ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:I got precariat
I got a joke result too — technical middle class, just because I don't go the opera or know a solicitor. The whole thing is rubbish, or at most a game. Or maybe something more sinister: an attempt to create the illusion that a wage and salary working class no longer exists or is only a dwindling 14% of the population.
Brian wrote:what actually prevents the world socialist movement from realizing a socialist society is the lack of a socialist majority. For without this majority we are in no position to take on the force of the state. With this majority we are transformed into the strongest army in the world where the productive class becomes a class for itself.Or as Victor Hugo put it:
Quote:No army can stop an idea whose time has come.Ed wrote:twc wrote a particularly good post on the processes which determine class conciousness. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/social-reproductionAs a p.s. I would like to see more articles like this published in the standard on occasion.There's another relevant article on this that appeared in the Socialist Standard in April 2011:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relations
Alf Recon wrote:It seems high time to get rid of the monetary system and to put some serious thoughts into implementing a resource based economy (RBE) which would give us the chance to live a life in peace, health and equality without money and the beautiful “side effect” of saving our planet from further destruction due to exploitation at all cost. The way we deal with our resources isn’t (and wasn’t) tolerable.Welcome. You'll find the same sentiments expressed in the other thread here discussing Cyprus:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/cyprus-crisis-why-do-we-need-banks-allWe don't need banks and we don't need money. They are part of the profit system that is holding back the application of technology to provide plenty for all. To do this, all we need are resources, technology and human skills. Which we've got. But we won't be able to use these to benefit everybody on the planet until the Earth's resources have become the common heritage of all.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:ALB, thanks for the clarifications.I'm slightly suprised that you seem to be in full agreement with the principle of non-aggression. I'm sorry to say that this is usually not obvious when I read socialist writing. I can make the friendly recommendation to put more emphasis on it. It makes everything so much simpler :)I have no more questions if you agree with the consequences of the value I suggested, other than perhaps: do you personally feel that you represent the mainstream of the socialist party, or are you in the minority in that respect?We are talking here about after when socialism as a society of common ownership, democratic control, production directly for use and not for sale or profit, and distribution on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", has been established. Yes, as the Conference resolution I quoted shows, it is the official position of the Socialist Party that there will be no coercive state machine in socialism. We have always said that socialism can only be a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society.Having said that, we are not absolute pacifists. If any group of pro-capitalists decided to take up arms to try to stop the democratically-expressed majority will to establish socialism we think that the majority would be justified to use armed force against them as a last resort. And of course, to establish socialism, we do want to use the coercive power of the state to dispossess the capitalist class of their ownership of the means of production and make these the common property of the whole community. But, this done, the coercive state is then dismantled and replaced by an unarmed democratic central administration.
Here's what we said in one of the leaflets we put out for the local by-election in Islington:
Quote:If elected to the council, our delegate will vote, as instructed, in the interests of the workers, but we won't kid on that we can save services within the profit-driven market system where profits always come before people.There is also this pamphlet by a member of the Socialist Party of Canada who got elected to the Alberta Legislative Assembly in 1910:http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/proletarian.in.politics.htmHere's a extract:
Quote:At this point, J. W. Woolf (Lib.) rose to a point of order, claiming that O’Brien was not speaking to the question, but giving a lecture on Socialism.That's something else a socialist local councillor could do. In fact, it's probably the main thing they could.
Federico Pistono explains here in 4 or 5 minutes his particular theory of why he thinks the present economic system is going to collapse. Not very convincing, if only because the first reason he gives is based on assuming that the money to pay interest on a loan can only come from taking out a further loan (whereas in fact it can come out of future production). But he does also use the growing technological unemployment argument.
