robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My investigation of the state of the WSPUS has been completed and comprehensive report has been drawn up. The conclusion in a nutshell is that the Party is definitely back in business, small though it may be
There are a number of recommendations made at the end of the Report which I hope will be discussed – and supported – at Conference. The include providing financial support for both the WSPUS and the SPC and scrapping the existing unworkable arrangement regarding membership by permitting dual membership
I have also suggested a project concerned with how to make more effective use of the social media which the membership of the WSM across the world could get involved with. So far the response has been pretty positive.
Saying that if we vote to Leave capitalism we can devote more resources to the health service (and everything else)?
Not a bad idea actually, This has the potential to become quite a clever slogan to catch people’s attention. How might it be worded?
What about the idea (on one of our FB sites) of hiring a big red bus during the election period fully equipped with a loud speaker, tons of leaflets to give out and of course, bedecked in placards?
How fitting that George Galloway should join hands with Farage’s little Englander Brexit Party. It confirms everything I ever thought about him
Who are the familiar names you saw on twitter feed by the way Alan?
It’s clear that for Marx, and thus for anyone claiming to be influenced by Marx, that the overwhelming majority of humanity is what is meant by ‘a majority’
Yes socialism requires a significant majority in order to be established but I think we ought to be clear, that in the process of obtaining that a majority the type of opposition that socialists are likely to encounter en route to that objective will itself begin to change and mutate and in the direction in which social opinion itself is moving and adapting.
That is to say, if you have 50 % of the population, say, who are committed or “full” socialists this would imply , in my view that a further , say, 30% are what I would term “semi-socialists”. Semi-socialists are not quite convinced about the need for socialism but wouldn’t stand in the way of its establishment, leaving only 20% who definitely oppose socialism.
By the time full socialists achieve a figure of say 60% , socialism’s overt opponents will have shrunk to pretty much negligible proportions.
What I am trying to say is that you have to visualise the (as yet hypothetical) growth of the socialist movement in historical terms. It cannot but have a profound (and ever expanding) impact on the broader social climate. As the latter changes this will help accelerate the growth of the movement in a positive feedback loop.
This is why I find the typical Leftist scenarios about the capitalist class clamping down on the socialist movement (once it starts growing) by withdrawing elementary democratic rights and installing a fascist dictatorship, quite unconvincing and ahistorical. Capitalist governments operate within, and adapt to, a given social context if only to shore up their legitimacy. They dont have a free hand to mould developments as they might want. If they did , if they could shape society in whichever way they chose, the workers would never revolt or have obtained the vote. We would still be living in the pre-Chartist era or Rotten boroughs lorded over by rotten capitalists.
Change is essentially a bottom-up process. The capitalists and their representatives have power only because we give it to them. When the writing is on the wall and their time is clearly up, there will precious little they could do about it. For the most part even they will fall in line with the will of majority, grudgingly or otherwise
What a commotion. A member was not aware that Corbyn had expressed the view that the class struggle as defined by the SPGB was more important to workers than Brexit.
That is all!
Can we leave it at that?No we can’t. We ALSO have to discuss what side of the class struggle Corbyn and the Labour Party are going to support. It is certainly not going to be the side of the workers. Corbyn does not want to get rid of capitalism (only to humanise it). But capitalism can only really be run in the interests of capital and therefore against the interests of labour
I thought I would just mention that just in case Vin thinks socialists should leave off attacking the ideas of a politician (like Corbyn) who upholds capitalism
the ridiculous statement that “The SPGB is small because it is hostile to workers and their attempts to feed and house themselves”…”
Robbo, I actually don’t think VM’s criticism is as ridiculous as you say and it is our approach to reforms that has to a large extent, but not wholly, determined our size and connection to the broader workers’ movement. Can that really be denied?Sorry I dont agree, Alan. If Vin had rephrased his sentence to say something along the lines that “The SPGB is small because it is hostile to workers attempts to win reforms” I might have just let the matter rest even if I wouldn’t myself use the word “hostile”. It is better just to say we oppose reformism
But he didn’t say that did he? He wasn’t referring to reforms. He was referring to our attitude to workers as workers . He was saying we are “hostile” to them.
That is a pretty outrageous claim to make in my opinion and when challenged on that Vin gets into a fit of pique and calls me a schoolboy bully for daring to criticise him
Very strange behaviour is all I can say….
I view robbo as a schoolboy bully with minions around him and thus treat him with the same contempt.
Oh pleeeez. Vin, get a grip.
