alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Totally off topic , in Thailand street stalls sell crisps on a stick . A simple machine cuts potatoes in a spiral, one connected spud, which is then deep fried and the stall-holder also makes various dips to flavour.http://kassieengroff.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/dscf0807.jpgThere are a lot of options outside our particular culture that may be adopted.
http://issuu.com/occupylondon/docs/occupy_little_book_of_ideas/1The 60 page pamphlet is by the working economic group which Carne Ross is involved with and which i drew attention to in an earlier post on the thread. The group in its foreward claim to be authorative in the field.They are indeed endeavouring to furnish Occupy with re-hashed theories of bank and tax reform . This is the battle of ideas that we should be engaging in as directly as possible and in a comradely style with Occupy participants who genuinely seek explanations.As been pointed out across at Spintcom, a speedy detailed reply is always best to the myths being propagated and the futility and consequences of all those nice sounding reforms has to be made as i said in the name of the party, whether it is the EC, The Gen Sec, or a sub-committee.A leaflet in the form of an open letter would be obviously the first and easiest option, followed by a more meaty rebuttal of the economic group.Perhaps this months Socialist Standard could be reformatted and re-edited into a counter-pamphlet on HO equipment with an appropriate introduction, and if not all issues are covered – ie Robin Hood Tax, previous articles from archives can be included. The title can reflect the haste by being described as The Socialists Answer – Part One or whatever to show that we are prepared for an ongoing discussion. (hopefully a Part Two and Part Three would materialise)An invitation to exchange views with this Economics Group in a public forum, whether a meeting/debate or online discussion should be made. A refusal can be used as evidence of closed-minds within sections of Occupy to relay to other Occupy activistsWe have to challenge errononeous ideas but tailor our approach to be seen as educational and instructive – just as authorative in our knowledge and eperience as the Economics Working group tries to present itself and let the Occupiers judge for themselves who has offered the better case. Feasible Socialism or Unachievable Radical Capitalism
I'll go with option 3, too, socialist punk We should move on and put inadvised comments down to the heat of the moment. A new slate for all. The moderator's actions were carried out with the best of intentions and he should not be criticised for his decisions but a resolution of this is required – it clogs up my e mail, for one. Lets put it all behind us and put it all down to experience. There is no need for it to be raised again once the status quo is returned to. Finis
Damn those Freemasons…I am not allowed into it because I don't believe in the Grand Architect…I could however join French freemasonry who jettisoned religion at the time of the French Revolution. Is Freemasonry compatible with membership of the SPGB? i believe Bakunin was in the lodge, wasn't he?
As for the "Great Britain" , it well may have to be debated once again if Scotland gets a yes vote for independence (although personally i doubt it will). Edinburgh and Glasgow branches will have to consider hat to call themselves when standing in elections. Scottish Socialist Party, Socialist Party of Scotland are already taken. Repeatedly the suggestion of calling ourself the World Socialist Party is raised. I note that the small New Zealand group have now opted for this. http://www.worldsocialism.org/nz/auckland/hist.htm I can understand why some a reluctant to change, such as members in the SPC who cling to the history of it. The WSPUS was originally the WORKERS party but faced a similar challenge as we do of another political party hijacking thatname. The now WSP of IRELAND which included Northern Ireland members I think found that in their local politics the GB was a handicap. We have registered with the electoral commission a variety of titles for our party. Adam can refresh us of those, perhaps
In regard to Occupy Movement i did not regard it as a monolithic organisation, more an umbrella group, such as we would describe the Trade Union Movement to be . Within such an organisational structure as Occupy many schools of thought existed. Some we were sympathetic towards, some we disagreed with and opposed. We would have constituted only one independent element. I simply wanted to emphasise that we as part of the working class, albeit already organised and claiming to have acquired a degree of class and socialist consciousness, which endows us with an educational role, are legitimate part of the class struggle and should not be excluded from participation in it, either by others who may disagree with our views because we are a clearly a political party or by those members of the party who wish a self-imposed non-involvement because of the "hostility" clause. The fight against capitalism is a priority for our class. We cannot be outside that process so i concentrated advocating being within it, arguing our case openly with no ulterior motive of imposing our ideas. That is what separates us from the Leninist vanguard who do disguise their agenda and camoflage their manipulation of workers organisations. The SPGB has always claimed to be an educational propagandist party and the fact that we assume the mantle of teacher does not turn us into leaders. "Educate. Agitate. Organise" Anyways, i'm glad you now understand that "boring from within" was not what i was calling for but engaging in the exchange of ideas as class members to others of our class.
