Caroline Lucas at PMQ
- This topic has 23 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Meel wrote: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.
And therein lies one of the blatantly obvious explanations as to why the socialist movement isn't growing; those workers engaged in any kind of social activism want something in the here and now – better treatment of the disabled or an end to austerity, to name just two "single issues". We can't wait, they say, for socialism.But socialism is the natural umbrella for humanity, the vast majority of which desires a peaceful world. All the "single issues" are seen by socialists as effects, the cause of which is capitalism. Effects can be ameliorated but it is far better to eliminate the cause and prevent the effects returning.
Gnome, I don't think you're quite hearing what I am saying.I am not disagreeing with your logical position.I am saying that the situation from the margins of society is a lot different from where you (I assume) or I are standing. We can (just about) afford to take a theoretical position and say "wait 100 years and we might have socialism". It is not so easy for someone who is wondering whether he can eat next month, or be able to run the heating, or be able to have somewhere to store the equipment which keeps him alive (or the expense of keeping tit running).Would I recommend that somebody votes for the Green Party (for argument's sake) – if they promise to restore the situation of the disabled to what it was before the conservatives took over? Probably not. Would I get on my high horse if somebody votes "reformist" under those circumstances and refuse to see where they are coming from? Definitely not.
I get your point , Meel Tho' I can assure you that I am on the 'margins'
Hi Vin"The margins" are never that far away if you're a worker………Meel
Actually, if you want an immediate solution to an immediate problem then there's no point in voting for the Green Party except perhaps in some places in local elections. You'd have to vote for a party that had a chance of forming the government at national level. In practice, the Labour Party which might just, perhaps, deliver it maybe if economic circumstances allow.More effective would be to organise with others in the same situation in a trade union, claimants union, tenants association or whatever (depending on the immediate problem). We have never opposed this or denounced it as reformist. In fact it's what we say about what to do "in the meantime". We don't get involved as a party as our aim to propagate socialist ideas, though individual members can, do and have done.
I only used the Green Party "for the sake of argument" – Caroline Lucas being in the title of this post. To make it absolutely clear what I meant, perhaps I should have said "reformist party x".(Although you never know these days, rank outsiders can suddenly become front runners..
(ALB, for some reason, half of my argument disappeared into the ether as I posted the above, here is the rest….)Joining a union or a pressure group the way you suggested would not achieve the specific aim I mentioned. Voting in another party for government just might, if they had expressly stated that they were going to revoke the policies of the previous government with regard to – say – disability benefits (which was my particular example). Now, they might of course renege on this once in government, due to economic circumstances or the pressures of capitalism.The gist of my argument was to foster understanding for people who are among the most vulnerable in society, that for them even £5 is a great deal of money and for whom voting for someone who promises them that their disability benefits are going to be paid into their banks regularly, might make a great deal of sense.Currently the bailiffs aren’t knocking at my door and I don’t have to sneak round to the food bank tomorrow in order to eat. It’s a great deal easier for me to say “let’s wait another 100 years or so for socialism to happen”.
Meel wrote:Currently the bailiffs aren’t knocking at my door and I don’t have to sneak round to the food bank tomorrow in order to eat. It’s a great deal easier for me to say “let’s wait another 100 years or so for socialism to happen”.I am afraid the bailiffs will continue as long as capitalism continues even if that is 100 years and no reform will stop that. Only revolution will end bailiffs.
Vin – I know that, I know.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.