alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What was the result of the party referendums on whether Zeitgeist was a political organisation and whether membership was compatable with party membership?Spintcom is currently down because of Yahoo stuff so i cannot double check but i am sure what you say, Brian, is economical with the truth, in regard to party attitude to Zeitgeist.I'm not being hostile just that a question was asked and deserves a full frank answer. There as indeed debate and difference within the party concerning Zeitgeist. But party attitudes are often in the process of evolution.
In the name of Occupy (or at least its working groups) OWS has engaged in recommending new regulations and legislation for Wall St. It is just one amongst many letters addressed to the law-making authorities. http://www.scribd.com/doc/112273221/OSEC-Shapiro-Geithner
I'll hazard a guess that many in Occupy will be adopting nationalise the banks slogans, based upon arguments presented by the likes of Ellen Brown here. http://www.alternet.org/economy/its-interest-stupid-why-bankers-rule-world?paging=offWe should be ready to counter that interest is from the surplus value extracted from workers. A nationalised bank will be just as much a robber as a private one and it is irrelevant how the spoils are divided.Ellen Brown cites the examples of Australia, Canada and Argentina of a reduced interest burden but glaringly omits any evidence of its benefit to workers in those countries. She refers to Iceland. This quote explains all "I think that people have learned that money is not made in banks. It is made by real people working hard at real jobs. Actually, deep down we knew that all along. We just have to learn it again." Asbjorn Jonsson, an Icelandic fisherman.As Marx identified “So long as things go well, competition effects an operating fraternity of the capitalist class…so that each shares in the common loot in proportion to the size of his respective investment. But as soon as it is no longer a question of sharing profits, but of sharing losses, everyone tries to reduce his own share to a minimum and to shove it off upon another. The class, as such, must inevitably lose. How much the individual capitalist must bear of the loss, ie, to what extent he must share in it at all, is decided by strength and cunning, and competition then becomes a fight among hostile brothers. The antagonism between each individual capitalist’s interests and those of the capitalist class as a whole, then comes to the surface…” Marx also pointed out that “the moneyed interest enriches itself at the cost of the industrial interest in the course of a crisis” Bankers are enriching themselves at the expense of industrial capitalist and workers, in other words. So whats new?Ellen Brown seeks a solution in the likes of the State Bank of North Dakota. That the bank owned by state authorities weathered the recession was perhaps more a reflection that the state’s economy which is primarily based on agriculture and oil, both involved in current boom times. Nor was the state particularly exposed to the sub-prime disaster “North Dakota really didn’t participate in subprime to a significant degree. I mean, that was–you know, it was sort of a flyover state. All of the aggressive subprime lenders apparently didn’t think there were enough folks in farms that they could get to lever up to take on these dodgy loans.”http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6239 Yves Smith. author of the book ECONned and creator of the website NakedCapitalism.com She wants to fix capitalism but revolutionaries want to abolish it. Some in Occupy will be impressed by her seemingly easy fix – we should rebut it vigourously.
Over the past months our blog Socialism Or Your Money Back has posted repeated criticisms of the theory of the lesser evil. In the present campaign it reared its ugly head by those who wanted Ron Paul nominated as the Republican candidate and to win the election – liberals and libertarians holding handsNo doubt your physio would have also been just as excited if it had been Hillary Clinton, the first woman president elected. The media hyped up Obama's colour, they would have no doubt hyped up Clinton's gender. If elected, i half-expect Romney's religion to become more highlighted. At the moment they are hesitant to expose the fantasy world of Mormonism. Mind you, its not any more far fetched than mainstream christianity!
i have to admit we are seen as a party of "old" men talking in "old" language about "old" ideas. But what age is Noam Chomsky. What are the ages of the economists and anthropologists and writers that inspire Occupy. What is so different about their language (plenty of academics usually involved) they use from our own? Not very much! So i think it is a bit easy to put it down to a generational thing. The fact of the matter is that our ideas, in the way we express them do not relate to Occupy and they are not receptive to them. Is it a reflection that in todays world people want a fast fix? Then our aim must be to demonstrate that the solutions being offered retard radical change. The slogans and speeches of Occupy frequently sound revolutionary but from past personal experience in other similar situations when we start talking about no countries, no money, no leaders, no government, it is surprising how quickly some return to their conservatism and raise the usual objections that we have to take political baby-steps before we run. Erich Fromm called it the fear of freedom, didn't he? We must again declare ourselves the impossiblists demanding utopia now. Instead of challenging Occupy's manifesto, forcing them into being defensive, we must somehow get them to start questioning our positions, demanding we explain and justify them.The strengths we saw in Occupy, the leaderlessness, the lack of reform demands, are now being re-evaluated as its weaknesses. I think we have to defend Occupy's beginnings but repeat our original criticism that Occupy's structurelessness would create a void that leaders fill and it lacked the defined goal of establishing socialism/communim/anarchism which would lead to lesser objectives substituting. What we first said appears to be more and more valid.In a blog post about Michael Albert of Parecon i made the point that Socialist Punk made, that it must be a bit ego deflating to learn that your ideas have been raised before and dismissed before and all you have accomplished is invented a few new words for much the same thing.
