Caroline Lucas at PMQ
- This topic has 23 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"In the week that London will once again host the largest arms fair in the world isn't it time the government recognized the link between arms sales and the terrible tragedy we're seeing around us"……
james19 wrote:"In the week that London will once again host the largest arms fair in the world isn't it time the government recognized the link between arms sales and the terrible tragedy we're seeing around us"……Clearly too much to expect Lucas, as an ignorant supporter of capitalism, to go several steps further in her 'condemnation'.The world is divided politically into armed states whose governments preside over the operation of capitalism in the territory where their writ runs. These states are all jockeying for position over access to raw materials, markets, trade routes and investment outlets. It’s a struggle in which ‘might is right’.In order to maintain their position, states need to arm themselves with the most destructive weapons they can afford, not necessarily to use but to show how much ‘might’ they have when it comes to negotiations over economic matters. They need weapons for this just as much to ‘protect themselves’ in the event of invasion. In fact, actual war is only as a last resort, when a state considers that its ‘vital economic interests’ are under serious threat.So, there is an economic demand for weapons, and where there is a paying demand a profit-seeking supply will arise to meet it. Britain has an arms-producing capacity – miscalled the ‘defence industry’ which can meet this demand. The capitalist firms concerned are not going to miss this opportunity to make profits, and successive governments are hardly likely to discourage them.
A bit of info on the arms fair here…what's for salehttp://www.rt.com/uk/314948-london-arms-fair-weapons/Should we condemn a person for promoting a socialist position (i assume any future possible SPGB MP would also be drawing a similar conclusion to the public attention – capitalist hypocrisy in making profit from the arms trade while supposedly trying to halt the effects of such) for the wrong reasons. Or should we not give credit where credit is due because the Party case is not fully offered in a parliamentary question.
Quote:Every Socialist must know that the problem of militarism—like that of unemployment—is inseparable from capitalism, and while Hervé undoubtedly errs in concentrating his energies upon anti-militarist propaganda since militarism is but an effect of capitalist exploitation, yet our sympathies are heartily with him as against Bebel's patriotic clap-trap….The particularly anti-militarist propaganda of Hervé has undeniably an educational value, and to that extent it is to be welcomed; it is also an inevitable reaction against the jingoism of men like Bebel.my emphasishttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1907/no-34-june-1907/bebel-and-herv%C3%A9-german-party-leader-jingoI think we should be careful with our criticisms …if i was, to offer an analogy, a worker on strike, would i spurn the support of Lucas because she does not condemn the wages system but instead supported my pay claim… If i was someone caught up in a war or civil war, any move by Lucas to stop the belligerents purchasing the weapons being used against myself would be welcomed by myself…it would be self-defeating and perhaps suicidal not to support someone proposing a partial remedy even if i did realise it is not the cure to war…Another analogy…if the district i lived in was subject to cholera outbreaks should i oppose a politician seeking a plan to build a safe water and sanitation system …on the principled objection that capitalism cannot stop epidemics breaking out …We should be selective with our criticisms and use common sense upon both the circumstances and the person deserving of it. …surely we can differentiate the specific from the general …Are all non-socialists the same?…Surely not…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Are all non-socialists the same?…Surely not…In one sense they are… they all think capitalism either does, or can be made to, work in the interests of the working class.
