ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I know we all hate her here but there's this party pooper article:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialism-or-your-money-back/turn-right-eighties/why-left-needs-thatcherActually, on re-reading it I think, Alan, you should republish it on the blog.
That's what he wrote six months ago. I think he was right as to why she is so hated:
Quote:Thatcher is reviled by some not just because she crushed the left, the Labour movement and the post-war social democratic settlement. It is because she did it with such enthusiasm, and showed no regret for the terrible human cost. A war of sorts was fought in the 1980s, and the vanquished – as is often the case – were left with unquenchable bitternessI know she was just doing what capitalist conditions at the time demanded, but she did enjoy doing it and that's not compulsory in a capitalist politician. That's what makes her so hateful and no doubt why millions up and down the country will be rejoicing at her demise.
By co-incidence there's another measure of class differences in today's media, for instance:http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/454603/20130408/uk-household-wealth-lloyds-tsb-private-banking.htm
Quote:Household wealth in Britain passed a net total worth of £7tn for the first time last year, according to research by Lloyds TSB Private Banking, though the ever-bloating headline number hides a precarious reality for family finances in the country's comatose economy.Incomes for the poorest households have been squeezed by a high cost of living, below-inflation wage growth, and welfare cuts under the government's austerity drive as it seeks to erase the Treasury's budget deficit."While wealth has soared, there is a large divide in where it has accumulated," said Nitesh Patel, economist at Lloyds TSB Private Banking, pointing to the fact that the wealthiest 10 percent of households hold 22 times more wealth than those in the bottom half – at an average of £1.82m versus £82,000.Note that this is a figure for all wealth not just ownership of titles to means of production as it includes houses and other household possessions. If these were excluded, so as to get a more accurate measure of the ownership only of means of production, the inequality, the basis of capitalism, would be even greater.
Come off it, this is well over the top. This is not the drift of this thread nor a logical conclusion from what has been said on it. You are letting your anger at being called a liar get the better of you. Ex-members regularly rejoin and nothing is stopping you defending the ex-member who was called a class traitor.
Here's a comment from another comrade on this:
Quote:The ‘elite’ of 6 per cent isn’t necessarily to be equated with the capitalist class. The latter is much narrower than this. In fact most people who own their own house and have a few quid in the bank will end up being classified as either ‘elite’ or ‘established middle class’ in the test. To be a capitalist I’d say you’d need to own your primary residence and have capital to live off which would give you the average UK income at the very, very least – which would mean £500k + in investable assets, and they don’t test for this.I agree of course that we have never regarded the working class as a monolith identified only with those labelled (as in this research) "the traditional working class". This is as a sub-section only of the working class properly so-called (all those obliged by economic necessity to try to sell their mental and physical energies for a wage or a salary). As are the so-called "middle class".
The trouble with continually harping on about moderation on a thread is that it creates the impression that this is really what someone wants to discuss and criticise rather than the subject of the thread. Personally I find this not just a diversion but irritating, not just here but on other forums too, and normally avoid getting involved in such discussions like the plague, so I don't know why I'm posting this.
Actually I thought that things had began to settle down here and that this forum had reverted to its purpose of exchanging information and views amongst socialists (whether current or former Socialist Party members) and discussions with non-members of varying views.
I can't really see how a view expressed on a discussion forum that states that it is for:
Quote:General discussion of matters of interest to members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and of Companion Parties worldwide.can be interpreted as expressing the official view of the whole party. In fact, it's precisely for members to express and discuss their individual views. The most that could be said about a view expressed on it would be that it represented the view of one/some members. All sorts of views are expressed on this particular form, including anecdotes and gossip about ex-members (after all the members of that forum are an internet "community"). In fact I've indulged in it myself.I'm not sure how we could prevent members expressing views on ex-members, especially one who has risen to some public prominence. My view of some of the things said in the discussion of the particular ex-member in question are a bit distateful and probably counter-productive (as you say, he might rejoin when he retires), but if a member has a strongly-held view about an ex-member I can't see how we can or should try to stop him/her expressing it. Wouldn't that be censorship?
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:A bit harsh Adam? Who are you taking about?It's not that harsh, merely a standard criticism in the to and fro of discussions. I thought you were more thick-skinned than that! Anyway, this would be an example of what I was thinking of:
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:As I was an Executive Officer for the Government I am a little worried now. Perhaps the Party could issue a list of occupations that constitute class treachery. I could have become a matyr and stayed on the dole and struggle to buy trainers for my kids. Who comes first Family or a pat on the back from a'fellow socialist'? No brainer as the Americans say.Why would you need to be worried if it is just the opinion of one member that working for parliament, etc is highly criticable. Why would you think that this was the "Party position" and/or that "the Party" had such a list? The fact is that it hasn't and nobody has suggested that it should have. That's the strawman in this case.I'm just trying to ensure that the discussion of what jobs might or might be acceptable to a socialist takes place on a fair basis. In fact, in my experience the Party is quite liberal and tolerant about what sort of job socialists do. I think the only formal bar is on people who join the armed forces voluntarily and even then we make an exception for those who enlist through economic necessity (eg as an alternative to staying on the dole).
The short answer to the question at the beginning of this thread is that "the Party" does not have a policy on how to regard or what to call ex-members.Why should we? We don't need one. Individual members have their views and practices but these are just that: their views and practices. So it is not legitimate to take any of these views and built them up into a strawman which is then attacked as if it was the "Party Policy". So if we are going to discuss this those interested in the question they ought to treat it for what it is: a discussion between individuals expressing their individual views.
While very few ex-members become "class traitors" that doesn't mean that they are therefore all "champions of our class and in the forefront of the struggle for socialism". It's possible to be neither the one nor the other.The things you list could be seen as an attempt to make things less undemocratic under capitalism and so not reforms that we would necessarily regard as anti-working classa. After all, we are not opposed to all reforms. Our policy is that we do not advocate any reforms, however favourable some might be. Not at all in the same category as an ex-member who becomes a UKIP councillor and spouts anti-working class stuff about "too many immigrants" and "defend Britsish sovereignty".Basically, I think we should adopt the same position to members who leave after putting in sterling work for socialism as what Kropotkin advocated: just thank them for what they've done and leave it at that. Except where the person has come out as a declared opponent of socialism I think personally that this sort of discussion about an individual is invidious.
Of course all ex-members are not class traitors. That was an opinion expressed by one member elsewhere about one particular ex-member (unfairly in my opinion and that of many others, but that's another matter), not about all ex-members and certainly not the 6 or 7 who have posted on this forum.But some are, such as this ex-member of Swansea branch who is now a UKIP councillor:http://www.ukip.org/page/bill-mountford-suffolk
