ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually the first speaker is quite good on the early IS tradition. The ex-SPGBer she mentions will have been Wally Preston who left IS in the 1974 purge she mentions later on and who eventually rejoined us. There's a recorded talk by him on "Trotskyism" somewhere but I don't think it's on our site. We also have a member who was in IS at the time and say he was only one of two "workers" (ie non students) in his branch. No doubt true, as she more or less confirms. In the 1960s, the beginning of the time she's talking about, we were actually bigger than IS. What happened !
Actually, they were both just "values" I thought off the top of my head as I was typing, so I'm sure they can be philosophically deconstructed.But the first one (about "equality of decision-making power") is not specifically socialist. It's more a basic democratic principle, which does concern socialism of course in the sense that socialism will be a democratic society. And it doesn't imply that everybody has to have a say in every decision but only that in any particular decision-making everybody involved in making it should have an equal say. If you are interested in exploring the philosophical basis of democracy, have a read of this 1986 book by a Socialist Party member who was a professional philosopher, The Battle of Democracy: Conflict, Consensus and the Individual.On the second possible "greatest value" in socialism (the sharing of the benefits of social co-operation in accordance with the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") of course it doesn't mean that anyone can have access to what someone else has decided to take from the common store for their personal use or to the housing accommodation that they have been allocated to them to use. That's an old, silly (or silly old) objection that's often be raised against socialism. Actually, I think that the concept of property (basically a legal concept) will be replaced in socialism by that of use, ie someone will have the more or less exclusive "right" to use certain things. The means for producing things (farms, factories, etc) will be commonly owned, which is another way of saying they won't be owned by anybody.
It would be nice to think that reading our manifesto would get people to realise that socialism (a world of common ownership, democratic control, production for use not profit, and acccess to goods and services on the basis of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") was the way out because this, as a matter of fact not just opinion, is the only way out. Unfortunately, for the reasons you give, this isn't the case. So don't be too disappointed this evening that, when the result is announced, we won't have to address Bill as Councillor Martin.
One thing that the events of 1945 repudiate is that a economic slump is the best time for the progress of socialist ideas. Something like what happened then seems better, i.e a hope that things could/would get better. After all, our party was at its largest in the years after 1945 too. Unfortunately, today the expectation is that things are going to get worse. That will get some people (a minority) thinking about capitalism and becoming anti-capitalist and even socialist, but will discourage mass action such as the general strike being called for by leftists.
There's a revealing passage in this interview with Ken Loach where he says:
Quote:Ken says that as he made the film, what resonated was the feeling that this generation achieved something unique that we could learn from today, and that many did not support Labour because they were “Socialists” but because they did not want a return to the poverty of the 1930s.Young Master Smeet wrote:Unfortunately, a rule big enough to take the big boys on would crush us under foot…But would we, i.e the Socialist Standard, have to register? If we have the choice I don't think we should but you could be right: we might have to tone down some of the things we say in the Greasy Pole column.Mind you, the Weekly Worker recently got done for libel under the existing rules. They settled for £1000 damages plus both sides' legal costs (which they estimate could be as high as £10,000):http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/948/an-unreserved-apology-to-unite-regional-officer-wayne-kinghttp://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/950/appeal-from-the-editorWe should be ok as long as we don't libel anyone.
I agree with Steve on this one. I've got no sympathy for them at all. The press barons and their hired editors called for regulation and restrictions on the trade unions in the 70s and 80s and are now getting a bit of their own medicine. They are not interested in the freedom of the press as such. What they are interested in is their freedom to publish whatever they consider will sell more of their paper and so bring in more profits for their owners. What other sections of the capitalist class do to them is not our concern.
Here is an analysis of the Five Star Movement (M5S) by a comrade from Italy (part of a longer article for the Socialist Standard):M5S complains that the State is disjointed from the citizens, that the Constitution (which represents the bourgeois law) is not applied, and that the State’s cost is far too high and does not match with its efficiently. Here the middle-class in crying out for legality through the M5S. Of course this message is also appealing to workers, who have experienced years of abuse from the political class. M5S also proposes that the salary of the members of parliaments be in line with the national average salary; this point has been seen as socialist, but in fact is just a sign that when a capitalist economy is in crisis politicians should get the blame too. Nothing socialist there! We think that the capitalist system itself should get the blame and not only their servant politicians.An interesting proposal is to make available to all citizens with an internet access via the live steaming of public meetings. This is not direct democracy, but the principle that workers could participate more closely in political debates is interesting. Following the same line, there is the proposal that new laws should be online three months before they are approved to get citizens’ comments. It is not clear if these comments will be enough to change the proposed laws or even stop them, but again the principle of participation is interesting. M5S asks for referendums without a quorum condition and for the obligation on Parliament to discuss laws proposed by a people’s initiative. All these efforts to make the Parliament more accessible to the workers are welcome, however very limited they are by the fact that economic power will be still in the hands of a few who will be influencing the political world anyhow. A more transparent way of doing politics in Italy is the main reason why the M5S got such a large vote . The middle class and even in some cases the upper class rely on the bourgeois legality of the Constitution and the current political system was not representing them. The M5S political platform includes several points about sustainability. Unfortunately, capitalism is not sustainable so to try to reconcile this with the health of the planet rises contradictions by definition. In terms of economic policy the M5S wants to introduce class actions, abolish the dummy corporation system in stock exchange, and abolish the so-called Biagi’s law which proposes that workers with temporary contacts have no rights for holidays, sick leave or maternity leave, and restrictions on their pension payments. Article 18 of the Workers’ Statue (Statuto dei Lavoratori, 1970) says that an employer ought to have a fair reason to fire