paula.mcewan
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Beatles? We don’t need no Beatles.
Manchester https://youtu.be/yds77TQFfdEHa good point! I’m sick of the unquestioning support for prolonging the war in Ukraine. Not only has the war created a massive negative impact on our own standard of living, it has also led to enormous profits for the arms manufacturers. Not to mention the death and suffering on both sides. Since the beginning of the conflict, I can’t help but question the morality of supporting a nation that compels its men to bear arms. The people of Ukraine (and Russia) didn’t vote for this. Nor did any of us with the right to vote. The entire episode has taught me that there is no ‘democracy’ in times of armed conflict – we’re all expected to accept it and support it. I keep feeling sorry for the poor buggers in Ukraine that are compelled to fight in a war not of their making. If nothing else, the very fact that Boris Johnson keeps popping up in support of Ukraine is sufficient in my view to question the whole thing.
Thank you Adam for this lucid explanation of the party’s position. I am no longer struggling.
Cheers
PaulaThank you for the links Adam. So, the party’s position was that because enough working class men had the vote, there was no need for women ‘of property’ to have the vote? Particularly as those women were imagined to be hostile to working class emancipation.
I am still struggling to see how we could have achieved socialism in 1904 if only half of two thirds of the electorate had the vote.
Setting aside the question of women’s suffrage, why was the party advocating revolution through the ballot box at a time when only a minority of the working class actually had the vote?
Paula
Adam says: “Anyway, that was their assessment of the position at the time. But by 1918 this had ceased be an issue as the franchise was extended then to a majority of the working class.”
No thanks to the SPGB. All thanks to the working class, and in particular, women – whether or not they had property.
Our position should be that the franchise is extended to everyone including 16 year olds, because revolution can only be achieved through the democratic process.
So, if I understand this correctly. In 1904, 2/3 of men had the vote. And no women. We advocated revolution through the democratic process. But w e were not in favour of the franchise for women because only women ‘with property’ would get the vote. Did we object to the 2/3 of men having the vote because they had property? I can’t understand this argument. Are we saying that we were (at best) indifferent to votes for women, because it was a campaign for only women ‘of property’ (whatever that means) to have the vote? What was wrong with women ‘of property’ having the vote? Given our understanding that there are only two classes in society – and 2/3 of men didn’t comprise the capitalist class – I still fail to see why the party was unsympathetic to votes for women. Instead of defending our position of 1910, we should admit we were wrong.
