The class struggle and tax credits
- This topic has 48 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Labour Party is trying to mobilise political support for it and a Labour run state through the tax credits. Tehy're aim is to make themselves indispensible as the defenders of the state administered wage.Currently, the tax credits are being redistributed among employers, since labour intensive industries can spare their variable capital at the expernse of profits taken from labour un-intensive industries. The overall wage package is still determines by the labour market (except what is happening is the employer makes up the market rate on top of the basic rate administered by the state, it's the Speenhamland system again).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_systemTBH, I think the Tories are making a mistake by pushing the burden onto the minimum/living wage, long-term this means the unions can turn the pressure on pushing that up, which will make it a perfect political football to bribe voters with.
So you don't want the tories out? Well I do! And so does the World socialist movement. I also want austerity to end and so does the world socialist movement.
Ah, here we go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34637068
Quote:When Gordon Brown and his then adviser Ed Balls embarked on their reshaping of the British welfare state by massively increasing benefits delivered to lower-paid, working people through the tax credit system, one of their aims was cynically political.The more people who received these credits, and the more generous they became, the more frightened those on average or lower incomes would be of voting Tory.Vin wrote:Again me thinks you are dancing around the subject
Class war continues with the 1%. Webber is mouthing the usual "right wing" philosophy of poor life choices. I've never heard any of them explain how everyone can move up the social ladder. His kind want to kick away the net and those who fall were born to fail.It's social darwinism.
DJP wrote:Vin wrote:So you don't want the tories out? Well I do!Do you want Labout in?
You are really struggling aren't you.You assume that because I want the tories out then logically I must want the Labour Party in! Even though my branch stood a candidate against both at the 2015 election.Ever thought I may mean Tories Out! Socialist Party In! End Austerity Now! With revolution! If his is 'piffle' I would appreciate a logical criticism rather than absolute piffle in return.
DJP wrote:Vin wrote:So you don't want the tories out? Well I do!Do you want Labout in?
Evidently; "Tories out" and "End austerity" and similar slogans are the reformist sentiments expressed by the myopic Corbynistas and, earlier, the Brandwagonites. The WSM/SPGB wants all capitalist parties "out" and makes no distinction between any of them. To express our aims in any other terms only serves to muddy the water.
Quote:That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.The World Socialist Movement, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.Nos 7 and 8 of our Declaration of Principles
I think it has always been the socialist case – even from the pre-1904 days – that the working class must have its own INDEPENDENT political party, and i would say party with a small p – a self-organised and class conscious labour movement. It may not yet have socialism as its number one priority but primary place at the forefront the interests of the workers within the class struggle, a united workers movement is something we do not possess in today's world. YMS has made the valid point that the Socialist Party for the foreseeable future cannot organise itself as a motivating force within our fellow workers but it doesn't stop us being an advocacy group for increased militancy and resistance to the encroachment of capital. For sure our role is to educate for socialism and make socialists, but as a working class party we also have a responsibility in analysising capitalism and encouraging active resistance to it. Certainly the best agency within the capitalist system to oppose capitlist policies are the trade unions (and now joined by many lobbyist campaigning groups from charity NGOs to even Church of England bishops) and contary to ALB's arguement that workers accept the need for austerity, i think it is that they see no victorious outcome in fighting it and for the time being accept the inevitable passively. They see the result of Greek government's attempt to stand up to the economic power of the ruling class and judge quite correctly that the current trade union movement is not going to be a very effective weapon. I recall some SS article or other (from the 30s i think) that explains that if the workers cannot wage class struggle against the capitalists today – then they aren't worth their salt in the struggle for socialism tomorrow. I recall Pannekoek earlier trying to explain that defeats in the class war are not necessarily defeats in the sense that by engaging in fights with our masters it creates class identity, class solidarity…in other words… class consciousness. Back to YMS, true we are too small to have a physical influence on our fellow workers but we are sufficient in numbers and with adequate means of expressing ideas to be an intellectual effect. I think this is what Vin is trying to suggest we presently lack. Our propaganda is not being targetted effectively and its aim is off. I don't think this simply only applies to tax credits. There are many other fields of battle going on where socialist presence is missing. Again it does not mean we have to be out in force in strength of number, but to focus our engagements is a concerted manner either via the internet and social media and/or by "propaganda by deed" – you know i have mentioned this before…more theatrical protests that are dramatic and media centred…but it begins with the mundane almost prosaic…flags and banners and pickets. One man with his bag of shopping stopped the tanks in Tiannaman Sq (even if ultimately the State got its way) No-one will listen to our case for socialism, if it isn't heard. Our heyday was with the outdoor meetings and soap-boxes where we had an audience to speak to. I think sometimes these days we find ourselves talking to ourselves.Yes we want the Tories out – No we don't want Labour in – Our difficult task is to communicate the alternative – Socialism while at the same time also urging collective action today and that means helping the creation of an organised capable of challenging the State and its crack-down on living standards or at least slowing down and mitigating the attacks upon our class. It is not reformism to stop fellow workers from being cowed into apathy because they feel impotent.This is post is no definitive answer…as i say we in the party need to talk and discuss it in our own organised way.
alanjjohnstone wrote:contary to ALB's arguement that workers accept the need for austerity, i think it is that they see no victorious outcome in fighting it and for the time being accept the inevitable passively.ALB actually wrote:Most workers seem to accept the capitalist necessity for austerity at the present time or don't think there's much they can do about it.Cheers for the correction…your message was a few posts earlier and my memory isn't quite the same as it used to be. My point is your second point rather than your first.There is a constant need for the media to focus on the "necessity" of austerity because i think they understand that people don't quite agree or accept that we need it hence the indoctrination and brainwashing of the supposed inevitablility of it, while at he same time the State is meanwhile concentrating its firepower on ensuring that there isn't too much we can do about it thus the proposed crackdown on trade unions…enforcing a belief that there is no alternative except to passively comply with policies, not even permitting the thought of some wiggle room to retain what standard of living we presently have. But we do see that concessions and compromises are possible…such as junior doctors are currently extracting by the threat of more militant action.Whatever the fact of the limited reach of our propaganda, we should be highlighting whatever victories workers achieve, offring confidence and optimism and not so much negativism by giving credence to the powers of parliament, after all much of the change of heart over Iraq and Syria and tax credits is due to either people power or the potentiality for it…As long as it is not an existential threat to the ruling class, politicians will occasionally bend for opportunistic reasons to the will of the people to maintain the democratic camoflage.
Gordon Brown tells it how is on Tax credits:
Brown wrote:Some argue that personal tax allowances, a citizen’s income and a negative income tax offer better solutions. But if it is family poverty we want to relieve, nothing is as targeted or cost effective as tax credits.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/10/tax-credits-osborne-poverty-working-parents-children"targetted" "cost effective": in a nutshell.
So we do not support workers struggles against austerity? Simple enough question.Or do we oppose their struggle?Cde Colemen was incorrect when he said 'in all struggles between capitalists and workers the socialist party is unequivocally on the side of the workers?
Talking, seriously, about tax credits when Cameron claimed on Monday that some 40% of recent migrant workers to the UK are "on benefits" most people would understand (and were meant to understand) that they were "workshy scroungers". But he himself admitted that most of these would be receiving tax credits, i.e would be working and of course in low-paid jobs so the government would be subsidising low-paying employers. A critical analysis of his demagogic claim here:http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fact-check-43-eu-migrants-claim-benefits/21964
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.