Just to emphasise how we must engage on the battlefield of ideas with Occupy, there is a review of the new Adbuster book on economics in the Guardian today intended to give content to a Occupy's manifesto.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/05/kalle-lasn-man-inspired-occupyDescribed as an alternative economics book but how alternative is shown by its interviews and essays – Stiglitz and Daly. The use of different concepts, "psychonomics" – economics that takes into account human behaviour – or "bionomics" which bears in mind the cost of environment damage. Different words but not really ideas that have not been discussed and debated before, even within orthodox economics.Many people are attempting to garb Occupy in the lastest fashion of economics…we should be emphasising the classic style of Marx that should adorn Occupy.
Once again, Adam, congratulations in getting out there and making contact.First let me hold up my hands an admit i don't know the answer. i have to confess sometimes i don't even know the question. But i will share my thoughts and hopes with others to be weighed up.i think again that the problem all leads back to reformism and the simplicity of the slogans that claim to offer a solution. A Robin Hood Tax and now the the latest being a Living Wage. The main proponents are no longer the political parties but the charities and NGOs and think-tanks. Because there is less linkage with ideologies then people are more receptive of proposals being without prejudice and therefore more reasonable. The politicians prove to be Johnny come latelys, hanging on to the coat-tails of more neutral organisations and seeking identification with the reforms for popularity rather than really making anymore a policy than an opportunist soundbite. Even Tory Boris as Mayor endorses the London Living Wage and lines up with the Millibands.Our language isn't particularly welcomed because over the decades the majority of people have been deceived by it and still are. Many groups have endeavoured to drop it and invent new words. Participatory. Communalisation. Horizontal. Resource Based Economy. But these orgnisations still remain just as insignificant as ourselves in the big picture.We know in our own development it required acquiring new understanding and re-defining our view of the world, learning new terminolgy and attaching new meanings to words that we believed we did know what they meant. But the environmentalists all need to overcome complex concepts and it is not beyond ordinary activists ability to do so. Like any learning there only requires a will, there is always a way. Our particular propaganda methods should include several means of education, written, audio, video and spoken.We had a lesson from the Economics Working Group within Occupy which has set out to explain and clarify what the issues are as they see it and what they meran. All we can do is the same. Beat the same drum as we always have. We can opt to change the language we use. Or choose to reclaim our words. We are all minded how the ideas of Marx were declared dead and buried but were suddenly resurrected when they were found to reflect reality more clearly than existing interpretations. We have to present our ideas of common ownership as common sense solutions to present current social problems. Socialism as an immediate possibility to struggle for in the here and now, not the here-after. Our arguments cannot just be one-offs but must necessitate saying over and over again. Beat our drum and drum it into the workers' heads. Not always in the same repetitive way but always with the same message. And even then we have to face the fact that we cannot compete with capitalism's hegemony on society's ideas. A socialist revolution first must take place in the heads of the workers, then will follow the conquest of political power. The ideas about the aim derive from, are shaped by, the class struggle, but they also transcend it. It is hard to see how the working class would develop the ability to figure out how to reorganize society if they don't talk about it and discuss and clarify their ideas or their vision of where they would like to go. It is highly unlikely that an entire new social order emerges spontaneously in some crisis although some socialists see catastrophe as the trigger. More likely that people would "spontaneously" fall back into old habits inculcated by class society, such as giving power to leaders to make decisions for them or supporting the rise of the Right as witnessed in Greece. We need to know where we are going if we set out on a journey, otherwise we all risk ending up in different places. Agreeing the route is also an issue to reach agreement upon. We all must learn from our own particular exploitation but it is also necessary to go further and recognise the commonality of how we are all controlled and conditioned. Then we seek common cause and action .
The debate probably began pre-WW2 during the Spanish Civil War. Some members thought the party should be more sympathetic to the Republican forces since it was argued that the machinery of democracy was a pre-requisite for socialism even if still a bourgeois one. If i recollect Dave Perrin's history there was a certain amount of to and froing to reach an acceptable compromise.See the 1936 article http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1936/no-385-september-1936/civil-war-spain Later the Party issued a 1937 editorial on Spain http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1937/no-393-may-1937/spgb-and-spainThis position was weakened by actual events in Spain such as the rise of Stalinism and the attacks on anarchists. Victory for the Republic was certainly not going to be a victory for working class democracy. The Party position switched emphasis to one that the fight for democracy could not be won through war since war itself by its very nature leads to undemocratic practices such as suppression of free speech etc.By the time the Second World War came along the Party said "The present war is most likely to bring in its trail…less freedom to achieve our purpose than we now possess, whichever side is triumphant in the struggle."Nevertheless, the Party added "The German workers must, it seems, be the means of effecting the downfall of the Nazi system of government. For ourselves we, as Socialists, would render them any service which would assist in their accomplishing the overthrow of their despotic ruling gang, if only to gain for them the immediate means of being able to give expression to their social and political aspirations without fear of being murdered or placed in a concentration camp. Until the working-class movement in Germany or anywhere else can gain the means of emerging from underground into the daylight, their chances of finally freeing themselves from capitalism through Socialism are well-nigh hopeless. To assist in the war against Germany is not the way by which this can be accomplished, we should be slaughtering the very people we desire to liberate from the Nazi yoke. "See this article http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1940/no-426-february-1940/how-can-hitlerism-be-destroyed
Gluckstein, SWPer, son of Tony, wrote a dreadful book on 1919 and workers councils that i read. I won't expect too much of his new book.He is something of a hack, (but who am i to protest about plagiarism).One ex-SPGBer and ex-IWWer who worked alongside Gluckstein in Further Education and the lecturers union and knows him personally has a very low opinion of him.