Alex Woodrow wrote:P.S. Thanks for informing me about two candidates standing in local by elections. I knew that one stood in Junction ward in Islington but, may I ask, where did the other candidate stand?It was in Brixton Hill ward of Lambeth Council in South London. See this thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/brixton-hill-local-electionThis time we don't need to choose between local elections and European elections as they are likely to fall on the same day, Thursday 27 May 2014. So we can do both. One thing you are overlooking is that in European elections (as for Parliament) candidates can get their manifestos distributed free by the Post Office whereas in local elections we have to deliver them ourselves door-to-door.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I have a great deal of sympathy with this, the SPGB tends to attack and put down any working class action that does not seek to abolish the wages system. It gives out the wrong message. The SPGB correctly has as its only aim the establishment of socialism but this should not put us in opposition to workers struggles.You are wrong to sympathise with Socialist Punk's position here. It is simply untrue and reinforces the caricature of our position put forward by our opponents and which our members have to combat all the time on other internet forums. It's a bit disappointing to have to do it here too.When have we opposed and attacked workers in struggles to get what they can out of capitalism just because, for instance, they are trying to get higher wages or trying to stop their conditions getting worse, rather than the abolition of the wages system altogether? Socialist Punk will be unable to produce a single case of this.You yourself realise that Punk's position is a caricature because you end up saying that we should not oppose such struggles but should express sympathy with them while always raising the need to abolish capitalism. Which we always do, quite apart from individual members being active trade unionists or the like. I daresay you were yourself in the days of the old Seaham branch.
At our annual conference yesterday delegates carried a floor resolution asking the Executive Committee to seriously consider contesting at least Wales and/or Scotland in the European Parliament elections next year, with one aim being to obtain a party political broadcast in these regions.Local elections, including in London, will be held the same day. We'll probably have some standing in them too.
For the County Council elections you'll have to be described on the ballot paper as an "Independent" or, better, without any description at all. But for the Town Council election, as a "parish council", the old rules apply and you'll be able to use a description of up to six words which does not confuse you with any registered party. I'm sure you will be able to think of something, eg PROFITS NOT PEOPLE CANDIDATE or DOWN WITH CAPITALISM CANDIDATE or ANTi-CAPITALISM CANDIDATE.
SocialistPunk wrote:Socialist Party… wrote:Communication received at Head Office by email:That means the SPGB are being invited to show solidarity for Amina.
I think they were just asking us to publicise the case and their protests against it. Which we've done. i would have thought that it goes without saying that everybody on this forum wants her to emetge from this unharmed. Some might sign their petition, others mention the case on their facebook page or tweet about it. That's their individual choice but if we had not posted the communication here a few less people would have heard about it. We've done our bit to publicise the case as requested.
1875 wrote:They argue that labour productivity, with the arrival of the third industrial revolution (the micro processor), has reached such high levels that the economic foundation of ‘normal’ capital accumulation has disappeared, and now the system only lives artificially by ficticious capital accumulation.The first part seems similar to that put forward by the non-Marxist Federico Pistono we debated recently, author of a book Robots will steal your job, but that's OK; how to survive the economic collapse and be happy (see thread here). His argument was that the pace of technological invention had now become so fast (thanks to developments in computer technology) that the market system would not be able to find jobs fast enough (expand fast enought) for those displaced by this as it had done in all previous technological revolutions.The arguments we put against Pistono are:1. That there is a different between technological inventions and their application. Capitalism only uses them if this is cheaper than employing people for wages, not if they will just reduce the amount of labour required to produce something from start to finish. In other words, capitalism itself places an obstacle in the way of robotisation, etc.2. Unemployment has gone up since 2007 but this is clearly cyclical not technological, i. e is the result of capitalism being in the slump phase of one of its regular economic cycles. Over the past 30 or so years unemployment has gone up and down, not steadily increased as the theory suggests should have happened.3. Employment in places like China has increased immensely over this period, so some of the unemployment in the West could be due to a transfer of production to there, i.e. global employment levels (reflecting the expansion of capitalism) have still increased.We've been sent a pamphlet by Kurz to review No Revolution Anywhere. I don't if the pamphlet or the review will deal with his theory of economic collapse.
