ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
Good point. I don't recall the gutter press and gutter politicians denouncing this as an effect of total dependency on an unearned income.
Meanwhile, from today corporation tax (formerly profits tax) goes down from 24% to 23% and the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%.
The worst thing about this is that, although the government is obliged by economic circumstances, to cut back its spending, including on welfare, to protect profits, what they have chosen to cut (benefits to those below retirement age) is motivated by vote-catching considerations. In other words, some of the specific cuts are not strictly necessary and are vindictive.Polls and focus groups have revealed to the politicians that spending on welfare is now unpopular. Philip Collins, who was Blair's speechwriter, in an article in today's Times notes:
Quote:In 1987, according to Ipsos MORI, 55 per cent of people thought that more should be spent on the poor even if it meant higher taxes. Now only 27 per cent agree. Seven out of ten people agree that the country needs to spend less on welfare.In other words, there's votes in them there cuts. Collins's article was in fact urging Labour to jump on this bandwagon too if they want to win the next election.Collins makes the point that the government could have chosen not to protect pensioners, including well off ones, from the cuts. But the politicians know this would be a vote-loser. So they target other groups, in particular the newly-baptised "precariat" who are less likely to vote than pensioners.I agree with SP, it's sickening.
No, it's not really different from "higher wages" in the widest sense. Workers bargain, normally through their unions, over the conditions of sale of their ability to work. The amount they are paid is just one aspect of it; the other is the conditions under which it is exercised, including the length of time.There was another article on this in the June 1980 issued of the Socialist Standard entitled " A Shorter Working Week?" (unfortunately not yet included in the archives section but may soon be). It makes the additional point that a shorter working week cannot be a cure for unemployment, as some trade unionists and reformists have advocated.The Factory Acts, on the other hand, were reforms and had the wholehearted support of Marx who devoted a section of Volume 1 of Capital to the struggle for them. We've also always given them as an example of a reform that benefited the working class (we have never said that this is not possible).
