ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:I'm not too bothered about the song, a Labour Party anthem
It may have been used by the Labour Party for a while as its song, but it was written in 1889 by someone who was then a member of the SDF, Jim Connell. The reason why he chose to write a song about it was no doubt that it was the flag of the Paris Commune of 1871.As to the tune, it's the same as the Green xmas song O Tannenbaum. I remember once arriving at Munich airport in mid-December and they were playing this tune. It occurred to me for a moment (only a moment) that maybe the Munich Workers Council had been re-established.
This has reminded me of a statement handed out by the Scargill Labour Party (SLP) at a meeting on 21 April 2006 during the borough elections in Kingston of that year (which we also contested).
Quote:Racism has sprung out of the hegemony of imperialist society in the Twentieth Century with its large migrations of workers to the metropolitan countries. A socialist immigration policy is required to break this cycle and one that mirrors socialist Cuba. In Cuba nobody is allowed in and nobody is allowed out.Sounds like the sort of policy you seem to be arguing for, wiscalatus.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps a leaflet handed on on Saturday can make the reference that it is political power that is primary, not sentiment.I don't think we've time to produce a leaflet for tomorrow, but we could distribute this pamphlet of ours:This might reinforce the caricature of our position (since we don't think parliament should be used to get reforms but in the course of the socialist revolution, though a Socialist MP would surely have voted No last night) but it's a question direct actionists and anti-parliamentarists should be asking themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Quote:British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votesSome interesting stuff on this in today's Weekly Worker. First a speech by Nick Wrack at the "CPGB's" summer school a week or so ago, of which here are some extracts:
Quote:What is our ultimate goal? It is a classless society. It is a society of abundance. It is a society without a state. This is our vision of a new society, in which everyone can develop to their fullest potential and where Marx’s aphorism, “From each according to their ability; to each according to their need”, can be put into practice.Quote:… so long as capitalism remains in place, any reforms, any gains will be constantly under threat and will eventually be taken away if we do not act to prevent that. We want to live in a society where we do not have to get up in the morning facing another campaign to save another hospital. Strange as it may seem, we want a society where there are hospitals and medicine for everybody.Quote:Is a revolution a conscious act of the majority of the working class who have been won to socialist ideas? Or is it the act of a minority in society, a putschist or a Blanquist approach to change? I am not in favour of that. I do not think it can work.But also a speech by Jack Conrad of the CPGB in which he introduces a distinction between "socialism" and "communism":
Quote:Crucially, socialism is the transition to communism – a globally organised society, which knows no money, no state, no country, no women’s oppression, no limit to human achievement. Only communism can realise the principle, “From each according to their abilities; to each according to their needs”. In that sense socialism is not an end to be fought for in its own right. Socialism is the means towards the goal of human freedom.The CPGB also proposes some amendments to the "Socialist Platform" which would make it worse by introducing this distinction and other Leninisms.
Quote:1. Theparty is a socialist party. Its aim is to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism.CPGB amendmentDelete second sentence and insert: “It seeks to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by the rule of the working class. Our ultimate aim is a society based on the principle of ‘from each according to their abilities; to each according to their needs’. A moneyless, classless, stateless society, within which each individual can develop their fullest individuality.”2. Under capitalism, production is carried out solely to make a profit for the few, regardless of the needs of society or damage to the environment. Capitalism does not and cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority. Its state and institutions will have to be replaced by ones that act in the interests of the majority.CPGB amendmentsFirst sentence: delete “solely” and substitute “predominantly”.Delete the last two sentences and insert: “Neither capitalism nor its state apparatus can be made to work in the interests of the mass of the population. The rule of the working class requires a state to defend itself, but a state that is withering away, a semi-state.”Most of the other proposed amendments go in the same Leninist sense. It will be interesting to see whether or not Nick Wrack (who I suspect drafted the original Platform) will agree to these amendments. I suspect not as they would change the Platform's whole character.
