Capitalism Sucks

[Anonymous]

 

 

 

This is the reality of capitalism. Profit and the interests of the capitalist 1% takes priority over human need.

The attack on the vulnerable is severe.

Money is taken from the DWP because money is needed to finance the wars and the slaughter of innocent children in other countries to bolster the profits and the interests of the rich. The slaughter of Russians will be next. We and our children finance this slaughter. We are seen as scroungers.

It is of course disgusting that the support for this child should br withdrawn. I support her and wish her luck but the attack on the sick,  vulnerable and the working class in general will continue until we stand up and be counted.

We need to recognise that we are engaged in a class struggle. We need to take democratic action and take the earth and resources into common ownership and democratic control and replace the priotity of  profit with the priority of  human welfare 

[Anonymous]

Syriza, this is how to save capitalism   

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm going to play the role of Devil's Advocate by repostng a cut and paste from  maoist site 

Quote:

5. IMAGINE THAT YOUR PARTY — A PARTY OF GENUINE SOCIALISTS — HAS WON A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN A GENERAL ELECTION.WHAT STEPS WOULD YOU TAKE TO INTRODUCE SOCIALISM CONSTITUTIONALLY?.Even the posing of this question requires considerable imagination. For the development of electoral opinion to the point where a general election might occur would clearly take a considerable time and would not go unnoticed by the capitalist class. Since this class will obviously use every weapon in its power to preserve its wealth, power and exploiting 'rights , — in the name, of couse, of preserving 'freedom' and 'moral values' — it would obviously take steps prior to the election (alteration of electoral laws and boundaries, outright banning of your party as 'subversive' etc.) to try to prevent such an embarrassing electoral result.Let us assume, however, that as a result of some miracle of stupidity the capitalist class fails to take such preventive action.Your party must then hope that the Queen will invite the leader of your party to form a government. It has long been customary for the monarch to invite the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister, but there is no constitutional obligation on her to do so.Let us assume, however, that she takes this step and that the leader of your party selects his provisional Cabinet. Before these can take office as Ministers, they are required by constitutional law to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Since your party's electoral programme must have included pledges to abolish the undemocratic monarchy, the arrest of these Ministers on charges of perjury will be perfectly legitimate. And when sufficient of your MPs have been, quite legally, imprisoned, your party will no longer have a majority in the House.Let us therfore assume another miracle — that the capitalist class is too stupid to take constitutional measures to prevent your party from taking office and that it introduces legislation to socialise the principal means of production.Such legislation can only be adopted with the approval of the House of Lords and the Queen (the latter can hold up legislation indefinitely), so that further miracles have to be imagined for your socialist programme to be put into legislation.The capitalists may then appeal to the courts to rule that such legislation is unlawful, and a further miracle is required to make the upper class judges rule in favour of the socialist government.Furthermore, the putting into effect of this socialist legislation requires the cooperation of the heads of the civil service, who are also drawn from the upper class, so that their cooperation would require a further miracle.One must also assume yet another miracle. Constitutionally, the armed forces — the heads of which are also drawn from the upper class — may in case of 'emergency' at the request of the monarch establish martial law and rule dictatorially That reactionary military coups are not confined to distant countries was shown by the infamous Curragh Mutiny of 1914, which led to the partition of Ireland. Another miracle has, therefore, to be imagined to render the monarch and the armed forces inactive in this respect.Such a wholesale series of miracles does not occur in real life, and it is clear that the concept of a constitutional transition to socialism is absurd.

The old SLP response would be that we have the SIUs as our industrial muscle, some on the Left (WW CPGB) say we should be now be calling for the creation of a militia instead of a standing army as recommended by Engels to be the guarantee of democratic legitimacy. Have we given the necessary prominence to the extra-parliamentary power of the workers will have to create in parallel with the political action of the Socialist Party? 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Have we given the necessary prominence to the extra-parliamentary power of the workers will have to create in parallel with the political action of the Socialist Party?

