[ALB]

After Ian Bone, Russell Brand? According to this, he told students at Cambridge the other day that he hadn't ruled out running for parliament:

Quote:

Aside from his joke, Brand focused his speech on his distaste for the British government, and reportedly told students that he may run for Parliament.

Or perhaps that was another of his jokes that evening, as another report has him saying that he wouldn't "run" for parliament but "saunter".

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The purpose of GM is not to increase production but to make agriculture more profitable (and even then it is a short term fix) for business. GMO is an irrelevancy to food supply just as Spanish tasteless strawberries naturally selectively bred for longer shelf life hopefully does not  reflect food choice in socialism. GMO is a distraction from worthwhile research into new methods of produucing our food because it offers certain large corporations large profits

But you are talking about this under capitalism. Of course the aim is not to increase food production to feed more people. It's to make profits. Of course the agro-corporations (and the frackers) want minimal regulation as stringent regulation would increase their costs and reduce their profirs.But I was talking about the completely different situation that will apply in socialism. Then, the aim really will be to grow better food in places where it can't be grown easily today. It really will be to feed the world. And research into genetically engineering crops to allow them to grow faster or over a wider area will be useful. In fact I would have thought that agronomists would be keen to carry out such research, to improve the lot of humanity instead of, as today, to open up profit prospects for some capitalist corporation.As to fracking, the motive for introducing it today is to make a profit. I agree, though, that given other possible sources of energy, it might not be necessary in socialism, but I don't see why it should be ruled out on principle. I don't see why there couldn't be safe (stringently regulated) fracking for use not profit in socialism if need be.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

GMO and nuclear are unnecessary technologies in socialism and are not required threfore why have unnecessary risk.

This is open to challenge. In one sense they are not required for socialism, but since socialism could have been established anytime in the last hundred or so years in that sense neither are radio, plastics, electronics, antibiotics, TV and all the other technologies developed since 1900. But they make the case for socialism all the more practical and plausible as they re-inforce our argument that society has the capacity to produce plenty for all.Genetically engineered crops (most of the crops we eat have already been "genetically modified", through artificial selection) can surely play an important part in increasing food production (a key objective of socialism in the early days). As to nuclear power, nuclear fission could still be used as a transitional source of energy (that does contribute to global warming) while viable renewable sources of energy are developed while nuclear fusion, when it's properly developed, could become an important source of energy. And we could still use coal and oil, if not to burn for energy, as raw materials for plastics.Socialists always used to be technological optimists not back-to-nature technophobes.

[ALB]

Actually, it's the classic reformist case that could easily be adapted to criticise us, even though we are not vanguardists. As they've left an email address I've sent them this classic article on water by Harry Young:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1989/no-1023-november-1989/why-water-commodity

[ALB]

Obviously capitalist firms are not going to engage in fracking unless it returns a profit for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is harmful. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in principle with fracking any more than there is with mining in general. In fact, all the arguments against fracking on environmental grounds could also be levelled against mining, but we're not going to take up an anti-mining stance are we? I think we should be wary of jumping on the anti-fracking bandwagon along with the nimbys and those who opposed any new technological advances.(e.g. GM crops too) and continue to argue that scientific and technological advances strengthen the case for socialism and will be properly applied in a socialist society to produce what people need instead of for profit.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century

Unfortunate name, I'd have thought, in view of its similarity with Chavez's "21st Century Socialism", unless they are Chavists that is. But I thought the SWP was relatively clear on this.

