ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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).
jondwhite wrote:What are the politics of calling for a reduction of the working day? Is it a valid socialist or Marxian position? Is it unique to socialism?Yes, it's a valid working class position that Socialists and Marx support. No, it is not unique to socialism (as non-socialist trade unionists support it too, and rightly).See this article from the May 2006 Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2006/no-1221-may-2006/hours-wages-and-profits
And here's what a front-page statement on "Municipal Elections" in the Socialist Standard of October 1906 said when the party first put up candidates for local councils:
Quote:The candidates of the SPGB therefore, whilst quite prepared to use the local powers for such small temporary benefits as may be forced from the capitalists' hands for the workers in those districts, nevertheless do not seek suffrages for this, which can only be a secondary business of the political party of the workers. The fact, pointed out above, must be strongly reiterated, that the powers of the local bodies are strictly limited and are controlled by the Government.The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters into municipal contests as a step in the work of the capturing of the whole political machinery. Fulling realising, and pointing out to the workers, the strict limitations of the power of local bodies, making no promises that are beyond our power to fulfil, we ask the members of our class, when (but not before) they have studied these facts and realised their correctness, to cast their votes for the candidates of the SPGB who alone stand on the above basis.A very clear statement of our position which is still valid and which we still apply today.
Miracle Child wrote:The battle in the media is being fought between Tories, who argue that Philpott confirms every prejudice they've ever had about poor people, and New Labour, who cling to the idea that "benefits", rather than the socialist position of full employment, are the answer.Both positions are bullshit, but the argument always thrown at socialists is that they would just encourage the Philpotts of this world. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Marx would have had in mind, but shouldn't we be saying so? .Actually, the socialist answer is not "full employment", i.e paid employment for all (which isn't possible under capitalism anyway). It's what might even be called "full unemployment", i.e where nobody would have to sell their working skills to an employer for a wage or a salary to get the money to buy the things they need to live. It's what Marx had in mind when he talked of "the abolition of thr wages system".People would still have to work of course in a socialist society to produce things otherwise society couldn't survive but not for an employer and not for wages. Productive work would not take the form of "employment". It would be a question of co-operating with other members of society to produce what was needed and then having free access to it. The application of the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".Under capitalism you can only survive if you can get hold of money and, apart from being born with it, there are only three ways of getting it: working for an employer., stealing or begging (charity). The so-called "benefits system" is a system of state charity, handouts for the poor. i.e. those who for one reason or another can't find an employer. It doesn't surprise me that some people try to get the most out of this, even by so-called "abusing" it. It's a risk some think worth taking and, personally, I don't blame them. Like everyone else they've got to survive under capitalism.I certainly don't buy the argument that they are parasites on "hard-working families" (as both the Tories and Labour claim — it was Gordon Brown who coined this term). The real parasites are the idle rich, not the idle poor.
I agree that £20,000 a year as a property-income is an arbitrary figure (and I was excluding pensions). Any figure will be. In any case, class is defined not by income but by relationship to the means of production, so we are just trying to find an indirect way of indentifying this.But you do realise that the lower the rate of interest the more your capital will need to be to get an income of this amount. If it's 4% then you'll need a capital of £500,000. If it's 3% you'll need one of £666,666 and if it's only 2% it's £1,000,000.
There have been independent candidates at elections before who have stood on a similar platform to us. One was Ernie Reynolds who stood in Swindon North in the 2005 general election as an "Abolish Money" candidate.He did know of us and filled out an application form to join but didn't proceed with it as he probably knew that he would not be accepted as he envisaged the "abolition of money" in one country (not that we stand for the abolition of money as such but rather for the establishment of common ownership, democratic control and production directly to satisfy people's needs that would make money redundant). He got 195 votes.Incidentally, the Andy Newman who is confusingly called a "Socialist" here, and got 208 votes on a programme promising various reforms of capitalism, was a Trotskyist (of the "Socialist Unity" faction) who is now a well-known blogger. He has since returned to the Labour Party presumably on the logic that if you want reforms you might as well be in a party that has a chance of delivering some. He has a good chance of becoming a Labour councillor next year,
