Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:That is, that the SPGB thinks that 'parliament' within a capitalist economy can be controlled by the proletariat.
Of course the Parliament can be controlled by the proletariat, we only need to win the elections. Whether that parliament could do anything other than govern, ultimately, in the interests of capital, is another thing (and let's recall that web are discussing a non-revolutionary situation in which the working class lacks the strength to overthrow capital). That doesn't mean that we can't open the books, put secret diplomacy to one side and dismantle the anti-democratic parts of the state and make life generally harder for the capitalist class to exert their influence except openly.I'm giving my own opinion, but one which I don't think is entirely without the scope of the party's agreed position.As to worker's councils, I think the revolutionary political party and workers councils are the same thing, but using different words and looked at with eyes asquint.
LBird wrote:I don't recognise this scenario, YMS, as any sort of revolutionary situation.I've no intention of allowing the CBI to exist, never mind to negotiate with it! Or 'to govern within the limits of capitalism'!No money, no market. Production and distribution on the basis of need. What's the problem?Yes, that's right, that's a non-revolutionary situation, where the revolutionary parts of the working class are in the minority, but still able to exercise decisive control of the levers of state machienry whether in localities or nationally by a technical quirk of the electoral system.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority). Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.I should add, of course, that the situation could arise where the working class collectively and as a whole consciously deals with the capitalist class as a whiole, through some formal mechanism. Not corporatism, but an open line of division say, between the democratic socialist majority's delegates and the CBI.
From looking at RT, and listening to the UK press, I think a partition of Ukraine is the desired outcome from both Russia (which would effectively get Crimea back through a puppet state which it might absorb at some point) and from Germany. The press seem very keen to talk up the geographical spread of the protests, particularly RT, which keeps hammering home that the protests are in the west of Ukraine.
I must be missing something here.1) The socialist party achieves political majority within the working class.2) The working class achieves political power.3) The organised working class, using political power, works to abolish capitalism.Now, if only for a few days, hours or nano-seconds, the political preponderance of the working class will exist within capitalism.Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority). Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.For example, in the UK, I'd imagine any "socialist" administration that, say, won a parliamentary majority with 25% of th vote to do such things as (at least have referendums proposing to) abolish the Monarchy, House of Lordsa and Prime Minister and introduce annual Parliaments, elected office for important positions (Chief Exec of the NHS, BBC, etc.), etc.
As Fred said in 1845:
Freddy wrote:Democracy nowadays is communism. Any other democracy can only still, exist in the heads of theoretical visionaries who are not concerned with real events, in whose view it is not the men and the circumstances that develop the principles but the principles develop of themselves. Democracy has become the proletarian principle, the principle of the masses. The masses may be more or less clear about this, the only correct meaning of democracy, but all have at least an obscure feeling that social equality of rights is implicit in democracy. The democratic masses can be safely included in any calculation of the strength of the communist forces. And if the proletarian parties of the different nations unite they will be quite right to inscribe the word “Democracy” on their banners, since, except for those who do not count, all European democrats in 1846 are more or less Communists at heart.We can contrast this to David Cameron's recent conversion to Communism (Sandbags for free, money for flood defences no object), just because some floods happened where the Tories need votes.The effect of a growing socialist movement would be the advance and entrenchment of democracy (the big constitutional questions that traditional leftists eschew in favour of 'bread and butter' questions).So, even if we achieve a local majority before we can effectively organise to abolish teh wages system, we can extend democracy in the meantime.
Two new stories on this theme:http://theconversation.com/what-to-expect-from-dysons-new-robotics-lab-23054
Quote:The Dyson lab won’t bring us Rosie the Robot Maid any time soon but this investment could open the way for a new generation of single-purpose intelligent domestic appliances. It could bring us the robot vacuum that can clean around your complicated media centre and perhaps even something that can tidy up a child’s bedroom without putting everything in the wrong place. That’s a pretty enticing prospect for most parents.andhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nuclear-fusion-hits-energy-milestone-1.2534140
Quote:Now, researchers at the National Ignition Facility of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the U.S. announce that they managed to use lasers to compress fuel made from two heavier forms of hydrogen enough to kick off a nuclear fusion reaction. And for the first time, the reaction managed to generate more energy than was absorbed by the fuel from the lasers."That's a major turning point in our minds," said Omar Hurricane, lead author of a paper describing the results, published in Nature today.However, he was quick to point out that because the fuel absorbed only a small amount of the energy from the lasers, there is still far more energy put into the entire process than comes out.That is partly because the fuel did not reach ignition — the point at which the reaction becomes self-sustaining and energy production increases dramatically.Alan,I agree Nye wasn't agressive enough, and saying 'I'm not comfortable' with some of Ham's propositions is a bit weak, but he had the power of facts and logic to hand. but I think Nye was letting ham have his 'argument by authority' on the basis that most peopel would spot it for what it is.