This is the same meeting place where there was a meeting of the Independent Socialist Network (part of TUSC) that 2 of us went to and were asked to leave. Would be interesting to go, but I'm not getting thrown out again. Where did you see it advertised?
wiscalatus wrote:Nothing to do with bigotry and xenophobia, just trying to protect one's own nation – what is so wrong with that?Quite a lot. See jondwhite's reply on another thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/should-socia?page=4#comment-7695
It's a scam, that has been described as taking money from the poor in the rich countries to give to the rich in the poor countries, but it's not the biggest scam of all. Capitalism is that.
We may as well continue here as it's started. It's only a side-show anyway. In the meantime I've come across a rather disturbing thing about the combination of the colours black and read:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_the_colors_on_the_Nazi_flag_symbolize"Blut und Boden (blood and soil)". I think you should change your atavar double quick ! And I don't think we should have this combination of colours on our Head Office fascia in case someone mistakes us for the Great British Socialist Party.
OK, let's begin at the beginning. As capitalism is already itself a world system, we don't think that socialism could exist in one country; in fact we don't think that the hypothetical situation you raise could happen either. Our reasoning for saying this is set out in our pamphlet Questions of the Day as follows:
Quote:Socialists are sometimes asked about another aspect of uneven development. This relates to the possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced. Leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether such a situation is likely to arise, we can say that it presents no problems when viewed against the world-wide character of the socialist movement. Because capitalist governments are organised on a territorial basis each socialist organisation has the task of seeking democratically to gain political control in the country where it operates. This however is merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated through its world-wide organisation. Given a situation in which the organised socialists of only a part of the world were in a position to gain control of the machinery of government, the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time. There remains the question whether in fact there will be material differences in the rate of growth of the sections of the world socialist movement. At present, throughout the advanced capitalist countries, the vast majority, because they are not yet socialist, share certain basic ideas about how society can and should be run. They accept that goods must be produced for sale with a view to profit; some men must work for wages while others must be employers; there must be armed forces and frontiers; and it is impossible to do without money and buying and selling. These ideas are held by people all over the world and it is this which accounts for the basic stability of capitalism at the present time. It was Engels who remarked that a revolutionary period exists when people begin to realise that what they once thought was impossible can in fact be done. When people realise that it is possible to have a world without frontiers, without wages and profits, without employers and armed forces, then the socialist revolution will not be far away. But this advance in political understanding will be achieved by the same people who now think that capitalism is the only possible system. Because workers all over the world live under basically similar conditions and because of modern systems of communication, when they begin to see through capitalism this will apply everywhere. There is no reason at all why workers in one country should see this while those in others do not. The very idea of Socialism, a new world society, is clearly and unequivocally a rejection of all nationalism. Those who become socialists will realise this and also the importance of uniting with workers in all countries. The socialist idea is not one that could spread unevenly. Thus the socialist parties will be in a position to gain political control in the industrially advanced countries within a short period of each other. It is conceivable that in some less developed countries, where the working class is weak in numbers, the privileged rulers may be able to retain their class position for a little longer. But as soon as the workers had won in the advanced countries they would give all the help needed to their brothers elsewhere.Looks as if a vote against in parliament, not any mass demonstrations, is going to be the only way to stop Britain bombing Syria and the repurcussions this is going to have on ordinary people in the region. This was always the case anyway and confirmation of our analysis of the way the modern capitalist state, based on universal suffrage, works. So, Stop the War's energies would be better directed at lobbying MPs.The problem for them is that as a pro-Islamist organisation they don't know which side to support as some of them are supporters of Sunni Muslim extremism and so want that side to win the civil war in Syria. This article highlights some of the difficulties they are facing and may explain why they can't mobilise as many people as before — their Sunni Muslim supporters are staying away. Might be worth going to their demo on Saturday just to see if this is confirmed. In any event Stop the War is a dubious organisation.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think the slow-down in the rush to war is just a temporary respiteYou could be right, but it looks as if the Cameron regime has got cold feet about getting a favourable vote from parliament:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/back-from-the-brink-david-cameron-forced-to-retreat-over-syria-8788612.htmlEven so, the hypocrites might still go ahead despite the thousands of people likely to die unnecessarily as a consequence of their bombing. They don't want to stop any further civilian deaths but to weaken the Syrian government with a view to its eventual overthrow by, they hope, a gang that will favour Western interests in the area.