[ALB]

That's why, the last time this came up at the end of the 1980s, our 1989 Conference passed the following resolution:

Quote:

This Conference reaffirms the Party's position on co-operatives as set out, for instance, in the chapter on "The Co-operative Movement" in the 1942 edition of Questions of the Day, that is:"In the minds of many workers the Co-operative movement is regarded as being in some way linked up with socialism. When the co-operators take up this attitude they claim in justification that Robert Owen, the co-operative pioneer, was actively concerned for some part of his life with possible means of escape from the capitalist system (…)Robert Owen's solution was that small groups of workers should try to establish self-supporting 'villages of industry', in which there would be no employer, no master. They would constitute, as it were, little oases in the desert of capitalism, owning the 'land and means of production common'. He anticipated that the movement would grown until finally the workers would have achieved their emancipation (…)The Co-operative Movement cannot solve the basic economic problems of the workers as a whole, or even of the co- operative societies' own members. Its success is merely the success of an essentially capitalist undertakings (…)Co-operation cannot emancipate the working class. Only Socialism will do that. The workers cannot escape from the effects of capitalism by retiring into Owen's 'villages of industry'. They must obtain for society as a whole the ownership of the means of production and distribution, which are the property of the capitalist class. For this they must organise to control the machinery of government. Once possessed of power they can then reorganise society on a socialist basis of common ownership. Owen's original aims can only be achieved by socialist methods."

 

[ALB]

Good argument forour policy of normally calling ourselves simply the Socialist Party rather than the Socialist Party of GREAT Britain

[ALB]

I imagine he'd favour white and yellow or yellow and purple.

[ALB]

If the argument that leaving it as 'The Socialist Party' is that it is likely to cause confusion with "other similarily named organisations", i.e in practice the ex-Miltant mob, then this would be an argument for never using 'The Socialist Party' and let Militant get away with stealing a name we have used since 1904.There is also a constitutional question since the 1988 resolution was endorsed by a Party Poll, as Rule 26 specifies:

Quote:

The result of a Party Poll shall overrule all other decisions (i.e., EC, Conference or previous Party Poll decisions)

i.e. a Conference Resolution cannot overrule a Party Poll. So it is open to question whether, despite its wording, the 2008 Conference resolution really did supersede the 1988 resolution.As I said, far better to let sleeping dogs lie.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Caste too is still an important issue. Perhaps we should try to liaise with our Indian comrades more for clearer insight although they are more based in Kolkata and Bengali speaking rather than Hindhi.

These are the two parts of India which have had "Communist" Party governments and where there is a political tradition of discussing Marx's ideas. Not surprising then that there are socialists in our sense there, at least in West Bengal.Besides the World Socialist Party (India) which had its differences with us but now wants to come back, there was also a World Socialist Group (India) advertised in the Socialist Standard as our contact is India. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to exist any more, mainly due to one of its most active members becoming an "Ambedkarist", as those on facebook can see by looking at his page: https://www.facebook.com/tarak.bouriHe could have chosen a worse way to go off the socialist rails as Ambedkarism is a movement aimed at ending caste discrimination against the so-called "untouchables" or dalits, which will have to disappear before socialism can be established and opposition to which will be part of the growing socialist movement.For  a Trotskyist criticism of Ambedkarism, in which they argue that it is a movement of the dalit bourgeoisie" (probably true in some respects) see:http://www.marxist.com/india-ambedkarism-dalit-party161007.htm.

[ALB]

He's wrong. The Treaty of Rome envisages the free movement of of job-seeking workers as well as of profit-seeking capital. Otherwise there wouldn't be a genuine single common market. And he's a fool too for jumping on the anti-immigrant bandwagon set rolling by UKIP as there's no telling where it will end or as to who "immigrant" as a term of abuse will be applied.

[ALB]

Of course, but it's still getting the idea into circulation.

[ALB]

Support would best come from someone living in the area rather than parachuting someone in from London or Manchester and we've got a number of people on this forum from the NE.Talking about interesting discussions I just came across when looking for something else this one on the TED site about a moneyless society started by the Zeitgeist people a couple of years ago:http://www.ted.com/conversations/1890/do_we_need_money_at_all_ca.htmlThis confirms that online discussions can be a useful way of putting across our ideas.

[ALB]

To give him his due, Jack Conrad (or whatever he's called) did say at the founding conference of LU that the ultimate aim should be

Quote:

a moneyless, classless, stateless society.

This of course is the precise description, word for word, of socialism we came up with years ago and have popularised. Who says we have had no impact?.

[Author]

Posts