Ouch!!I returned to this thread to comment to Socialist Punk that physical disabilities should not necessarily deter anyone from contributing to socialist activity. As BrianJ indicated there are various mean and methods to do so, and one valuable vehicle happens to be the internet, joining in exchanges on various discussion lists such as this. I was also going to say that branch involvement is also possible via the internet and if properly conducted no branch member should feel excluded. But what did i find when i came on to the Forum?For the record, i too am a returnee to the party after many years in the political wilderness i found out there. I recognise the limitations of the party, just as i discovered the limits of union militancy, and have less expectations of both, therefore not prone to as much disappointment. Instead i do what i can and encourage the party to do what it can. Many members will vouch for my carping and harping within the party.As for "intellectual waffle", it is a matter of horses for courses. This is a socialist dicussion forum and many participants already understand and accept the basic socialist case and therefore disagreements tend to be on the peripheral or idiosyncratic and that can get over-blown. One recently deceased party member offered to bequeath and finance a "socialist commune" so there has always been a element who wish to establish examples of socialism but that is not the party's task, as decided over decades of debate and conference resolutions. As for how to communicate our message, most of those on the Thin Red Line sector face the exact same problem as we do, so it is not unique to the SPGB. And many groups have gone down the road of "dumbing down" (i use that reluctantly for want of a better word). I specifically posted earlier on the experience of the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement engagement with social activism in this respect. It should have sparked a debate on the issue, but what the hell, the only response on this forum seemed to consider it long-winded waffle to merit any real discussion. As said on another thread, it won't be the SPGB who will bring about socialism, so be thankful about that!! But for those who think themselves socialists right now where else is there to go?
"There's a worse fate than that TOGW. You could find people ignoring your posts all together."Indeed so! My transgressions were apparently to give readers the respect they are due with a full reply albeit lengthy and then also on another occasion to respond to what i considered erroneous interpretations of my post by yourself which you obviously decided did not deserve an answer. (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/occupy-movement?page=29)
If Milliband saw a trade unionist drowning 20-feet from shore, he would throw him a 15-foot rope. Then he'd go to the TUC and solemnly announce that he had met the union movement more than halfway and ask for their support.
Like so many strands on socialist discussion lists it often comes down to this issue of consciousness and the role of socialists.We agree the majority will not understand socialism from the campaigning and educational effort of the SPGB, but from the potential effect of the social practice particularly of the class struggle.“A period of revolution begins not because life has become physically impossible but because growing numbers of workers have their eyes suddenly opened to the fact that problems hitherto accepted as part of man’s unavoidable heritage has become capable of solution…No crisis of capitalism , however desperate it may be, can ever by itself give us socialism ” – Will Capitalism Collapse?And here we also stated :-“If we hoped to achieve Socialism ONLY by our propaganda, the outlook would indeed be bad. But it is Capitalism itself unable to solve crises, unemployment, and poverty, engaging in horrifying wars, which is digging its own grave. Workers are learning by bitter experience and bloody sacrifice for interests not their own. They are learning slowly. Our job is to shorten the time, to speed up the process” – Socialism or Chaos (Socialist Party of Australia pamphlet)The search for why socialist consciousness arises is The Holy Grail of every sincere socialist and no one has the answer as yet. We hold only generalisations – and possess a political approach that when exercised will not be counter-productive or have a negative effect. One of the great principles of the SPGB is our opposition to leadership, so whatever weaknesses or mistaken views we hold or that it is accused of, they cannot be imposed upon others with possible worse consequences.As Marx explains it:“Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness , and for the success of the cause itself , the alteration of man on a mass scale is necessary , an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement , a revolution. The revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way , but also because the class overthrowing itcan only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew” – Feurbach and Materialist Outlook Marx expected the working class to develop from a mere economic category (a "class