an employee. Several governments have wanted to modify it, so allowing the employer to fire their employees quite easily, to create what they call “flexibility”. Grillo in his blog proposed that this article should not be changed but that instead the taxes on enterprises should be lowered. The fact that the M5S is against Biagi’s law and does not want to change Article 18 was a crucial point to gain votes from the working class. In principle not changing this article is good. Unfortunately the real problem is that the worldwide free labour market has considerably reduced the working class’s bargaining power. Instead of hoping that lower taxes on enterprises would solve the problem workers should get involved in international movements to fight against capital. Instead, M5S national reformism seems to be the preferred way. Moreover the M5S tries to contrast the anarchic nature of capitalism by proposing to forbid the closure of food and manufacturing industries which have the internal market as their main market; the banning of cross share-holdings between the bank system and the industrial system; that financial advice institutes should share responsibility for losses; that a limited salary be established for the CEOs of corporations in which the State is the main shareholder; abolition of stock options; abolition of state monopolies such as Telecom Italia, Autostrade, ENI, ENEL, Mediaset, Ferrovie dello Stato. This is the part that seems to interest the Occupy Movement. M5S wants to reduce the public debt so as to reduce the costs of the State. As the Italian State costs a lot, the money will also need to come from somewhere else. Benefits to unemployed people are also mentioned in M5S’s programme.M5S reached political power rather quickly as an anti-establishment movement, this because in Italy politics, corruption and crime are so interconnected, and public opinion, influenced by bourgeois ideology, can no longer stand it. In economical terms, the M5S response is a Keynesian mixed economy, with the old illusion that government intervention will be able to control or even cure the anarchic nature of capitalism. Unfortunately, the mixed economy already proved to be ineffective in taming capitalism. But can the M5S at least get rid of corruption and collusion? We shall see. It may be interesting, form the social science point of view, to notice that reformist movements are becoming more and more hybrid and not linked to the former fashions, such as left and right. The internet has become a powerful media for people organization, but still people need human contact and public speeches to get convinced. For many people representing the old establishment, this has been a real revolution. For the working class this is yet another reformist movement. The Italian bourgeoisie is in such bad shape that this quite moderate movement, which aims at a capitalist system regulated by the government with no obvious links with the organize crime, seems to be asking a lot. The need to apply bourgeois legality is so urgent that voters from all sides were attached by the M5S. Workers voted the M5S with the hope that cuts to cost of the State and the abolition of Biagi’s law could improve their condition. Unfortunately, capitalism does not have a good face or a bad face, it follows profit. And although it is very appealing and needed to kick the old politicians in the ass, the situation for the workers is unlikely to be improved by M5S political reforms.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:. A very simplistic ethical framework that I could devise for socialism (I don't necessarily believe that any socialist actually accepts it) would be something like this:- the greatest value is economical equality. Thus, any action that furthers this ideal is moral- the least valuable thing is economical inequality. Any action that leads to more inequality is immoralI realise that this is only an example and you do say that you didn't think that any socialist would necessarily accept it. You are right there. We wouldn't because it implicitly accepts that people should continue to have a monetary income while they won't in socialism. In any event, under capitalism anybody trying to act on this would be fighting a losing battle as this article explains. So, it would be irrelevant in socialism and trying to run up a downward-moving escalator under capitalism.Something like this would better describe our approach today under capitalism::- the greatest value is the interest of the class of wage and salary workers.This is what is behind our principles and actions today as a political party within capitalism. Of course it's very abstract and we'd have deduce from the facts of the present situation that the interest of the working class (as defined above) is to free itself from capitalist exploitation and that this can only be done through socialism (as the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interest of the whole community).What your "supreme value" would be once socialism has been achieved would be a different matter, but it would have to be something like- the greatest value is equality of decision-making power.or- the greatest value is the sharing of the benefits of social co-operation in accordance with the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.It's all a bit philosophical.
That was not my point at all. It was that, while we oppose religion in general (which we do very well, despite pleas from some quarters not to), it is better to leave it to ex-adherents of particular religions to campaign against their particular ex-religion's patriarchical and anti-woman preachings and practices (shared by the world's two main religions, Christianity and Mohammedanism, as well as by a minor one, Judaism). Thus, organisations like the Council of Ex-Muslims are best placed to denonce the Muslim teaching that husbands can rape and beat their wifes.As to the wording of the petition, I've seen the same reservation expressed on other forums about the word "believing" as expressed by our friends in North-East and the same amendment of replacing this by "taking seriously". I'm not sure, though, that the petition is open to amendment or that those who drafted it would agree to this or any amendment.
SocialistPunk wrote:Of the "bigger fish", what do you propose to counter the negative attitude among religious conservatives?We can leave most of this to these courageous people: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/
This is knocking at an open door. Meanwhile out there, there are bigger fish to fry:http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/muslim-brotherhood-opposes-un-declaration-on-violence-against-women-1.1326515
Whatever you think of the Zeitgeist Movement, you've got to give it to Peter Joseph — he's a good communicator, as in this recent interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZSxeiziMgFor most of the time he's saying much the same as us, about capitalism, abundance, society being out of sync with technology, the need to organise rationally and scientifically production for needs not profit or finance. Ok, we can fault him on some of the "transitional" measures he touches on here and his claim that current unemployment is "entirely" technological (a wild exaggeration), but then he's not a member of the World Socialist Movement. When you listen to him, you can get the impression he's been reading some of our stuff.
SocialistPunk wrote:Do you see a possibility of any "retaliation" from the SWP old guard?They will be hating others much more than us, especially those who have left and who they will be regarding as renegades. It will be interesting to see where most of these go, possibly into the Labour Party even.