Can we explore this a little further?What is the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist?Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?Are there socialists outside the SPGB or in other words are members of the SPGB the only socialists in the UK?We hold that our interpretation of how to achieve socialsm is the correct one, but those who suggest other methods of obtaining such a society non-socialists and perhaps de facto anti-socialists by the means they advocated? Of those who claim to be socialists but disagree with the SPGB case, can they all be tarred with the same brush or are there various differences within them that should be noted and acknowledged and taken into consideration by ourselves?Is there is a distinction between supporting particular reforms and opposing reformism? If so how is this put into practice? To kick it off the discussion, the views of one WSM member.Isaac Rab of the WSPUS tried to define a socialist as someone who realises that: 1. Capitalism can no longer be administered or reformed in the interest of the working class or of society. 2. Capitalism is incapable of eliminating poverty, wars, crises, etc. 3. Socialism can solve the social problems confronting society today, since the material conditions are ripe for socialism, save the lack of a socialist majority. Much as you said but he adds socialism cannot be rammed down the workers’ throats against their wishes; The socialist victory is dependant upon the fervor and enthusiasm of the determined, conscious socialist majority. There is in these definitions much elbow wriggle room to include a number of our political rivals. Rab goes on to propose -Socialists welcome critical and searching questions. Thinking is not and never has been a violation of socialist discipline. Socialists are not dogmatic sectarians who are blindly and religiously faithful to socialist conclusions despite the lessons of unfolding experience. Should an examination of the real world prove the case for socialism to be invalid, it would be a serious reflection on those who continued to be socialists. That is why socialists are open-minded, in contrast to being broadminded. They do not tolerate exploded myths and superstitions. Yet they should be patient with individuals groping to find out what the score is. Especially this is true in a day and age when the material conditions of existence are ripe for socialism with the sole exception of maturity of social and political thinking. The only thing standing in the way of socialism today is the lack of socialists.The problem today is that of socialist education. And surely we know how teachers and educators have approaches to their task that does not punish or alienate those who are their students. They apply different teaching methods to their lessons…but most of all they try to make the learning process an entertaining one that is a pleasure to experience. The best teachers will also learn from their students.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Can we explore this a little further?What is the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist?Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?Are there socialists outside the SPGB or in other words are members of the SPGB the only socialists in the UK?I endorse the drift of your whole argument, Alan. Yes of course there are socialists outside the SPGB and if there were not, I would say there would be little point in the SPGB carrying on – after 110 years and with a membership down to a few hundred. Socialists are the product of the interaction between material circumstances and socialist ideas and the notion that the SPGB alone is the sole fount of socialist wisdom is ludicrous and idealist. The SPGB for me, more than any other organisation, ticks most of the boxes of what, for me, should figure in a revolutionary socialist political organisation – although as you know, and I wont go on about this here, I think some of its policies, notably the exclusion of religious minded socialists (in Isaac Rab's sense of the word , socialist), is utterly daft and another case of the SPGB shooting itself in the foot. Hopefully one day in the not too distant future it will abandon these self imposed obstacles to its own growth… You mention the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist. I think Caroline Lucas would be classified as the former rather than the latter. I interpret "anti-socialist" to mean active opposition to the ideas and values of the socialist movement. I don't think she can be called that even if she does not have socialism as her chosen explicit political goal in mind. It is silly to argue that there are no difference whatsoever between individuals who fall under this heading , let alone those who are not in the SPGB. i.e. 99.99% of the population. I'm not in the SPGB . Am I, then, a non socialist or even an anti socialist? I think socialist consciousness, or what you call a "socialistic" outlook, is a matter of degree. It is a question of values amongst other things. You could argue that much of what Lucas or indeed Corbyn are talking about is implicitly "socialistic". Yes of course it jars with the fact that they belong to organisations whose horizons do not extend beyonds the capitalist market economy and which are definitely non socialist if not actively anti-socialist. Nevertheless, people are complex and contradictory creatures, We should cut them a bit of slack at times and encourage them to develop their ideas and resolve their inner contradictions at their own pace. Attacking them personally as if the fact that they did not explicitly advocate socialism was some kind of moral defect, is frankly not conducive to them or indeed, more to the point, others who are their supporters coming to embrace socialism as a definitive political objective
robbo203 wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Can we explore this a little further?What is the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist?Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?Are there socialists outside the SPGB or in other words are members of the SPGB the only socialists in the UK?I endorse the drift of your whole argument, Alan.
Ditto. To argue that there are a few hundered socialists in the world and the rest of the world are enemies of the working class is a strange position to take up. And is a recipe for sectarianism and paranoia. I would endorse the words of our K&S party candidate on the BBC, and I welcome the recent attacks on capitalism by the likes of Brand and Corbyn and various l'eft wing' groups , I hope they eventually recognise that socialism is the only solution.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?I would have thought so. The socialism we talk of evolved from "socialistic" ideas, did it not?