Well done Adam and the others. I hope Heartfield's book gets to a 2nd edition and he can mention our opposition to WW2.I hope the meeting on a very appropriate day goes well.Also good to note that HO is widening the stock of non-party members it carries. We should make a policy of purchasing books that agree with our case. We have the space for a special section on the shelves.
Not just attend and participate in the debate but perhaps take along a stock of Socialist Standards to dish out – not a truck-load, mind you – just this month's issue will suffice with its direct relevance !!We're doomed, ah tell ye, doomed ah said, but just perhaps our view will find a resonance with one or two and the future will not be so bleak.
I believe Stair tried to convince us a few years ago when he was HO Organiser and wished to make the most of the re-furbishments of our premises and he suggested using the Brighton Cowley Club as a template. It indeed has it plus points. Brian J hoped we could also use the HO as a drop-in advice centre since he possesses some personal experience in that. But aside from the demand of commitment from members to staff it, i think the question of security was also raised. Perhaps a Saturday-only coffee/reading shop opening would be a gentle start to test the waters and see if we can expand from there. Maybe have a pot of wholesome soup on offer in addition to coffee/tea. Only take a sandwich board (pardon the pun) at our entrance to advertise and the outlay would be minimal. Aside from the menu, a print-out of our library can be available for those willing to linger and browse our literature. We could also charge a small fee for use of our printing facilities. I am sure informlly we actually do something like this when we have interested visitors, offer a welcome and offer a cup of coffee while chatting
I never heard… belated congratulations to Tristan…or condolences… depending on your attitude to matrimony.
Where there is a will there's a way. Well done, Adam. I hope the publications can prioritise it. I know a nationalism pamphlet is in the making but that can wait until the Scot Nat referendum in 2014!!! Of course, the next challenge is distribution. I suggest mailing hardcopies free of charge to as many relevant contacts in Occupy we can collect, friend or foe, describing it as a complementary review copy for their comments. The hardcopy should be speedily scanned and placed on the website so it can be linked to at various discussion lists and worldwide organisations. Using the same compiled address list , the Campaigns committee should then issue comradely invitations to local groups ( not forgetting this Occupy Economic Working Group) to discuss the differences between the two viewpoints. The separate committees, Publications, Campaigns, the Media and the Internet should be coordinating to produce a joint effort. Slightly heretical it might be but there is no need for it to be a Socialist Party Versus Them. It could include other parties such as Anarchist Federation or CPGB (or whoever ) as well as Occupy…a genuine Question Time format. If we have confidence in the validity of our ideas i see no reason why we should not give a platform to others if by doing so it presents us with a wider audience and more exposure. I expect a couple of dissensions. First being from those who will argue that we should not put propaganda material of second-rate standard out there until its perfected ( Paddy's view that a 1000 flowers blooming is in the end counter-productive.) Waiting unfortuately until the i is dotted and the t is crossed and some nice colours and images are chosen for a pamhlet would lose the impetus. We have witnessed that before. The other is that once again someone from the other end of the world is delegating the hard slog to others. However, once it is online many individuals regardless of location can email and post the pamphlet and initiate debate. Activity should be seen as including those members unable to make a physical presence either due to age, infirmity or distance but capable of using a key-board. The web has really made the armchair revolutionary a vital component. Best of luck with re-editing the collected articles and an appropriate introduction.
Having lived in India and Thailand now for some years, experience has taught me that the safest food to eat is street food. It is bought in daily fresh from the market and sold out by evening. The dodgiest are those at restaurant and hotel buffets which having had the food out on tables in warm humid weather unsold, return it to their fridges and freezers (often prone to power-cuts) for dishing out next day and the day after!!Street vendors often operating from their front door, as well as being means of income for some families also act as social centres for chat and gossip, often crossing class lines. I have seen BMWs and Mercedes parked alongside humble food stalls. (Unfortunately, it is contrasted with many of the poor eating in a McDonalds or KFC as an aspirational and an overly-expensive treat.) Just as the more social of us have more dinner parties than others and happily accept the chore of all the extra catering, i can imagine the same people will perhaps host eating places. After all, wasn't that the origin of pubs…public houses…free houses ( ok free in sense not tied to a brewery but sounds good in this context) As for mass produced industrial produced food being safer, the scale of them means that any lapse in hygiene can have a more serious widespread effect. See the link at the SOYMB post on US food inspection http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-real-cost-of-food.html or Socialist Couriers report on German school dinners http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/10/much-same-there.htmlCertainly the main culprit was capitalist cost cutting
