Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:Exactly. And what was it somebody once said about the party turning into a cult?
Exactly, this is about un-cult-like behaviour. Cults wheedle, weasel, cajole and love bomb their victims, use every trick and trap to ensare them and get them into the cult: being clear anmd honest about where we stand and even driving away the occasional potential joiner is part and parcel of avoiding cultiness.
jondwhite wrote:Socialists have no interests separate and apart from those of the working-class and this means open primaries.That dosn't follow. Open elections do the same job, if any group of workers have a different policy idea, they can have their own party: much clearer and much more democratic.
Yes, a mass movement will have serious disagrements within it: and those figures for membership in the SU and China hardly represent any sort of majority in the class (and also occurred under mobilisde dictatorships). A free movement of freely associating workrs is the goal, and that means rival parties, rather than the empty democracy of open primaries.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/hsbc-fined-278m-over-money-laundering-claims
Quote:HSBC has been ordered to pay a record 40m Swiss francs (£28m) and been given a final warning by the Geneva authorities for “organisational deficiencies” which allowed money laundering to take place in the bank’s Swiss subsidiary.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has-form-mexico-laundered-drug-money
Quote:Much of the money swilling into HSBC from the cartel came through an apparently small exchange house, Casa de Cambio Puebla. The bank would later protest that it knew not whence the money came, but Puebla had been under investigation by Mexican and US Federal authorities for two years when HSBC was caught, for handling a staggering $376bn of suspect money for an American bank, Wachovia. Wachovia was punished with a “deferred prosecution” – a yellow card; none of its employees was arrested.and
Quote:The bank was fined more than Wachovia, a record $1.9bn. But this was less than five weeks’ income for HSBC’s American subsidiary.The point of digging out this one bank, is to see bioth the scale of the operation, and the way in which states are benefiting, those millions and billions of dollars in fines came from profits from illicit financial dealings.
No, substitutionist is where the party acts as if it is the class, or on behalf of what it considers to be the class' real intentions. Where the party is millions strong and is comprised of the majority of the class (opr of the politically active parts of the class) the class becomes the party.And, in particular, our choice of candidate is a technical matter, not a policy matter, our delegates will vote as instructed…
And the way we do that is through standing in open elections, primaries are used in the states as a means of holding de facto french style run off elections so the final choice is two candidates. Different stripes of workers party can stand for election and we can contest for the votes of the workers, but Socialist Party members should control their own political activity, and our aim should be to draw workers is to become party members so the party is in effect the class.
Oh, no, like some Labourite opposed to them, I agre they conravene Freedom of association: we've come together as activist, to pick and control our candidate. Open primaries are a way to disarm organised mass parties in favour of indvidual candidates.Jeremy was very upset when I mentioned our policy of our delegates voting as instructed: he prides himself on his rebelliousness.
So, when companies cease to be about exchange of commodities, but forceable extraction, extortion and rent seeking, that is a different logic.Nor is Mason suggesting that sectional interests are surmountable through more co-operation and less competition (in fact that's the xact opposite of what he said).
No, he's saying that the rules are outmoded, capitalism has gone beyond its founding ideas. Thus even taking capitalism ack to its own ideological formation would probably destroy it.Now, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but the point of Marx's historical materialism is that the process of one social form outgrowing its own logic and becoming something else is applicable to several stages of society. The revolutionary method may differ between revolutions, but the basic motor doesn't.If capitalism has (long since) stopped operating in terms of it's own self-image, that is an interesting and useful thing to consider.
Well, he has provided a novel analysis both of Magna Carta and of present consitions in the light of the model of the transition from feudalism to capitalism…
I was reminded of this article:http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
Quote:Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.So, not only did criminal enterprise save capitalism, but it became a big part of the legitimate holdings of many businesses. I suppose there is a big question of the role of organised crime in primary accumulation…
I don't think that's what he's suggesting, more that if held to its own rules capitalism would eventually self destruct, or transmute into something else..
jondwhite wrote:not the Socialist Party of Great Britain enters the field of political action determined to make ourselves known to workers not trying to persuade them but to erect its banner and hope they are attracted by the clarity of our idea.Our banner is static, it is for the working class to come to the banner ad muster, not for us to take the banner to th class.
Erm, I am very much in favour of contesting elections, but as a means of making ourselves known to workers, not trying to persuade them. This distinction is against the idea that the party will persuade every last worker one at a time, rather than social conditions leading the working class to the idea of socialism off their own bat: it mans all we can do is clarify, crystalise and hopefully speed up the formation of this idea a little. It also means, to my mind, rejecting the lazy and patronising idea that the workers are asleep, and taking them at face value that they mean their support for capitalism.
Quote:the Party thus exists to persuade a majority of the population of the merits of socialismpersuasion rather than simply expressing the message is necessary since there is a mass of counter revolutionary propaganda of various formsI'd disagree with the two above premises: this comes back to the old question, is it our job to make socialists, or catch socialists? In my view, we are not rying to persuade, but to clearly mark out where we stand, and invite others to join us, when they recognise that we agree with them. The counter-revolutionary propaganda, in fact, makes simple, clear expression all the more important.