I'd answer 'No' to your question, alan.To me, the only justification for the SPGB strategy of winning a parliamentary majority is to allow that majority to legitimately hand parliamentary power over to Workers' Councils. Thus, those within the armed forces, police and civil service, who look towards parliamentary democracy for their legitimacy have an option of sticking to their self-proclaimed democratic views, and seeing a peaceful transfer of (their) legitimate authority.This all presupposes the creation of class conscious proletarian bodies, which also have armed force at their disposal.If all the state employees choose to reject their own professed loyalty to parliamentary democracy, and go with a coup against the elected majority, then a class war will follow. The alternative, that a majority or large minority choose peaceful democratic change, will undermine those elements who want to choose a coup. Perhaps Chile provides some examples of an officer corps, of which some at least tried to maintain their oath of allegience, to show that if a full majority have parliamentary authority, even a large percentage of (probably younger and more influenced by the revolutionary process) officers will take the peaceful route.I've suggested on other threads that the SPGB be clearer about this strategy of theirs, and name it 'Parliamentary Suicide', so that all workers and socialists in other parties are aware of just what it is that you propose.You do plan to hand over legitimacy to workers' councils, don't you, and dissolve 'parliament'?If you don't, then the critics of the SPGB are correct, and you plan for parliamentary party politics, and not revolutionary workers' power, direct democracy, and the democratic control of the means of production. These latter imply Workers' Councils, not a 'parliament'.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not going to disagree with what you said but ask another question

Quote:

This all presupposes the creation of class conscious proletarian bodies, which also have armed force at their disposal.

What should the time- table be?Those bodies cannot be created artifically by any party but must in a sense grow organically from the working class themselves…(for the sake this argument, we can ignore the spur of such a growth)…Should we merely acknowledge their important role more in our literature …perhaps insisting upon their essential part of the revolutionary process in comparison with the political action…Or shall we be pre-emptive like the IWW and the SLP and laydown the guidelines prematurely and politically ineffectually since it would be a token gesture and ineffective. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What should the time- table be?Those bodies cannot be created artifically by any party but must in a sense grow organically from the working class themselves…

Time-table? Christ knows, because I don't.As you say, and I agree, workers' councils (or at least their embryo in, initially, perhaps, discussion groups of workers seeking to pose questions, to critically think, discuss and learn) must grow organically.Has there been any sign of this development, anywhere? Not as far as I know.

ajj wrote:

…Should we merely acknowledge their important role more in our literature …perhaps insisting upon their essential part of the revolutionary process in comparison with the political action…

Yes, I don't think that it's stressed enough. If the party is planning to hand over to Workers' Councils, given a parliamentary majority based upon just such an argument, then this should be clarified.

ajj wrote:

Or shall we be pre-emptive like the IWW and the SLP and laydown the guidelines prematurely and politically ineffectually since it would be a token gesture and ineffective.

No worker I know of, including myself, has ever paid a blind bit of notice to any 'party guidelines'.Workers know better than parties. The class will decide, not 'parties'. This attitude always seems to come as a shock to so-called "Workers' parties" – I'm not sure why, the parties pretend to be there to strengthen the workers, and when workers turn up, and who start telling the party what to do, the party seems a bit peeved.It's almost as if they intend to use the workers as a cover for party power……and they don't really believe in Workers' Power. They seem to have an attitude of 'who'd let that shower of fools run anything?' Lip service to democracy, too.As for the very notion of workers determining the validity of physics research…. god forbid, pass the smelling salts, Uncle Joe!

[Young Master Smeet]

So far as I'm concerned "socialist party" and "workers councils" are exact synonyms.  A freely formed association of socialistically minded workers will be formed to assume control of political power. Now, that might mean simply taking control of local decision making and existing power structures if possible, so local councils and national parliaments will have socialist majorities through which our association(s) can implement our programme of socialisation.The reality of a mass conscious movement will be sufficient to overcome procedural chicanery and to deter military opposition.  After that, it is down to extending democratic operation and control into the necessary parts of the state we want to retain (after all, who wants to die of dissentry the day after the revolution?).

[Anonymous]

Can't see what the discussion has to do with the OP apart from demonstrating that some can flaunt the rules while others can't. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Again i won't disagree with anything you say , YMS.  But do we make that description crystal clear, YMS in our literature?….even our Parliemt pamphlet simply mentions the future scenario  in a few paragraphs…Can we break it down into less generalised statements … A How-to-do guide that is not necessary the guidelines since it is about  turning ourselves into the embryo or the catalyst…so workers can view us as an option to choose or not to , as the case may be At what point does a mass party become a class party or as YMS calls it "a mass conscious movement" which i think was Marx's interpretation of what party meant that party/class becomes so blurred to be distinction without meaning  

[alanjjohnstone]

Vin, i thought i was on-topic, relating to this comment by yourself

Quote:

We need to recognise that we are engaged in a class struggle. We need to take democratic action

I want to know what is class struggle and what is democratic action. Fine sounding phrases but we need to put  some meat on them (just to upset John Oswald from another thread !!! )

[Author]

Posts