in itself" ) into a revolutionary political actor ("class for itself")—but at least the process started even if it did get stuck on route as it were. A "class consciousness" did develop among particular sections of the working class but this did not develop into a revolutionary socialist consciousness. It stopped at trade-unionism and Labourism, the idea and practice of the working class as a class within capitalism but which wanted a better deal within this system, not to replace it with a classless and exploitation-free society. So, even if a working class "for itself" has never developed, a class consciousness of a lesser sort did. The emergence of socialist understanding out of the experience of the workers can be said to be “spontaneous” in the sense that it would require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it about (not that such people could not take part in this process, but their participation was not essential or crucial). Socialist propaganda and agitation would indeed be necessary but would come to be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas would have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result would be an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically organised working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism. As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto:-“the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.Socialist consciousness on a wide scale is not going to emerge from mere abstract propagandizing or proselytizing, “[class consciousness ] is not learned from books or through courses on theory and political formation, but through real life practice of the class struggle”- Anton Pannekoek, The Workers Council All we are doing in the SPGB is trying to help the emergence of majority socialist consciousness, but even if the sort of activities we engage in can't be the main thing that will bring this consciousness about, it is still nevertheless essential. People can, and do, come to socialist conclusions without us, but they hopefully can come to this more quickly if they hear it from an organised group dedicated exclusively to putting over the case for socialism. We can't force or brainwash people into wanting to be free, they can only learn this from their own experience. We see majority socialist consciousness emerging from people's experiences of capitalism coupled with them hearing the case for socialism (not necessarily from us, although it would seem that we are the only group that takes doing this seriously). The SPGB will not be the sole agent of the socialist transformation. Socialist consciousness can emerge through discussion and analyses. We come to a socialist view of the world by interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them. Our main task is to find better ways of expressing our message to as many workers as possible, to evolve a strategy so that we use our resources to most effect. To bring about socialist consciousness involves understanding socialism which means talking about it, sharing ideas about it – in short educating ourselves and our fellow workers about it. Socialism will be established by the working class and that its establishment will result from an intensification and escalation of the class struggle. That follows almost by definition–obviously, if the working class are going to overthrow capitalism and capitalist class rule the class struggle is going to be stepped up. That's not the interesting question. The real question is what is it that is going to provoke the working class into intensifying/escalating the class struggle and/or acquiring socialist consciousness. Socialist consciousness comes from life experience, but that being said, why are not more people achieving this consciousness? Everything from education, accepted customs, the prevailing capitalist ideology and cultural hegemony. We can say that socialist consciousness comes from life experience, but then that automatically implies that every worker should achieve it, it should have happened. And I see this as a problem. It leads to a belief of the old "historical inevitability" of socialism, that inevitably people will come around to becoming socialists. That would indeed leave no role for a Socialist Party. We can watch it all unfold before our eyes from our cumfy chairs. However many members have not accepted this inevitability and wonder what exactly is our role? Where do we "intervene" to raise consciousness and how do we intervene? What practical measures can we take as a Party? The SPGB case is that understanding is a necessary condition for socialism, not desperation and despair and we see the SPGB's job as to shorten the time, to speed up the process – to act as a catalyst.Our Parliament pamphlet puts it:-"The socialist political party (of which we are just a potential embryo) will not be something separate from the socialist majority. It will be the socialist majority self-organised politically, an instrument they have formed to use to achieve a socialist society…With the spread of socialist ideas all organisations will change and take on a participatory democratic and socialist character.."
