jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As a thought experiment, to take your word, and assume Left Unity is standing for the same things as the SPGB, except Left Unity are more focused on unity than the SPGB, then why aren't Left Unity backing SPGB candidates standing in the forthcoming elections? Or do Left Unity require agreement with their own Left Unity project in order to be supported? In which case, how is this different, or any more focused on unity, from any party? Except for the fact that it may claim to be composed of more members? So is the formulation, more 'unity' can be defined as 'more members' subscribing? In a leadership organisation, I know who benefits from more subscriptions.
I'm surprised by the claimed SWP agreement in this part
Quote:The Anti-Privatisation Campaign at Sussex University formally requested to the Socialist Works Party that they refrain from bringing any placards, banners, posters, papers, or other paraphernalia that displays the Socialist Worker logos to our demonstrations. The SWP have responded in agreement, and they will no longer be bringing any memorabilia to our events.Perhaps Callinicos hasn't got rid of all the intersectionalists he thought he had. I think its fair to call this a 'ban', if we are to continue with the definition used in the revleft debate with Blake's baby over the SPGB ban from the Anarchist Bookfair. There 'ban' was distinguished from bringing paraphenalia inside (which was the SPGB experience of the bookfair) from 'banning' individuals from entering (which was the ICC CWO French sections censorious spat).Perhaps it could be argued to play devils advocate, that rather than censors falling out, this seems like a supportable 'ban', as 'banning' not free speech but something visible and liable to cause needless understandable trauma, distress and upset? No-one's stopping people who may be members of the SWP speaking on a platform.It wouldn't necessarily be the SPGB approach, who might be keen to get the SWP politics publicly on record and confront the politics on a platform. But this is also the line taken by the Weekly Worker http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/swp-sign-of-the-times
DJP wrote:jondwhite wrote:Would Left Unity throw its full resources behind backing SPGB candidates?Why on earth would you think they would want to, and why on earth do you think we would be able to accept 'help' from a pro-capitalist party?
They would want to back the SPGB if they are sincerely putting unity first. Why do you think anyone calls for unity?And I do not think the SPGB should recognise assistance from any political party but the SPGB do not operate in a vacuum and non-members already help the SPGB.
Having watched the Nigel Farage hagiography on Channel 4 and the debate with Elizabeth Jones, it seems I may have been wrong. UKIP looks more libertarian minded than paleoconservative League of Empire Loyalists style.
Surely it has to be Labour Party Mark 4 or 5 by now. Anyway, here's hoping Labour lose the next general election.
Apart from the "real Labour Party" nonsense, I thought the video was pretty good, even Galloway challenged the myths of Scottish nationalism.
I don't think UKIP are best described as libertarian (an argument could even perhaps be made that they're not necessarily right-wing), a better description might be "paleoconservative" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism) as I think UKIP support some nationalisation."Paleoconservative" is more Peter Hitchens and the American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/) which makes for an interesting read about conservative ideology that is out of favour with modern conservatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism) especially in the US. Peter Hitchens opposed the war on Iraq, but does believe you can have a just war (such as the Falklands or the Northern Irish conflict), usually defined as whatever one is in Britain's (rather than capital's) interests.Some of the questions over UKIP ideology were touched on herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/ukip-v-one-world
Quote:2.Feedback event on Breaking the Frame gathering, Saturday March 29th The Breaking the Frame Gathering on the politics of technology is now close, and we want to encourage your organisation to get involved and to give us input on how the gathering can be most useful to your campaign. To this end we are repeating the very successful meeting held in February, on March 29th, from 1pm to 5.30pm. This will be a great opportunity to meet other organisations in the nascent politics of technology network that we are building.The aim of the event is to gather ideas and get your input for the gathering. We'd love to know what you think about which organisations and people to invite and the structure of the programme, as well as what will make the gathering work for you. There will be time for discussion of the ideas behind the gathering, including playing the Luddites200 technology politics game. The event will be at the Common House (http://www.commonhouse.org.uk/), Unit 5E (press the buzzer), 5 Pundersons Gardens, Bethnal Green, London E2 9QG, from 1pm-5pm (bring lunch to share from 12.15). If you're coming, it’s important to let us know, by replying to this message or by texting 07854 256040.A topic on libcom suggests "The only government minister to order armed police against striking workers was that left-wing man of the people, Tony Benn." around 1976/1977. Although it's not clear this is accurate.https://libcom.org/forums/history/baboon-wrote-the-only
New podcast episode here;
Quote:Our latest podcast contains contributions from Paris Thompson on the concept of Workers' Government, Brian Collier on Stuart Hall and Javaad Allipoor on the situation in the Ukraine, with much lively discussion on each topic.