Robbo203 wrote:You mention the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist. I think Caroline Lucas would be classified as the former rather than the latter. I interpret "anti-socialist" to mean active opposition to the ideas and values of the socialist movement. I don't think she can be called that even if she does not have socialism as her chosen explicit political goal in mind. It is silly to argue that there are no difference whatsoever between individuals who fall under this heading , let alone those who are not in the SPGB. i.e. 99.99% of the population. I'm not in the SPGB . Am I, then, a non socialist or even an anti socialist?[my bold]Unfortunately Robbo, there seems to be some socialists who claim people like Lucas, Corbyn and Brand are worse than the current anti-working class, anti-socialist lot in government here in the UK. The reasoning given, that the "lefties" will, lead the workers down another cul-de-sac (the implication being, it is a deliberate act).It appears that some socialists prefer the..err..honest approach of avowed supporters of capitalism (the Tories) over the often misguided approach, of many on the left of the political spectrum.It's obvious that some on the left, although likely to agree with our vision of socialism being a desirable way to organise society, probably think it unlikely to come into existence. (An attitude I have come across time and time again in my "socialist conversations" over the years). So they strive to work for the betterment of peoples lives with what currently exists. Are they really as bad as the pro-capitalists? If they are then full hostility is warranted. If not, a more intelligent approach is required. The reason being, if we wade into such people we risk alienating their supporters, who may be sympathetic to our view.
I agree with Socialist Punk, Vin, Robbo, Alan and others – of course there are genuine socialist outside the Socialist Party. Likewise, I don’t think it’s a good idea to lump all politicians together and paint them as equally bad; Iain Duncan Smith as no different from Caroline Lucas; Jeremy Corbyn as no different from George Osborne.I understand fully the Socialist Party’s case that until we get rid of capitalism, workers will continue to be exploited and the earth’s resources will be mercilessly raided.However, if you are at the margins of society, having an alternative government to this neo-conservative one quite possibly might mean the difference between life and death.It’s not so bad if you’re in the relatively “comfortable and secure” section of the working class; you can hold your hands up and say “No way will I vote; it makes no difference to me who’s in power”.If you are part of the most vulnerable, however, reliant on food banks and/or desperately dependent on the prompt arrival of your next “welfare” payment, things are different. (See the forum post “More Than 4,000 Died Within Six Weeks Of Being Deemed 'Fit For Work', Reveal Government”).The government’s treatment of, and disregard for, the disabled has been and continues to be horrific. Talk about kicking the most vulnerable in society. If you find yourself in the position of a disabled person, one step away from giving up and rolling your wheelchair off the platform edge, it might just matter to you that a Lucas or a Corbyn government say they will overturn the latest draconian rules for claiming disability benefit. The DWP ba***rds keep checking up on people with Down’s syndrome every year or so, for Christ’s sake, to establish if their situation “has got better”.
Spot on Meel, perfectly put.I doubt if many on this forum would find a problem with what you've said. But I'd be interested to hear a hardline SPGB response.
No doubt the counter argument will be that there are two alternatives; vote Labour or campaign for socialism. The latter will not save your life. But there is another alternative. You can oppose cuts and austerity without voting for a reformist party.
But "opposing cuts and austerity without voting for a reformist party" will not save your life either, if you're right on the edge.Voting for a reformist party which says they are going to overturn recent disability benefit regulations just might. ….says someone who has never voted. According to my arguments in e previous posts, maybe I should……
Voting for another party to reform capitalism will make little difference. Why do you think Syriza failed? We have to struggle, we have no choice, but capitalism cannot be tamed. Corbyn will fail regardless of his intentions. It wont be his fault, the market and production for profit is to blame.IDS is enjoying his job, Corbyn will not, he will probably resign, like some Greek politicians
Yes, Vin, I know all of that, I know capitalism cannot be tamed.However, it is feasible that Labour or the Greens might want to go back to capitalism with a few sticking plasters, and sticking plasters are better than nothing – for society's most vulnerable members in particular.If the disabled again can be sure of their benefits going into the bank every month, it could quite literally mean the difference between life and death for some. I would not criticise someone for voting reformist who have witnessed at close hand the abysmal treatment of the disabled – and who believe the party they are voting for will reverse the regulations.And yes, I know the hopelessness of always voting to improve "single issues" – that's one of the many reasons I have not voted so far.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.