The establishment of the One Big Union [see my short post here] was also a consequence of the Winnipeg General Strike which,as been pointed, out was not for political objectives but a union solidarity strike. It is perhaps little known to a large majority of Canadian workers is the fact that what is now accepted without question – the principle of collective bargaining resulted from the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike.On May 1, construction and metalworkers walked off the job, demanding higher wages; on May 15, after employers refused to negotiate with two umbrella unions, the women who worked the city's telephones walked off their shift; nobody came to replace them. Within hours, almost the entire work-force of the city had joined the strike. The city police would have also participated but were asked not to by the strike committee, but regardless most policemen were sacked for supporting the strikers.The "anarchist/syndicalist"(?) Larry Gambone writes in his pamphlet the Impossiblists "The OBU was a child of Impossibilism, most of the important leaders were members of the SPC and the rival Social Democrats had few representatives of importance. The Preamble and Constitution were written by Socialists as were other influential documents of the movement. They created a distinctly Western-Canadian form of syndicalism, strongly influenced by its SPC origins. The OBU grew like a mushroom overnight taking in most of organized labour west of Ontario……Sneered at as “out of date” by the snottily superior Bolshevik fellow-travelers and dismissed as simple-minded millenarians by labor bureaucrats, (and their academic apologists) the Impossibilist’s often libertarian message is more likely to be welcomed today than leftist demands for nationalization and state control. " I often refer to the OBU when rebutting the claims that Impossibilism was not involved in day to day class struggles and were aloof to union organising. It is one reason i objected a month or so ago to the very miserly book purchase of the history of the SPC by our EC. I do think we should emphasise the involvement of early members of the SPC in the fights of our class. I think it would be worthwhile project to compile the experiences of the many individual members involvements in the unions eg the London bus drivers breakaway union before they too are lost in the mists of time.
For those who insist that posts on a discussion list should not be lengthy – damn that Marx ….a critique of capitalism and he never even had the decency to do a word-count so we needn't bother with the long boring stuff !! All those writings and there are still unanswered questions, so why didn't he do a short FAQ and save us all this work of continued debate!!
"Talking of which – what counts as a majority as far as the SPGB is concerned?" Robbo askedThe question what constitutes a majority is one i have previously debated on libcom and here is what i delared.Does it mean majority of the population ? i think not . Does it mean a majority of votes of those on the electoral register,? i think not (It was the 1979 Scottish referendum that had the 40% rule which required not simply a majority of those who voted to support devolution but that it needed 40% of those on the electoral roll to support it . And of course due to the accuracy of the records it meant the dead , the dying and the exiled and not just the apathetic all suddenly had political power by the mere fact of not voting.) A majority of MPs ? I think not – its not bums on the seats in the House of Commons which is important .A Socialist Standard article has this comment: "….The ICC attributes to us a caricatured position of seeing “the development of consciousness as an accumulation of individual socialists”, as the conversion of workers one by one to socialism until there’s a “mathematical majority”…. If we use terms such as “majority” and “majoritarian” this is not because we are obsessed with counting the number of individual socialists, but to show that we reject minority action to try to establish socialism – majority as the opposite of minority….a majority (yes, but in the democratic rather than mere mathematical sense)…." http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/aug04/icc.htmlThe SPGB was formed in 1904 when women had no vote and when many men perhaps a much as a third did not meet the registration requirements to get the vote.The majority it called for was the majority to acquire political power.I think what we must do is talk about an effective majority , not simplistic number counting. If it was, we could do it with just a phone-in poll, or use a Gallop opinion poll . What we need to counter the trend towards formalism and maintain a class struggle position. It may be acknowledging that there is an already established world majority of socialists who have, to some extent, voted with their feet – re-organised their jobs, freely distributed food and goods, refused to go to war, or whatever. We won't just sit on our arses for Jon Snow declare the success of the revolution on a swingometer.In the fall of the Communist Party governments of the Eastern Bloc no-one waited around for a massive vote of millions of people since the malaise of state capitalism was plainly evident , allowing individual revolts in each of the countries or individual Soviet republics. Though they were the subject of competing elite groups as well, in general they were mass movements. Legitimacy was established after the fact in the following elections. This of course raises the question if you can have the revolution first, and count the ballots afterwards, what price the parliamentary road to socialism? We usually argue or imply that parliament is the engine of change, whereas in reality it might be nothing but a rubber-stamping exercise. The SPGB position should be one that we do not rely on Parliament but that we use it if we can.We think it is the most effective way to get socialism with the minimum of violence. Elections are an useful expedient, when the alternative is bloody failure on some barricade.But we're not legalists – if the