ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Oh i see. Yes of course parliamentary action is not sufficient as it has to reflect a majority desire outside for socialism. I thought you were talking about Jack Hughes's one-time position: that with this majority desire parliament wasn't necessarily necessary. Perhaps we should say that parliamentary action is neither sufficient nor necessary but the best and easiest way.
The Party will have a literature stall near this event on Sunday 14 July. It will be near the main entrance to London University at the top end of Gower Street (near Euston stations). This will be from 11 o’clock onwards.
I see that the leader of the GMB union estimstes that only 10% of his union members would opt in to paying a levy towards the Labour Party. That sounds about right, but Miliband and his entourage must be really desperate for power if they are prepared to make this huge financial sacrifice to get it. The Tories must be pleased that he is proposing to do what they have never dared to.If the GMB does organise a ballot on affiliation to Labour, maybe we should consider bringing out a leaflet arguing for a No vote. We must have some GMB members. Actually if I was still in my old union (APEX) I'd be one as this was later absorbed by the GMB. i.e you don't have to be a gasworker or a boilermaker.
Alex Woodrow wrote:Jumping to socialism straight away is possible regardless of what material conditions there are in a certain community due to the fact that there is the great idea of localism by where each community has local residents working together. This is why localism is so great, it has all the solutions. A world against globalization, by where there is peace and justice for ecology so every human being can live in harmony with one another.Localism may be a good thing but surely it is an exaggeration to say it has got all the solutions. There are certain matters which can only be dealt with at regional or global level such as mineral extraction or climate change. In any event localism can't be practised properly under capitalism because of capitalism's centralizing nature and that no locality can escape from the operation and application of its economic laws. Localism would only be able to come into its own within the context of world socialism which of course implies a degree of "globalisation". One of the things socialism will have to sort out is a balance between localism, regionalism and globalism.
One statistic that particularly stood out for me was the number of people stating that they had no religion: at 4298 out of the ward's population of 15771, this is 27.3%, which is higher than both the London average (20.7%) and even the national average (24.7%). See here. Our position on religion may still be a minority one but the trend is in our direction.
Hasn't this got something to do with the fact that UNISON was an amalgamation between NUPE (which was affiliated to the Labour Party) and NALGO (which wasn't)? It would be interesting to know which fund new members pay into unless they contract out and if this depends on where they work, eg ex-NUPE grades into the Labour one and ex-NALGO into the so-called general one? Or do they have a choice of which fund to pay into unless they opt out? Anyway, how many and what percentage of the membership pay to the Labour Party?
The point I was trying to make was that as more and more workers became socialists so would those in trade unions, so that these would come to support socialism too, financially and politically. And of course workplace organisations will have a role to play in the establishment of socialism.
Here's an explanation provided from memory by a member of Swansea Branch:
Quote:if I remember rightly, his argument was something like once we get socialist consciousness, we won't need necessarily need parliament to bring in socialism and in fact we can't foresee what means the Socialist majority will use to establish it once the idea is 'in the air'. So the Party is wrong to insist that parliament if of necessity the mechanism that must be used to bring in Socialism.Mind you, at a later stage of development I don't think we would have any objection to the unions giving money to the socialist movement. We just don't want them giving money to pro-capitalist parties.
Normally this should be deleted as spam but, moderator, please keep it here as an example of the deviousness of these pay-day loan outfits. Mind you, the figures quoted do explain why more and more people feel they need to borrow money from these loan sharks.
Incedible! Ed Miliband is proposing to do something we've been demanding for over 100 years — stop the automatic contracting-in of trade union members to pay a political levy to the Labour Party.When in the early 20th century some unions started giving money from their funds to the Labour Party this was challenged by a member of the Liberal Party called Osborne. He won and we've refused to support the resulting campaign to reverse the "Osborne Judgement":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-75-november-1910/osborne-judgment-why-socialists-do-not-demand-its-The then Liberal government, to retain the parliamentary votes of Labour MPs, did reverse it and unions wsre authorised to set up a political fund, separate from their other funds, from which money could be paid to the Labour Party. Those who objected to contributing to this fund could opt out of paying; otherwise you paid it.To punish the trade unions after the 1926 General Strike the Tory government reversed this in 1927, requiring those who wanted to contribute to the fund to contract in. This lasted till the 1945 Labour government restored the original position, which survives to this day and which Miliband is now proposing should revert to what was introduced in 1927.This is something we can only welcome as we've always criticised workers being in effect tricked into contributing money to the anti-working class Labour Party. Naturally, our members opt out of paying it. If Miliband's proposals go through then we will no longer need to do this.
Surely there are two different questions here: (1) can we now "jump into" socialism straightaway? and (2) has this anything to do with "material conditions? I suggest that the answer to both is "yes". In 1848 the answer to (2) would have been "no" but that's just an academic debate now. Today, socialism could be established immediately — because the material conditions exist. And, as Alex says, the sooner the better.
I don't think that the wording on the cover was "cheap and childish". Yes, it was a pun but this seems to be widely practised these days by sub-editors. Here's a few examples from the Business section of the Times over the last week:FINANCE DEALS HELP FUEL NEW-CAR SALESTERRA FIRMA PULLS FLOAT PLANS AMID SHAKY GERMAN MARKETSCUSSONS TUCKS INTO FOOD MANUFACTURERSOIL ISN'T OVER A BARREL THIS TIMEMy doubt when I first saw the cover was a possible ambiguity over who was stuffing democracy in Turkey: the government or (as the government claims) the demonstrators? Obviously a regular reader would know that the government was meant, but what about others?
