robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
But (unsurprisingly to me), the replies generally seem to think this a bad idea. Fair enough.
If you are referring to the meeting (I didn’t attend it) I would be very surprised if anyone there would have suggested it would be a bad idea to discuss the kind of problems a socialist would face in the short term – that is, if I have understood you correctly. I recall that when the production-for-use committee report came out back in the 1990s or whenever it was, the reception was generally positive.
You mention your interest in William Morris. There has always been a strong current of support for the WM approach within the SPGB. There is also a “Fully Automated Luxury Communism” (the title of Aaron Bastani´s book) tendency in the party as well, Some of the most interesting debates within the Party have pitted WM comrades against FALC comrades.
I’m somewhere in between. There are pros and cons on both sides but I tend to place heavy emphasis on the shift in values that needs to occur before we achieve a socialist society. Consumerism is something I am particularly opposed to because it is essentially all bound up with status acquisition under capitalism – a way of reinforcing capitalism – and has little to do with having a reasonably materially comfortable life as such (which we will need to achieve for everyone in socialism as a priority). Consumerism is consumption for the sake of consumption. It is alienated consumption that also has very negative consequences as far as the environment is concerned
This doesn’t look good for the Zelensky regime. Even the attempt to lure Trump with the promise of Ukraine´s mineral riches seems to have failed because 1) rights to these have already been sold off (so it was just an attempted con trick) 2) Most of the rare minerals sites are on land occupied by the Russian military.
Now this:
“No NATO membership, no return to pre-2014 borders, and no more relying on U.S. for military funding – Trump delivers hammer blow to Ukraine as America comes first”I can´t see this war lasting much longer. I read somewhere that there have been in excess of 100,000 deserters from the Ukrainian side and military recruiters are facing increasing hostility when they visit towns to try to harvest more cannon fodder.
One would hope that same is true of the Russian side and that Russian workers in uniform would desert too. Some have but I’m not too sure of the total. This has been a stupid pointless conflict in which workers on either side have absolutely nothing to gain and so much to lose.
Nationalism is a sick death cult. Hopefully, the killing will soon come to an end
DJP
You’re right about being careful about going about contacting ex-members – one has to be careful and so a case-by-case approach would be advisable. But I get the impression that most comrades just lapse – drift away – perhaps, ironically, because of the lack of contact.
You’re also right about the lack of younger members. Geez, when I think back to the days of the old Guildford branch (of which I was a member) in its hey day it was buzzing with younger people. Very few were over 40, I guess. On one memorable branch meeting, we had 5 Forms A accepted (could have been 7 but the couple couldn’t make it that and joined at the subsequent meeting). Those were the days….
Maybe the Party should get into Tiktok or something..
As an aside could I ask why people leaving the party was a subject for discussion in the first place? I would have thought, when compared to other political parties or voluntary organisations in general, the churn of members was quite low. Has this recently changed
My impression is that the Party is fairly steadily losing members at the moment and getting smaller. It is concerning frankly. How this rate of loss compares with other organisations such as those on the left, I don’t know. All the more reason to take seriously the concerns of those who left the Party. How about you DJP? Have you considered rejoining?
I do believe we can turn this situation around and build up a head of steam. Maybe reconnecting with past members could be part of a strategy for renewed growth. But we need to do other things as well.
Personally, I cannot see the point in not belonging to an organisation if your basic values and outlook align with it. It is important to connect. Heaven knows, the SPGB is far from perfect but – let’s face it – it is easily the best option for people of our political persuasion, people who want what we want. What have you got to lose by rejoining?
But I’m getting away from the point of my original post, that I thought might be of help to the SPGB. Where I think the party fails is that there is no serious examination of problems that will be encountered under socialism, particularly in the short term, such as getting resources to poor countries, and how to create alternatives in areas where dangerous work will no longer be done. Which, for what it is worth, is one of the reasons why I left the party
I would agree with Howard that this is not really a good reason for leaving for the Party but I also agree with you that we do indeed need to be thinking more, if only in broad terms, about how a socialist society might hit the ground running when it comes tackling something like the huge problem of material deprivation that exists in the world today.
I believe some components of this problem – particularly food production – can be very easily and rapidly resolved. In fact, the world already produces more than enough food to feed the global population. Just over a third of it is wasted. The pattern of farming also needs to be modified. There are problems with the large-scale industrial model of agriculture based on monocultures as practised in the West. Yes, it is productive in terms of output per worker but it is not as productive in terms of output per hectare and there are numerous environmental issues associated with this form of farming.
The problem is that the increasing concentration of farmland in fewer hands is locking farmers into this industrial model of farming based on mechanisation and chemicalised production and I would hope that, come a socialist society, would see a reversal of this trend – the break up of large farms, more multicropping and organic farming and more people living in the countryside instead of what is the case today where in many parts of the developed world, you face a serious problem of the “emptying of the countryside”.
In the poor countries, you mention the opposite problem is occurring – the average landholding size is shrinking, making it more difficult for small farmers to eke out a living.
Agriculture is a good example of a case study where we could indeed develop a more detailed and practical approach to a set of problems and, in the process, convince more workers to join the cause. The point is we need to stimulate and encourage each other into thinking – using our imagination and our existing stock of knowledge – how socialism could indeed be a very practical and sensible alternative to the system we currently live under.
