[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

this is tomorrow. Any London members care to report/leaflet?

Two of us were there to observe what was happening. Could only have been a thousand or so there. Notably absent were the contingents usually provided by the Muslim Brotherhood's front in Britain. Presumably they want Syria to be bombed to help their side in the civil war. On the other hand, there were a handful of Western-dressed young women waving the Syrian flag and shouting "don't bomb Syria".All 57 varieties of Trotskyism and/or Maoism were present, in particular SWP, Counterfire and SPEW who have taken over the SWP's practice of handing out placards with their party's name at the top (unfortunately in their case lyingly saying "Socialist Party"). Gave out a few score of our Identity leaflets, chatted with our Green Party (some of them were there too) opponent in Merton & Wandsworth in last year's London Assembly elections and went home.

[ALB]

Now Obama is getting cold feet too. What was that ditty about the Grand Old Duke of York? If only …

[ALB]

As far as I can see, when it comes to "faithful copy", the last man standing is Lenin but nobody here is defending him. Nobody can after Pannekoek's demolition job in Lenin As Philosopher.

[ALB]

Yes, I thought too that LBird was being a bit unfair to Feuerbach in suggesting that he was a "naive realist" and a "positivist". The issue between Marx and him seemed to be over who was the "subject" rather than over what the subject did (or did not do).

[ALB]

Stop the War and Counterfire (more or less the same thing) are claiming that their regular little demonstrations over the years were "central" to the No Vote in Parliament:http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/events/16618-national-demonstration-no-attack-on-syria-saturday-31-augustTalk about delusions of grandeur. Not to mention delusions about the efficacy of endless protests demos, See this leaflet of ours from 2006:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/is-protest-really-enough.html.And, again, from 2008:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/be-realistic-demand-impossible.html

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i just saw the Sept SS cover, the raised fist. Invariably this is the male fist not the dainty hand of a woman

Well, whoever it is, man or woman, they're a south paw. Which presents a bit of a problem as in France (and Trotskyists here)  it's those in the Bolshevik tradition who raise the left hand in a clenched fist whenever the Internationale is sung while Social Democrats (an offshot of whom we are) raise the right hand.  Which is what I do, to show I'm not a Bolshevik (just as I eat meat on a Friday to show I'm not a Catholic). Mind you, in his recent biography of Marx, Jonathan Sperber says that Marx was left-handed….

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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 votes

[ALB]

Some 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. The

party 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.

[ALB]

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?

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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.

[Author]

Posts