in May's euroelections, were his personal hobby horses. I doubt if his successor and the RMT's executive will continue for long to pour the union's money down these black holes. So in the more or less short term it's going to be good bye to TUSC and good riddance to No2EU.
We've also run off 3000 leaflets as part of our local election campaign for the Lambeth Council in May, advertising the debate prominently on the back. Door-to-door distribution in the wards round Head Office begins this week.In the meantime here's Nigel Farage's bid for the votes of "the working classes":http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/nigel-farage-the-main-parties-dont-listen-to-the-working-classes-9181460.htmlMaybe Elizabeth Jones will turn up in a shawl and clogs.
I don't think there's going to be a war over this. The Western capitalist bloc will up the rhetoric and rattle a few sabres but in the end will accept the re-incorporation of the Crimea into Russia as a fait accompli. Russia won't invade the rest of the Ukraine. Meanwhile the papers will sensationalise things to sell more.Anyone want to bet against this?
I'm not sure that "Freedom" could have claimed to have been "the longest surviving 'libertarian socialist' journal". It wouldn't have described itself as such as it catered for all brands of anarchism (except anarcho-capitalism) including individualist anarchists who regarded socialism as an extension of "the tyranny of the majority" they saw democracy as being.Second, it ceased publication between 1932 and 1945. It was never clear either who owned and controlled it, but it was something more like the tyranny of the minority, a precaution against being taken over by a group of organised anarchists (if that's not a contradiction).I used to subscribe to it too a long time ago and I suppose it is sort of sad to see it go under. In the 40s, 50s and 60s it expressed what the nebulous concept of anarchism meant at that time in this country.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Certainly, one scammer in Africa tried to play us off against an NGO out there.By co-incidence we have received an email from the IWW in America about the same scammer and asking for details of our experience with him. They seem to have come to realise, like we did, that he is not entirely what he claims to be.In the meantime John McDonnell, the Labour MP who is sponsoring the Ukraine meeting in the House of Commons, is being alerted about this Popovitch character.