We cannot just leave things at the level of vague abstractions or generalisations. A formulaic stock response is unlikely to convince many workers….
The Danish seem to have a sense of humour LOL
“Meanwhile, the Danes have launched their own effort to purchase America’s most prosperous state: California.
An online petition seeking the ‘Denmarkification’ of California has almost 200,000 signatures.
‘Have you ever looked at a map and thought, ‘You know what Denmark needs? More sunshine, palm trees, and roller skates.’ Well, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make that dream a reality,’ petition organizers write.
Organizers estimate they need $1 trillion to purchase the state from Trump.”
Can’t Trump get the same from Putin?
Well, according to Reuters article I linked to above
“Zelenskiy said less than 20% of Ukraine’s mineral resources, including about half its rare earth deposits, were under Russian occupation”In theory, Trump being a capitalist businessman might want to juggle with a few options. Should he support Ukraine and hope that it might recapture some of the ground the Russian forces now occupy so he can get his hands on more of these rare earth deposits? But that scenario is very unlikely to happen, it is more probable that Russia will gain further ground this year and there are the costs of further military support to take into account too. Of course, there is always the Greenland option but it looks like the EU is going to intervene and prevent mineral-rich Greenland from becoming part of Murica
This may or may not have implications for the ongoing war in the Ukraine–
Someone said it lasts for more than 2 hours. I only watched so far to the brief description of projects A and B. Have you got to the end? In fact will anybody?
Well, I have just finished looking at the video. It’s long and I had to do it in two sittings. There is certainly a lot of useful material in there – quite thought-provoking, in fact. She is certainly an effective communicator though some people might find her wacky sense of humour a bit OTT. I didn’t mind it that much though there were one or two times when she engaged in it for a bit too long
In the end, she came out with 3 actual alternatives, the third one a derivation from the first
1) NTC socialism (non-transferable currency)
2) Free access communism
3) UFI socialism (universal full income)No 3 shares with no 2 the fact that labour is completely voluntary and uncoerced in the sense that you still get access to goods even if you choose not to work but each individual is allocated spending points which are non transferable (as with NTC socialism).
She gave a pretty decent rundown of the reasons why free-access communism could work and I particularly enjoyed this part of the video. We would have criticisms of the the NTC socialism model obviously and she did touch on some of these.
She ended with a discussion of various forms of participatory planning – such as in Kerala and in Spain during the civil war. One could easily imagine some aspects of these being adopted in a socialist society.
All in all I thought it was very good video and certainly, I learnt some things from it. I would certainly recommend featuring it on our website but with a short intro from us on where we disagree with some of the ideas – notably NTC socialism – with a link to articles on our website
TBH I”m still not sure why that Lucky Black Cat video is supposed to be special. The idea that a fully communist society would be one without markets is commonplace amongst people concerned with that type of thing.
DJP, I am not saying her video is unique or special and in fact, if there are others talking about the same thing and in much the same vein I would urge that these too be featured on our website. I haven’t seen the one you linked to and will check it out. I have to say I do like the Lucky Black Cat video for the style of delivery and its wit….
Thinking again about the point Moo makes about leaving off “planning how we’re going to solve problems, such as lifting people in the Global South out of extreme poverty as quickly as possible” till we are a much larger movement – perhaps a clarification would be in order…
Moo, if you are talking about detailed planning then you are probably right. We cannot predict when, or if, we are ever going to be a mass movement – not to mention the circumstances prevailing at the time that would affect the details of such planning anyway.
Perhaps “planning” is the wrong word here. But we do need a theoretical approach or perspective informed by the data that is already available to us now as to how we might broadly go about tackling this issue. We can’t just say “The problem is capitalism and the solution is Socialism” and leave it at that. We have to explain and justify to the outsider why we consider socialism to be the solution and in a way that is convincing and persuasive. That unavoidably means getting into the nitty gritty- outlining some of the mechanisms, institutions or procedures that might be brought into play – even if we preface or qualify what we say by pointing out that it is provisional.
We cannot NOT do this. If we do not do this then what we have to say about socialism will come across as utterly vague, utopian and too abstract to convince anyone.
Of course, in practice members do have a lot more to say about socialism than simply that it is “moneyless wageless classless and stateless based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production”. Nevertheless, we should be saying much more than we do and out in the open for all to see.
We should be actually encouraging debate within the Party and perhaps also in the Socialist Standard itself (a debate forum as a regular feature, perhaps?). I know members have different views on matters such as the role of nuclear power in a socialist society or whether people should turn to vegetarianism and abandon a meat-based diet. I don’t see a problem at all with having these kinds of debates and we shouldn’t try to pretend we are, or should be, a monolithic entity
Maybe this is partly what lies behind the idea that we shouldn’t get too much into the details of a socialist society – namely the fear that talking about it will have a divisive effect on what is after all a small organisation, maybe causing some to leave and thus making the organisation even smaller. So we clam up to retain a sense of unity.
Actually, this strikes me as a very misguided way of looking at this matter. A certain degree of divisiveness (beyond the basic agreement over the fundamentals, of course), is something to be welcomed and encouraged. Ironically, this is probably much more likely to draw in the outsider and encourage him or her to join the Party – knowing we are not a monolith.
The Party needs to develop a culture of feeling relaxed and comfortable with the idea that we are not ever going to see eye to eye on everything. Nor should we