I simply criticised you for coming out with the ridiculous statement that “The SPGB is small because it is hostile to workers and their attempts to feed and house themselves”
Now, apparently, because I have criticised you, I’ve suddenly become a “schoolboy bully”. All I can say is you have got to be “super sensitive” if you dont like the idea of others criticising you.. There is another word for that but I won’t mention it. Try to grow a thicker skin if you can’t handle criticism.
You talk about strawman arguments but your whole contribution has been one long strawman argument. So Corbyn recognises there is a class divide in society. Great! And your point is – what? Socialists are quite happy to acknowledge that at least Corbyn is saying something that you wouldn’t see a Tory politician saying. But at the end Corbyn’s Labour Party is as fully committed to capitalism as the Tories. THAT is why we oppose him and his Party or do you prefer that we did not?
You also talk about the SPGB’s “sectarianism” but frankly you have shown nothing but sectarianism in your bitter attacks on the SPGB. Please stop it. You are alienating a lot of people who once had a lot of sympathy for you when you were in SPGB. You chose to leave even when you were urged to remain. That in itself make your hostility all the more baffling and uncalled for.
Sigh. Vin again you completely missing the point. I am not attacking you, I am attacking the views that you now seem to hold as Iam quite entitled to do – views such as the one you expressed that “The SPGB is small because it is hostile to workers and their attempts to feed and house themselves”. Perhaps you might care to substantiate this nonsensical claim? Even a single reference or link to anything the Party has ever said would do the trick
Then there is your views about Corbyn. I find it disturbing that every time he has criticised by socialists you seem to want to jump to his defence. Why? You seem to want to lump socialist criticism of Corbyn with criticism that comes from other quarters. You ask how can we in the SPGB possibly disagree with Corbyn’s contention that we live in a class divided society but who said we did? That’s not why oppose Corbyn and his party as you well know. Nor do we oppose Corbyn because the Tories call him an anti-Semite or whatever. SPGB criticism of Corbyn is totally different from capitalist criticism of Corbyn. Stop lumping the two together. You almost make it sound like we are in league with the Tories to bring down Corbyn and that annoys me no end, to be honest.
To clarify matters it would helpful if you spelt out in clear terms what exactly your views now are on Corbyn and the Labour Party instead of engaging in shadow boxing. Do you now support this organisation or do you take SPGB’s view of opposing it on socialist grounds?
Robbo wrote
“it would be a complete dereliction of our socialist duty not to point that the election of a Corbyn government can spell only one thing – shoring up the wealth of a tiny class of parasitic capitalists acquired through the exploitation of the workers.”
By the way you forgot he is ant semetic and his ex-wives hate him.
How can you disagree with his statement above?It is in your D of P and it was certainly a belief of Karl Marx which is more than you can say about the absurd statement ‘the immediate abolition of money and the state’
The SPGB is small because it is hostile to workers and their attempts to feed and house themselves.Vin, that’s nonsense
Where have I suggested the man is anti-Semitic ? Where have I made any personal attacks on him?
You have completely missed the point. Of course the statement made by Corbyn about the class -divided nature of contemporary society is one the SPGB can fully agree with (setting aside his dubious comment about taxation). Just because he is a politician does not mean he cannot come out with a truthful statement
My point, as you very well know, is not about the veracity of his statement but about the ability of him and his party to deliver any meaningful change to a society that operates in the interest of capital and against the interests of wage labour. Corbyn, affable though he may be, determined though he may be to want to “stand with the workers”, will have no option but to side with capitalists in the class struggle against the workers. That’s a simple fact, Vin , whether you like it or not
It saddens me that you seem to have drifted away from socialism into Labourite reformism and making common cause with Corbyn fan club. Since when did socialists put their trust in, or hero worship, leaders?
As for saying “The SPGB is small because it is hostile to workers and their attempts to feed and house themselves” – come on now, even you must recognise this for the bollocks that it is.
You have allowed the “red mist” that has descended upon you ever since you left the Party to distort your perception . I hope one day that mist will lift and you might once again become a comrade in the cause for socialism
Here is Corbyn recycling VincentM’s favourite quote from him:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47916058VincentM has a point in suggesting we should at acknowledge that Corbyn’s statement , thus, is at least an advance on the bleating’s of the Tories (setting aside his questionable view on the subject of taxation – workers dont actually shoulder the burden of taxes , despite appearances; its the capitalists that do that) :
“We believe the real divide is between the many – who do the work, create the wealth and pay their taxes – and the few – who set the rules, reap the rewards and dodge their taxes.”
