ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Picked up a copy of Socialist Worker yesterday, literally, from a dustbin and see that they have now made the change from the old version:
Quote:The workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan production and distribution.(I imagine they put “collectively” in to avoid giving the impression that they were in favour of individual workers seizing it. back)to the new:
Quote:Under capitalism workers’ labour creates all profit. A socialist society can only be constructed when the working class seizes control of the means of production and democratically plans how they are used.That makes them sound like old-fashioned syndicalists who used to talk about the working class “taking and holding” the means of production. But if you read on to the end, you will see that they consider a “revolutionary party” is needed to seize political control.Even so, the front page proclaims “Strikes can beat the Government”. Not true, the most strikes can do is slow down the rate at which things are getting worse — not that workers shouldn’t try to do this, ie they should strike but “without illusions”. Also, article after article blames the Tories not capitalism, so they are playing the old (and Old) Labour card too. I’m just waiting for their announcement that workers should vote for Ken Livingstone as mayor of London ….
Has anyone else noticed the irony (or is it hypocrisy) of the whole affair? Terry is accused of making a racist comment and is sacked as captain for this. Capello resigns for criticising this and the whole sports press (including the broadsheets) unleashes a tirade of abuse against him … for being a foreigner.
Some probably are. Personally I’ve never been a fan of Chomsky (though I know some Socialist Party members are), especially not his stuff on US foreign policy, which is just boring and apparently (according to the link you give) not always accurate and does lend comfort to kneejerk anti-Americanism and its devotees.Having said this, I can’t deny that his stuff on the media, manufacturing consent is useful.There’s an assessment of Chomsky from the August 1998 Socialist Standard here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1128-august-1998/chomskys-weakness
I see what you’re getting at but it’s a cross we have had to bear over the years. Fifty or so years ago the journalists at the Daily Express were instructed to always refer to the Labour Party as “the Socialist Party”. Of course there’s no point in Tory papers doing that now as everybody can see that Labour has nothing to do with socialism.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Unlike the SPGB I can imagine myself supporting a reform but I would never call it socialsm. It would be a desprate struggle for a few more crumbs or a bit more freedom under capitalismWe’re not against either a few more crumbs or a bit more freedom. It’s just that, as a party, we campaign only for socialism. What we are against is the policy of reformism not necessarily against all reforms as such. And of course like you we’d never call any reform, however desirable or welcome, “socialism” or “socialist”.
There’s no copyright on what a political party calls itself. All there is is a degree of protection for the name that can be put on the ballot paper where we are “The Socialist Party of Great Britain” (and various variations of this, including “The Socialist Party (GB”)) and they are “Socialist Alliance” (and various variations of that, including “Socialist Alternative – Save Our Baby Unit”).But that’s not the real problem which is political rather than legal. I’ve just checked with the site of the Electoral Commission and here’s a list of registered parties calling themselves socialist:Socialist AllianceSocialist AlternativeSocialist Equality PartySocialist Labour PartySocialist People’s PartyScottish Socialist PartyRepublican Socialist PartySocialist Party (NI)There’s also the Socialist Workers Party (which is not registered).You could send the same email/letter to all of them as their programmes are more or less the same as that of SPEW (keep a society divided into rich and poor but tax the rich to provide jobs and benefits for the poor). You can find their addresses on the Election Commission’s site. It would be interesting to see if they any reply and what they say.
Yes, the Olympics are a Feast of Nationalism and a Festival of Freaks. I’m glad it’s taking place in East London not West London.
Another interesting analaysis of the present slump (“The First Depression of the 21st Century) here, by Anwar Shaikh. The text of this talk (which is not quite the same) can be found here.What is interesting, apart from his emphasising that capitalism is not geared to meeting effective demand and bringing out the relationship between the rate of interest and the rate of “profit of enterprise”, is that he concludes by saying that eventually world capitalism will recover from the present depression (even if not for ten years) and that this puts him in a tiny dwindling minority. Not quite of course because we say this too even if it is a bit of a downer for all those who think capitalism is collapsing or about to collapse soon. To tell the truth, I sometimes find myself reluctant to express this view when discussing with people who believe this as it could demotivate them and makes us appear less anti-capitalist than them. Still, the truth must be told.
You’ve got to read Chris Harman’s brilliant reply here to the somewhat eccentric views of Chris Knight. OK, I know he was an SWPer but Knight is in the Labour Party.
I think I just said that it was probably a fair picture and that I thought those in Cincinatti (pop 330,000) came over best.
Poor ex-Sir Fred having to be a scapegoat for the sins of capitalism. Hopefully we’ve come far enough from the days of the Ancient Hebrews for people to see through this attempt to let capitalism off its sins by piling them on to one man.
The latest Socialist Standard has a review of the new film about this despicable woman here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1290-february-2012/film-review-iron-lady
This article from last April’s Socialist Standard discusses some of these issues:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relations
Socialist Voice, the publication of the World Socialist Party of Ireland, ran 6 crosswords in the late 80s. Here are some of the clues (not all cryptic):Not right, and usually wrong politically (4)Small religion, or Trotskyist ‘mass’ party (4)Won Lenin’s throne after power struggle with Trotsky (5)Citadel of Russian state capitalism (7)At which we can buy back the goods we have produced cheaper than usual (4)Butcher’s aprons usually attached to a pole (5)Finish off everything with Marx’s magnum opus (5)
Yes, Robin, I think a case can be made out for saying that up until WWI Lenin was a leftwing Social Democrat who argued that, under the autocratic political conditions of Tsarism, Social Democrats there had to organise as a hierarchical centralised party in order to overthrow the Tsarist regime, and that for Western Europe he accepted the German party’s model of an open, democratic party pursing a maximum programme (of socialism) and a minimum programme of reforms of capitalism, contesting elections, etc.The trouble is that he changed his position after 1917. He now said that the organisational form and tactics that he had advocated for the overthrow of Tsarism (which was not in fact how Tsarism ended as it collapsed more or less of its own accord; his tactics only worked to overthrow the weak government that emerged following this) should also be applied in Western Europe for the overthrow of capitalism.This is when he would have ceased to be a Social Democrat and became a Bolshevik. In which case The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and Leftwing Communism An Infantile Disorder are the significant texts of Leninism. I suppose this means people like Phan Binh can mount some sort of a case for their view as long as they ignore Lenin’s post-1917 writings and of course practice. But it makes them leftwing Social Democrats to the disgust of Leninists who remain true to his post-1917 position.
