Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:2) How would organising, say an anti-capitalist demo, confuse the SPGB message with an anti-capitalist message? I'm not talking about organising anti-austerity or save our NHS events. Those are clearly reformist requests. But an anti-capitalist orgainised event, demo etc, would likely attract some sympathetic minds. I did previously state that the various demos attract publicity for the groups doing the organising. It's advertising.
We do that, all the time. 6 men and a dog turn up and we chat to them.
SocialistPunk wrote:The whole point I'm making YMS, is for the SPGB to be the ones organising. A call to the workers to rally around. To possibly become the workers party that I've heard mentioned on this forum a number of times.To do those things indivdualy, as many members already do, does not present the case for soialism on a wide scale. It's not a proud banner for workers to rally under.Also, in case anyone gets the ipression, I'm not even hinting at entryism.1) It is dangerous to organise all political activity through one organisation.2) It would confuse the socialist message with the imediate aims and tactics of particular struggles.3) There are already people and groups, such as trade unions, organising these struggles.4) The working class doesn't need us to organise the class struggle.5) It would not move socialism one step nearer, nor improve the class struggle, objective conditions and class relations outweigh anythign we could add to the fight.
I'd say go ahead and do those things, just don't try and control them through the party: not all political activity hjas to be through the party. When I do union work, I do it as a trade unionist, and with a clear idea of how to win the particular battle, not turn it into some sort of platform for the party.
The universal feedback we get is 'I like your ideas,I agree with you, but I want to do something here and now' that our argument hat 'here and nbow' is building a revolt against capital doesn't dissuade them, until a critical mass exists, people won't join, until they join, there won't be a critical mass. We need the early majority to switch to us in droves.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
Interesting one:http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/25434
Quote:Sinn Féin Deputy Leader Mary Lou McDonald confirmed that Sinn Féin will be encouraging their supporters to pass-on their second and third preference votes to other candidates who have also signed up to the policy platform.Mainstream party votes don't tend to transfer to Sinn Fein (under the preferential STV voting system you can vote for all candidates in order of preference). This eems to be an attempt to attract cross votes from the left:
Quote:Other parties including the Anti-Austerity Alliance, Social Democrats, People Before Profit, United Left and Independent candidates are expected to announce whether they have signed-up to the policy platform over the coming days.Looking at this opinion poll:http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/pollWith the Shinners on 20% alongside Fianna Fail, and a huge 'otehrs' vote, this looks like a smart move towards building a bloc that could win.
robbo203 wrote:My impression is that the Party has been shrinking and is certainly significantly smaller than when I first joined – probably about 200 members less.Fewer.
Apparently the SWP are attending Momentum meetings:https://www.swp.org.uk/party-notesSpot the Jargon bingo:
Quote:1) Comrades should continue to relate to Labour Party events and meetings. We will often be welcomed by some, derided by others. This should not stop us continuing to relate in a comradely way. If we combine a united front method with ideological clarity, the SWP can make the most of an exciting new situation.2) If you go to one of these events, send in your impressions and experience. We are all learning form one another about how to relate.Inteestingly:
Quote:. As SWP members we were clear that we shared the enthusiasm for Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party.The days of the Happy Hunting Grounds are back…
yes, Smith was nominally an egalitarian, his account of the differences of wages was that unpleasant work paid more than pleasant work, thus poorly paid workers supposedly had easier jobs. Also, the invisible hand is supposed to achieve equality, that it fails is a different matter. Also, Smith as a moral philosopher is interesting with his principle of sympathy (which is considderably better than 'do as you would be done by' e.g. http://philosophyofsocialcognition.pbworks.com/w/page/16442005/Adam%20Smith%E2%80%99s%20concept%20of%20sympathy )
Interestingly, the Adam Smith Institute are visiting this idea:http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-reform-tax-credits-with-a-negative-income-tax-says-new-report/
Quote:Instead of cutting tax credits, the government should replace major means-tested benefits – including tax credits and Jobseeker’s Allowance – with a single, individualised ‘Negative Income Tax’ payment that is withdrawn as earnings rise.This would guarantee a minimum income floor and top up low-paid workers’ wages while still ensuring that everyone has a strong incentive to work.The government should merge this into the tax system and abolish the Department for Work and Pensions to save up to £6bn in administrative costs.That would, of course, mean giving benefits to the asst rich, but it seems the right are interesting in basic income. I suspect the argument would be the levl. Obviously, with 'universal credit' the Tories are already working toward something like this.Obviously, as Socialists, we'd like to go furtehr and see an end to the administrative waste of the HMRC (yes, lets outflank Tories on Tax!)
Young Master Smeet wrote:It might be worth looking up this book about Rojavahttp://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/193866017X?keywords=a%20small%20key%20can%20open%20a%20large%20door%20the%20rojava%20revolution&qid=1445327114&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1The introduction is free online:http://www.tangledwilderness.org/a-mountain-river-has-many-bends/Well, I've got my copy, and its very interesting. So, it's a mishmash of reports from the area, including the constitution of the Cantons. That expressly says the economy must serve people's needs, and incorporates the UN Charter on Human Rights into their constitution. It also expressly guarntees the right of private property.However, the reports say that a lot of property has been allocated to the commons, and most property is held as property in use (usufruct). An interesting point is that the Ba'ath party seems to have nationalised a lot of land, and the Cantons are handing that over to co-operatives to diversify the crop (Rojava was one of the biggest crop producers in Syria). Also, the commons are being used in lieu of welfare payments and there is no taxation.A declaration by Ocalan (Apo) (who has an interesting role as King-over-the-water, in as much as he is the revered leader/theorist, that means no one else can take the throne, but as he is rotting in a Turkish gaol, he cannot practically lead, this may be (but not for him) a lucky circumstance) declares that EU Law, National Law and Canton Law all shall be applied (and in that order).Quite how much of this is a libertarian revelation by a former Maoist guerilla group, and how much is accomodation to some traditional aspects of Kurdish life is unclear, certainly the liberation of women in these areas is important.
Also, on living standards: we would expect the mass of use values for most people to grow, what a high earning wage worker would lose would be mostly the nominal exchange value of their assets. thus their house, car, etc. might suddenly become 'worthless' but they would probably still have them, and indeed, would have their debts wiped.
In the Roman empire, the slave of the Emperor was immensely rich, could cheek senators, and ate fine foods and wine. He was still a slave. Such a slave may have opposed emancipation, but would still have been freed if Roman slavery were abolished, and thus would have gained.High paid workers benefit from the same fruits of struggle as the rest of us, labour protection, rights at work, rights to holidy, etc. They would also benefit if we stopped doing useless toil, and found a way to feed clothe and house everyone for about two days work a week each: so much more free time. Freed from the worries of international rivalries between governments and states, freed from the worry of the threat of poverty, security in their home ownership (even some very wealthy workrs are only a couple of missed pay cheques from defaulting on their mortgage). etc.
http://www.juancole.com/2015/10/wrangle-influence-parliament.htmlCole hits the nub on the head: it's about Speheres of Influence: Syria is Russias backyard (and it's outpost on the med) it can't afford to let it fall to a hostile power. It isn't backing Assad per se, it's staking a claim to the territory and ensuring a friendly government come what may.The US considers Iraq its sphere of influence, and so won't tolerate Russian bombing there.
Interestingly, they're now launching a campaign for the self-employed:https://twitter.com/LabourCSEWhich suggests they still wan to try and woo some Tory voters, could be clever politics.