But, OK, so Corbyn acknowledges the class divide in society – so what? What is he and the capitalist Labour Party gonna do about that???? We all know the answer to that and, to put it bluntly, it would be a complete dereliction of our socialist duty not to point that the election of a Corbyn government can spell only one thing – shoring up the wealth of a tiny class of parasitic capitalists acquired through the exploitation of the workers.
I really do not know what else Vin expects socialists to say about Corbyn. Ok, Corbyn seems a fairly affable guy, the sort you can share a pint with in a pub, and he does seem more principled than most others in his profession. But let there be no misunderstanding on this score. He unequivocally represents the interests of the few – those “who set the rules, reap the rewards and dodge their taxes.” as he put it. If he thinks otherwise he is liar or a fool no different from the other politicians
We do ourselves and our fellow workers no favours by suppressing this hard fact, however unpalatable it might seem to some. Any attempt to appear to encourage or nurture pro-Corbyn sentiments will end in deep disillusionment, betrayal and a huge backlash. Yet again the cause of socialism will be set back a notch or two as workers intent upon repeating the mistakes of the past swarm over to supporting the Tories with the bitter taste of a Corbyn-led government still in their mouths
Exactly ALB. But surely also “the value of labour power” would decline under these circumstances if workers were paid less for any length of time? What I am trying to say is that discrepancies between wage levels and the value of labour power can only ever be short term phenomena governed by fluctuations in the demand for labour built into the capitalist trade cycle – meaning there is a long term tendency for each to equilibrate with the other. You cant possibly have a long term discrepancy lasting all of 90 years where these two things consistently diverge which is what has been suggested It just doesn’t make sense in terms of Marxian theory.
Its an interesting exchange but what does Jehu mean by the “value of labour power” when he says, following Grossman, that workers have been paid less than the value of their labour power since the 1930s? If the value of labour power equates in value terms with what is required to produce and reproduce the working abilities that workers sell to the capitalists for wages then almost by definition these two things must coincide in the long run, the wage being the monetary expression of price of labour power.
Granted, wages can temporarily fall below what is conventionally considered the value of labour power as in recession or rise above it as in a boom due to fluctuations in the demand for labour power. But surely if this was threatening to become a permanent state of affairs the notional “value of labour power” would itself adjust downwards bringing it more into line with wages once again?
Considering the fertile ground that is now emerging in the US, is it not appropriate for us to support the party their and in Canada by organising a speaking tour, as Steve Coleman and Harry Young did (I think it was in the 70’s).
Bijou
At the EC’s request in February, I have been carrying out quite an intensive investigation into the state of the American Party these past few weeks. A number of developments have occurred in the interim which are promising. I am due to write up a comprehensive report hopefully in time for Conference…
Apropos your specific proposal, one of the ideas being discussed is that of holding a weekend residential summer school, along the lines of the UK Summer school, jointly run by the Canadian and American parties and alternating each year between Canada and the US. Like the SPGB Summer School this could be themed and one of two big names could be invited to draw people in . SPGB speakers could also be invited to do some of the sessions . Possibly they could go on to give talks elsewhere.
There is however a problem which is particularly acute in the US , in that the membership, apart from being small, is extremely dispersed There are no clusters of members anywhere. Canada at least has a branch in Toronto but in the US there are only two tiny clusters of 2 members each – Las Vegas and Chicago – that I know of. Everywhere else is just isolated individuals. Its difficult to organise a successful meeting with just 1 or even 2 members in the area
This is why WSPUS needs to reorganise itself on a quite different kind basis to the SPGB Branch/EC model. That is what it is currently doing. Hopefully this new organisational model could be adopted in other parts of the world where new socialist parties are in the early stage of development and finding their feet.
So it would perhaps be somewhat problematic arranging a US speaking tour in quite the sense you might have in mind – that is organised public meetings – though I dont rule it our completely. Possibly a more productive approach would be for local members to arrange interviews on local radio stations. But, as I suggest, this would be supplementary to the idea of attending, and giving a talk at, the proposed North American Summer school which itself could be heavily publicised in selected journals and newspapers throughout North America.
But you are right. The potential for growth in the US is enormous. A reorganised and reinvigorated WSPUS will be much better positioned to tap into this potential and to grow rapidly. As more and bigger clusters of members appear on the scene the opportunities will expand for implementing the kind of idea you have in mind
Meantime, there are a number of American “progressive” websites which permit comments on their articles and something members could avail themselves of by posting links to the WSPUS so to build name recognition. Not much but every little helps.
Do you have a list of these websites Alan so I can pass on the details to the US comrades?