capitalists withdraw the franchise or change its rules we'll have to act without it. Being dependent on the bourgeois offering us a voting opportunity for socialism is not the party case.Most revolutions of the past that have succeeded have, it is considered required no more than quarter to a third active support – which would be enough for an election of any capitalist party. If 25-35% of the population actively supporting the revolution outweighs active opposition sufficiently to achieve its goals, with the rest of our class either passively support us or just only keeping their heads down below the parapets to see what comes out of whatever crisis and comes to pass. That constitutes a sufficient majority of socialists. It should be defined as "functional majority", or such terms, and also not put in thrall of the capitalist process. Capitalist politics, when they interact with our class at all, are fraught with ballot rigging and gerrymandering. The franchise, even when considered "universal", always excludes large sectors of our class. We should also allow for the large possibility that any transition will not be that orderly – by the time we have succeeded there will be no need for such a ballot because the outcome will be obvious and have been the result of class warfare.It is essential for the revolutionary process that this majority is suffice to make socialism work as a system of society. I suspect the deciding factor on the 'majority' is going to be how many of the population will be willing to make socialism actually work.We cannot assume that all of our class will want to be actively involved – many for purely personal social or health reasons but for whatever reason will not want to stick their heads above the parapet. Also lots of our class will be in organisations that have interpreted the situation differently, whether , anarchists, even Trots or whatnot , and would be as likely to cooperate in many aspects of a revolution . We should have a revolutionary model which refers to socialism being brought about by a sufficient majority of socialists – sufficient in their political willingness and awareness, not a 100% at the polls or even a 51% active support.We tallk of as in a 1955 EC Statement: of "The overwhelming mass of the people will participate, or fall in line with, the process of reorganisation "[my emphasis] . Class societies only persist because a majority support or acquiesce to the social system. Once these start to be withdrawn we can expect a revolution.Given previous revolutions, 25-30% of the population actively revolutionised is sufficient to overthrow a government. The SPGB are not utopian bean-counters.Some members have argued if we have 25-30% support why not be patient and wait a couple or three months more and lessen the possibility of violence , because then the chances are that we would have 40-50% of workers revolutionised, but i'm willing to leave that up to the revolutiuonary period to decide.There are a wide variety of potential scenarios for revolution. We would be fools if we limit ourselves to what is theoretically perfect – and thus highly unlikely – rather than asking the question "what do we actually need to make a revolution?" and proceeding on that basis. The problem is not getting people to think "socialism is a good idea" but transforming that into mass social action. We need to be able to act in an imperfect world rather than waiting for a perfect one. Revolution is not merely an announcement of a successful ballot, it is a process, and the process itself will draw our fellows into the struggle. The revolution makes the mass party – the actual date that power can be seen to shift to ourselves is not the beginning, but the beginning of a different phase.The revolution has snowball effect . The more change is imminent the faster and bigger it grows and rolls , without conscious direction of leaders , as many vanguardists and social democrats have often found . You cannot stop an idea when its time has come ,as is frequently said. The Iron Heel couldn't maintain Marcos in Manila , the Shah in Tehran nor the party apparachiks in Moscow , Berlin or Warsaw when people decide to move. Nor in Tunis or Cairo.The State is the form taken by the centre of social administration without which modern industrial society couldn't function. We want the working class to take it over and convert it into an unarmed democratic administration of things. We want to see an end to capitalist class rule not the breakdown of society. The workers en masse don't need create a different and more democratic decision-making structure from the ground up. What they need to do is to take over and perfect the existing, historically-evolved structures. we don't need to construct socialist society from scratch; this is not the way social evolution works; there will be a degree of continuity between what exists now and what will exist in socialism as there always has been between one system of society and another. We are not utopian system-builders like Parecon or Zeitgeist.You don't abolish the state, getting rid of your control of your society at the point of actually having won the thing, and then play at utopias. You grab it and hang on against anything the capitalist class, nationally and internationally, throws at you. During this process also you are transforming the institutions you hold from capitalist into socialist ones.Many here will disagree with what i have written , many in my own party may have a different view. I want to use both fists to fight for socialism , not rely on only a right hook or be just a south-paw boxer . James Connolly recognise for the workers it will be both parliament and non- parliament means to socialism. Sinn Fein engage in the electoral process quite successfully, and even the Bobby Sands seat was held, with an increased vote, by Sinn Fein, who were never legally excluded from participation in elections(not so sure about the early 60s and the formation of the Republican Clubs). Successes convinced the Republicans that they should contest elections and led to the armalite and ballot box phase of