Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My concern was for ourselves: we paid about £4 when we were sued for libel in the early 1900's, now it would be a minimum of several tens of thousands, plus about half a million in costs, before they decide that exemplary damages are due becuase we wouldn't have paid the licence fee.Unfortunately, a rule big enough to take the big boys on would crush us under foot…
Interesting, and much as I'd hope we'd behave: going to parliament as rebels and not reformers (although I'd hope we'd refuse to wear the ties). Of course, that doesn't mean that their politics are laudible, but it still remains an interesting phenomena, and one worth watching. Admittedly, it will lead to further elections, so will their 'revolt' keep going?…
Technically, we do have a ban on factions:
Rule 6 wrote:6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party(my emphasis — key word is "organisation"), any Militant style faction would have to avoid being a political organisation (with formal membership, officers, policies, etc.) Unlike then SWP, though, we certainly don't forbid agitation for a particular point of view, with a rule that dates back to some arguments in the Social Democratic Federation when our founding members were agitating as an internal tendency:
Rule 5 wrote:Members have the right to attend at meetings of Branches other than their own, and speak with the permission of the Branch, but shall not have the right to vote thereat. Central Branch members, however, shall be informed of a party vote and forwarded a voting paper and shall be allowed to vote through the post or at any one Branch meeting on production of membership card. All members may attend the meetings of the Executive Committee, Delegate Meetings, or Conferences, and with permission may contribute to the discussion.(my emphasis). The SWP actively prevents lateral communication between branches, in a method to ensure that the central organisation retained the control of information, save at regional aggregates (run by full timers). These rules, I'd suggest, would be useful devices to preventing subversion of the party.Equally technically, we do sort of operate a slate system, as our EC is elected by bloc vote, and in the advent of a serious schism, the largest plurality of the party can take all the seats (if it ever becomes that open and formal). Other methods, such as the right to attend and ask for permission to speak, do counteract that, a little.
Actually, this week's Weekly Worker more or less nails it…http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/953/ch%C3%A1vez-obituary-man-myth-and-legacy
Nick Rogers wrote:Similarly, the prominent Trotskyist, Stalin Pérez Borges, who entered the PSUV and formed the Socialist Tide tendency, has reported on the lack of space to organise at the grassroots of a party that is very hierarchical. Recent nominations of candidates for governorships and mayoralties have been handed down by fiat by the PSUV leadership.The problem is that a ‘revolutionary’ project that does not empower the working class will end up returning power to the only other class that can rule in modern society – the capitalist class.That's the key. For all he encouraged land reform (along a regulated homesteading basis, albeit), the latifundia are still, AFAIK, largely intact…
I don't honestly know how I can be much clearer, I've cited our application policy and our rulebook, in contrast to a comment received from some member sometime. All applicants are asked to agree to our non-Leninist policies and principles. Maybe if someone has been been known to espouse a particular position they might be specifically asked about it, just to be clear, because the application process is as much about letting them know where we stand as it is finding their views out; but the bottom line is anyone is welcome to apply, and will be allowed in if they agree with our non-Leninist policies and principles.
The question isn't so much, to my mind whether the workers benefitted, but whether they benefitted as workers, or as clients of a potlatching state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch). The indications are that the regional trends suggest Venezeula did reduce poverty faster than neighbouring countries, and that is a good thing. But, whether the overall politics of Chavez and Chavezismo are overall more harmful in the medium term is a serious matter to consider.
The precise rule is:
Rulebook wrote:Any person desiring membership shall sign the application form signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party. Such application shall be lodged with the Branch Secretary, whose duty it shall be to place same before the next business meeting (to which the applicant shall be invited) for consideration. After examination of the applicant, a majority shall decide, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009As per the online questionaire, any applicant will be asked questions to make sure they support the policies and principles of the socialist party. A specific recantation would not be necessary, but an acceptance of our policies would be.Obviously, the precise examination varies from branch to branch. The questions, though, both online or in person, would be such that someone holding Leninist views could not acceptably answer.
They'd be treated like any applicant member:
Party Policy wrote:Anyone who agrees with the principles and object of the Socialist Party can apply for membership.If they apply through the membership dept. they will be asked
Membership questionaire wrote:Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievment of socialism?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-applicationSo, they wouldn't be asked to recant, but they would be asked to commit to a democratic revolutionary process, without leaders.
The problem is, that even his internal politics were what we'd consider anti-socialist, in as much as it was predicated on the beneficent state distributing the wealth (and expecting support, in a gift relation) rather than emancipating the working class to support itself (saving, perhaps, the modest land reforms).So, the evidence is that hero-worship and state power still dominate the ideology of the left. He was a good example of an extreme leftist, but certainly not of socialism.The national-patriotic ideology also drove his foriegn relations: he could have behaved in a counter-hegemonic fashion without allying with authoritarian leaders (although, that may indicate that if he could have got away with it, he may have ruled as a dictator, or if necessary). Certainly, he attempted to get himself exempted from term limits…
History will be kind to him, for he intends to write it…http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-i.html
That is interesting, though I've seen a lot of commentary that they've been picking up rightward/populist votes.I've also heard comparisons with the Pirate Party in Germany & Sweden, but they've been foundering, partly over the question of leadership overturning the 'Liquid democracy' votes (also issues of instability of policy because of the immediate direct democracy).See here: (link)(A reminder of our recent problem, perhaps, and the need to make sure that liquid democracy is properly structured)
I suppose this will be grist to the mill of the left who see fascism as a "Middle class" affair., though these days a lot of workers do have degrees (indeed, a major driver in the Arab spring was the super abundance of qualified people with no jobs to go to). I suppose the message is that they are people who have something but who feel threatened, and are finding patriotism as a route to protest.
The argument is that the burden of the tax falls on the employers. Workers can, and do, physically pay the taxes (that is hand over the cash), but the operation of the market is on our net/take home real pay. If our take home pay falls below the level at which we're willing/able to work, we force them up (where we can). This means that if a tax increase would reduce our real take home pay, we'll try and pass that burden on to our employer (if we fail, that was a sign that the market was ready to impose a pay cut anyway, and the tax man has taken the cut of profits that would otherwise have gone to the employer). That is, we push up cash wages in order to have the money to pay the tax, and that puts the burden on employers.Self employed workers obviously try to push the burden of taxation onto their customers, in much the same way (obviously, the category of self employed is nebulous, the String Fellows lap dancing club tried in court to maintain that its dancers were self employed, to try and avoid some of the tax and other on-costs, but they lost. The Point is a lot of 'self-employed' workers are only nominally so, often for tax reasons).
Controversial new post over on the blog…http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/save-whittington.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00fz849The above will be available for one week: it's quite a good programme, back when Stl was still in the SWP…