Although some people thought he shouldn't do it, Bill Nye (The science Guy) debated Ken Hamm of the Creation Museum.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkIPersonally I think it's a worthwhile thing for people to see how weak this guy's case is: it shows how debate is always something to be encouraged. It also helps keep ideas focussed, even if bopping down whackos…
And according to the Times:
Quote:An estimated 400 planning cases will go before specialist judges working to fixed time limits as part of a move by ministers to stop "meritless" challenges that clog up courts and delay or scupper building schemes.The proposal for the new court is included in a package of measures to be put forward by Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, to halt a rise in judicial reviews, which have trebled in a decade to more than 12,000 a year.Strict new curbs will mean that only individuals or groups with a financial interest in a case can bring a challenge. The reforms will also put an end to challenges by individuals and campaigners who do not have to pay legal costs, which results in taxpayers picking up the bill. Campaigners who lodge challenges will have to reveal any financial backers, so courts can impose costs fairly.So, they want law for the owners of (some) property, but not others. Is a 370 wait for a big project unreasonable? In a society that even remotely tends towards democracy, the right to review decisions of elected and otehrwise officials is vital. the alternative is the dictatorship of the wealthy.
Also, thinking on, I'm not over keen on:
Quote:Meanwhile one after another crumbling octogenarian is manhandled out of the grave and into the dock to answer charges committed half a century ago in a swinging sexist society that did everything to encourage such behaviour.Certainly, I thought some of the charges were 'just wandering hands' (which is unpleasant, and needs to be stopped, but not necessarily with the full majesty of the law); but, Stuart Hall, for instance, admitted to some appalling acts with very young children in his trust. The others may be old, but some of the charges are very serious (and suggest they have been dangerous and very unpleasant men for a very long time). Certainly, Wilfred D'eath, who was exonerated by police did say how in the 60's he'd hit on 100 young women to succeed with 1, so that is unpleasant enough and must have been uncomfortable for 99 women, and that was the swinging atmosphere, but some of the others are crimes of pure and simple violence.
Interesting:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26007057State power in action:
Quote:Solicitors for residents near Fernhurst, in West Sussex, have written to Celtique Energie and the Energy Secretary Ed Davey to explicitly deny permission to drill under their land .It comes after the government said it may alter trespass law to make drilling under property easier for companies.[./quote]So, whilst some appear to be trying to assert their eternal right to property, the capitalist state, in the interests of wealthy extraction firms (and also strategic 'national interest') is preparing to override that (what is Cameron, a communist?).Quote:What we can say with more confidence is that those many forms of sex and child abuse based on obsessions with power would find no nourishment in socialism because the structures of oppression, dominance and impotence would no longer exist.Be that as it may, if a problem existed socialism would have to deal with it, and the first priority would be to protect children. Studies suggest that many paedophiles have no desire to hurt children but a minority do, and there seems little room for doubt that in socialism dangerous paedophiles would, like any dangerous and out of control individual, have to be kept under restraint for the common good, though not for the purpose of punishment but in order that a successful and humane treatment could be found. For the rest, there would have to be a democratic debate about what was acceptable sexual preference and what was unacceptable medical condition. It could have implications for civil liberties, freedom of movement, sexual licence, levels of supervision of children, equality status of individuals. We can’t say today how it would proceed or how it would turn out, but it would be an informed hunt for solutions, not an inflamed hunt for witches.My heart sank when I saw the subject of this article, not because it doesn't need discussing, but because (as it notes) this is a dangerous topic to even discuss. Other journals often end up running into dangerous libertarian waters, of the sort that would tarnish an organisations reputation if they're not careful.Of the two paragraphs above I think we're stronger on the second than the first (and we can add that since so much of law enforceement that goes into up-holding class power would be rendered unnecessary, we could devote more time and effort to dealing with genuinely dangerous individuals. The reason I think the first is weak is because there are so many people; it only takes a tiny percentage of people who "deviate" from norms for there to be a lot of pain in the world. If 0.0000001% of people are dangerous paedophiles, that would leave 70 in the UK alone.
Although partisan, I think he is right on the question of the power of local networks or privillege, and the need for discipline in office (although I agree we would go to referendums much more vigorously, although 'Town Hall' meetings of the US type might be more our bag, since that would give greater input to active groups who can turn out regularly and nullifies some of the media power of local wealthy types. I'd assume we'd allow 'Open voting' at our branch meetings, or something, for mandating our council delegates…
