robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Some interesting observations in this peice
Bernie Sanders supporting Ukraine:
____________________________
I’ve added a comment too and I would encourage others to do the same. It makes you sick listening to these lefties spouting their pro-capitalist nationalistic rubbish in favour of an authoritarian oligarchic regime (which ironically is much like the Putin regime). In the UK you’ve got people like Paul Mason, another Lefty, doing the same. These people are the enemies of socialism, no less than the right-wingers
Roberto, es muy cierto. Muestra las opiniones procapitalistas de la gente llamada de izquierdas como Bernie Sanders en Estados Unidos y en otros lugares.
It looks like the writing is on the wall….
“A modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start,” Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social.
It is a photo of Kid Starmer dressed in military gear with the caption: “Starmer: I am ready to put British Troops in Ukraine: PM´s announcement puts pressure on European leaders to do the same at summit in Paris”
As if…
hahaha Brilliant. Not quite sure how this could translate into improving attendance at branch meetings though!
I remember a long time ago the US was asking its physicists about whether a “limited” nuclear war was possible in Europe. Maybe that’s on the cards still. Maybe that explains the preparing in Europe for war with Russia.
Britain wouldn’t last a day should even a limited nuclear exchange with Russia happen. It would be absolutely obliterated. I cannot believe even an utter twit like Starmer would be unaware of the consequences and so would put this down to just theatrics on his part.
Nor can I see the UK seriously engaging in an official capacity in a conventional war against Russia apart from the fact that it is no longer a world power. If it did unilaterally do that it is likely to precipitate the break up of NATO and as things stand NATO has no intention of officially engaging in a war with Russia. Starmer will be told in no uncertain terms to toe the line
Zelensky is still trying to flog access to Ukraine´s mineral reserves but at a higher price than what is on the table. I don’t really understand what is behind this as I understand the mineral rights have already been bought up by interested parties and of course, a large chunk of those reserves are in territory occupied by the Russian military
Incidentally, I read somewhere that Zelensky´s term of office as President expired a long time ago. Why is he still in power without a democratic mandate?
Then and now trade unions *do* engage in campaigns to change the law, get certain MPs elected etc. Saying we can support trade unions because they operate only in the ‘economic’ sphere, and not the ‘political’ just doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t seem like the right way of putting it.
Yes, that’s true what you say. But we are talking about what should be the attitude of the SPGB towards trade unions. Obviously, we support the principle of militant trade union struggle in the economic field even if, as a political party, we don’t get directly involved (it’s for individual members to get involved). Trade unions do get involved in reform campaigns and there is not a lot that we can do about that, obviously.
However, support for the principle of trade unionism on our part does not have to extend to supporting trade union involvement in reformist activity – only militant activity in the economic field and along sound democratic lines. Which reminds me – is there still a political levy in the UK whereby a part of your membership dues goes to fund the Anti-Labour Party? I don’t know what the situation is now (having left the UK 20 years ago) but I sincerely hope this practice has been discontinued. I remember vaguely there was an opt-out arrangement forced on the unions by the Tory government at the time but maybe things have moved on since then…
Strange question. Two different things can share one, or more, common features without being the same in all other ways. How do you differentiate between a car and a van if both involve wheels and engines?
Yes, that’s sort of what I was saying. A car and van both involve wheels and engines but are, nevertheless, distinguishable. Similarly, trade unionism and reformism both involve a “power struggle” but they too are distinguishable. Not just “are distinguishable” but NEED to be distinguished from each other if we are to chart a clear and principled course of action towards a social revolution
Hey DJP
I spent a good hour or so trying to track down that reference to Marx. I knew it existed as I made a reference to it in stuff I had written ages ago.
Anyway, I think it is this – a letter from Marx to Bolte in 1871:
The political movement of the working class has as its ultimate object, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires a previous organisation of the working class developed up to a certain point and arising from its economic struggles. The attempt in a particular factory or even in a particular trade to force a shorter working day out of individual capitalists by strikes, etc. is a purely economic movement. On the other hand, the movement to force through an eight-hour, etc., law, is a political movement.”
I am not sure I would agree with you on the question of reformism- Yes, in a sense trade union struggle is “political” in that it is a power struggle (which is “political”) but the question then arises how do you differentiate trade union struggle from reformism if both involve a “power struggle”? If you cannot make such a differentiation then you have a problem. If, as a revolutionary socialist you are obliged to reject reformism then it would seem to follow that you cannot support trade unionism (which would be a problem for obvious reasons)
I think the way round this is to distinguish between “politics” in the broad sense you have in mind – as a power struggle – and “politics” in the narrow or formal sense as legislative enactments undertaken by the state and designed to ameliorate the problems that capitalism throws up (reformism)
As a socialist party we obviously cannot go down that (latter) road as that would inevitably compromise our commitment to socialism . We would pretty soon find ourselves sinking into the quicksand and being overwhelmed by the sheer multitude of problems capitalism will throw at us. The revolutionary abolition of capitalism would be gradually forgotten as a goal. It will disappear like the proverbial Cheshire Cats grin
Consequently we do need to draw a line in the sand (and preferably not in the quicksand of capitalist politics if this can be avoided). I think this can achieved by distinguishing between the economic FIELD of action (trade union struggle) and the political FIELD of action in which we engage in as a purely political party that rejects reformism (not reforms as such) and stands instead for social revolution.
Certainly it is true as you say, that a “lot of the reformist parties came out of the trade unions” but that is precisely the reason why we need to insist on having a clean split -to ensure that we don´t go the same way as all those reformist parties that have been swallowed up by the quicksand of capitalism and have absolutely no interest in getting rid of the system now
