ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
OMNIA SUNT COMMUNIA sounds like a slogan we could use, though I see it is also been used by the free software movement.. According to this blogger:
Quote:It was their article of belief and they wanted to establish this principle, ‘All property should be held in common’ (Omnia sunt communia) and should be distributed each according to their needs as the occasion required. Any prince, count, or lord who did not want to do this, after first being warned about it, should be beheaded or hanged.” – Thomas Müntzer (1488 to 27 May 1525), a leader of the German Peasants’ War of 1524 to 1526, his Eighth Article of Confession, Confessed Under Torture Before Execution.I wonder who, or which group, in Sussex was behind the choice of this slogan.
mcolome1 wrote:Karl Marx did describe Simon Bolivar what he really was: A slave driver and a political opportunist,.I didn't know this before: that Marx had written something about Bolivar and that he was highly critical of him. We should make more use of this to counter the claim that you can be both a "Marxist" and a "Bolivarian".An internet search brings up this as the article Marx wrote criticising Bolivar's "Bonapartism":http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/01/bolivar.htmAlso, an interesting commentary on it by Hal Draper, written in 1968:http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1968/winter/bolivar.htm
Looks like the SWP is getting a dose of its own medicine. After "No Platform for the BNP" a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign seems to be developing. Seriously though, I don't think this is a healthy development, especially as the organisers of the Delhi Conference invoked "threats of disruption" for disinviting Callinicos The same excuse invoked by other conference organisers for disinviting Salman Rushdie.
Meanwhile in Tuesday's Morning Star:http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/131061
alanjjohnstone wrote:It is sad our Indian comrades and ex-comrades cannot make their presence more known on the internet.They're trying their best. See:http://www.worldsocialistpartyindia.org/http://www.facebook.com/gorachand.paramanikhttp://www.facebook.com/snkrsarkarhttp://www.facebook.com/binay.sarkar.5http://www.facebook.com/groups/328364997178353/There is also this person in Bangladesh who doesn’t agree with us (anti-parliamenary) but who is resolutely anti-Leninist and who posts regularly on our facebook page:http://www.facebook.com/shahalam2012HIs site is here: http://icwfreedom.org/I don't think we need worry too much that Leninism is not being severely criticised in this part of the world by people living there.
I listened in to this. Clifford was good, emphasing the need to take political action to end the market-profits-money system before anything lasting can be done. It was a bit disappointing that so many of the ZM people there appeared to be more into changing their individual life-style ("I am the change", said one) and local initiatives rather than propagating the need for their movement's declared aim of a world resource-based (as opposed to a money-based) economy.Much of the discussion was about "political action". Most of them, understandingly, rejected politics as irrelevant, which in its current form of it is. They didn't seem to realise that the schemes they favour (beyond individual life-style changes) as a "transition" to their goal (which is not so different from ours) such as more renewable energy and even the monetary reform some of them favour depend on government decisions and that to implement them they wouid have to either lobby the government or win control of it. Actually, some did seem to take this point as, like in the debate with Federico Pistono, the M5S movement in Italy was cited as the sort of political action they might countenance. Basically, they haven't worked out how the "transition" from the present system to a moneyless world resource-based economy could take place. Or perhaps don't have a common position on this or don't see the need for one. Most seem to see this as gradual process while others are banking on an economic collapse they see as coming in the next few decades (one of them doubted that the present system would still be going in 35 years time).
Another interesting example of how Marx's ideas are making headway in Asia at the expense of Lenin's which up to now they had been mistaken for:http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=449041&catid=39
Alexander Reiswich wrote:I was pleased to hear that there doesn't seem to be a problem in the property rights aspects. It seems that you do not really want to abolish ownership, but rather require that it is derived from usage.So for instance, it's impossible for one person to claim ownership over a large piece of land, when he or she cannot possibly use all of it in any meaningful way.Same with a factory; even if there is a founder or leader, it still is true that he or she didn't build and maintain the factory alone, hence everyone has a right to decide if the factory for instance should be closed or sold.I assume that's correct?Not quite. Since we are talking about a socialist society where nothing will be bought and sold the question of selling a factory just won't arise (though closing it might). Basically, in a socialist society, no individual or group of individuals (including the state which is also a group of individuals) will exercise "ownership" rights over factories, etc. These will in fact belong to nobody; which is the same as saying that they will belong to everybody. In short, the concept of ownership (which is a legal concept) in relation to them disappears. They are simply there to be used in accordance with procedures for their use that socialist society will have decided, democratically.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:First of all, since there will be no money, I assume that there will also be no taxation. Is that correct?Yes, that's right. And no banks, no wages, no profits.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:Secondly, I assume that socialism promotes a centralized governing body with a monopoly on the use of force. Would you enforce non-violent offenses (i.e. drug-use or whatever other action that has been deemed illegal) through the police?Wrong. While there will be a central administration under democratic control (as well as regional and local administrations) it will be unarmed and so won't be in a position to use force against people. In other words, it won't be a "state" which is a central administration "with a monopoly on the use of force" within a given territory. Here's how we described how we envisage the position the last time we discussed this in detail (at our Conference in 1991:
Quote:That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.