their politics and a resurrection of the old Sinn Fein boycott of the London parliament strategy for elected MPs and eventually lead to their integration fully with parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland.Too many of us fetishise the vote or the abstention. It is the democratic result that we want. Our case for Parliament is that it is the most efficacious application of the workers will to establish socialism, the alternative outcome is described by Murray Bookchin . "…human beings cannot be free – except under very rare conditions , such as during revolutions and for limited periods of time ; even then , they must still leave the barricades and return to work to satisfy their needs and those of their families. They have to eat , if you please……In May 1937 in Barcelona , the workers had to conquer the Stalinist counterrevolution then and there. But they delayed , and after four days they had to leave the streets to obtain food…"We seek the least disruptive method of revolution and in the UK at this moment in time, parliament is that route. On a personal level, i had to re-appraise my romantic notions of street-fighting and rebellion when a fellow comrade developed diabetes, his concern was that during any revolution, his supply of insulin will continue. Later in life, with a mother in an old peoples home, it is brought home how dependent people are upon the maintenance of the day to day supply chain when they are physical incapable of acquiring it themselves. Often during city wide general strikes, Seattle, Winnipeg , the necessity of supporting the hospitals and the old and young with food and medicines undermined any opportunity of victory. It is the arrogance of the young and the fit that make the role of insurrection a requirement, for they have the least to risk and less to sacrifice.Simple fact is that for many at some part of their lives, other more personal events in their life take precedence over the social side of existence. We have those who will unfortunately have health problems and that illness will be their main concern .We will have those who will have emotional feelings, falling and falling out of love that will appear more pressing to them . We will have immediate family matters, sick parents, new born babies, and we will have the pure simple hedonistic concentrating on new found pleasures. I mention those because of experience of involvement in trade unions . A strike vote , or show of hands in an unofficial action may present the mandate , but follow up required for success ie a strong picket line, demonstations and protests and continued meetings were often ill-attended . The Chartists called the plans for a general strike, The National Holiday. I am afraid to say in the everyday struggle i have been involved in, because of the work pressures of capitalism, a strike was treated by many as just that, a much needed holiday – to be with the kids, to re-decorate the house rather than stand on a picket line with your fellow worker.
“So, alanjjohnstone, thinks that the UK despite its history of working class struggle would be a late comer to socialism” (my emphasis)All societies have a history of class struggle. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle” – Communist Manifesto so what you say is a bit of a truism. But what we desire is a conscious class struggle with the aim of achieving socialism, not simply a reflex reaction to social conditions. That is slightly different concept. My comment was simply an aside and a purely personal view and i would be very happy to be proved wrong. Perhaps due to living recently abroad and in another culture i take a more jaded view of my compatriots, both Scottish and British, view of themselves. For example, the jingoism of the Olympics and sport in general.”does any body know which country has the largest socialist party?”That under our own definition would be presently ourselves – so it would be the UK but perhaps in the past the Socialist Party of Canada in its heydays surpassed the SPGB in numbers and percentage of population.Relax our definition of what a socialist party is and the question leads to a number of different answers.
Probably there would be a move towards to temporary autarky, minimalising international barter. Regardless of our sympathies and the limitations we can appreciate how Cuba has managed against the USA and still managed some degree of social progress. Likewise even North Korea can go it alone and just imagine if their resources had not ben marshalled for the military and devoted to the populace instead. Surely, a willing population would consent and endure certain hardships and deprivation for a greater good, particularly if as said the democratic features of socialist decision making have been initiated and need not mirror those regimes’ totalitarianism.In a scenario where one region has acquired socialist consciousness and could assume political power, the question really is a matter of what the substantial (and it would be substantial, wouldnt it if one region had already achieved a majority) socialist minorities do in other regions. The question ignores this aspect. They would not be passive actors.From history we witnessed the Hands Off Russia movement and docker embargos when there was a possibility of military intervention. I believe we would witness a similar movement of solidarity form from the worlds working class which would be even more effective and that would thwart actual physical liquidation of a socialist region and intensify their own class challenge for political supremacy.But it is all speculation and we should not base our current policies upon futures that cannot be determined except by crystal ball gazing. Surely we concentrate our ideas on the realities we experience right now and build from the concrete foundations of the present.In a personal view, i actually do not imagine the UK to face this issue of being a ISR since i expect it to be one of the regions to be lagging behind and playing catch-up!! Socialist parties other than the SPGB will be drumming their fingers and rolling their thumbs , wondering whats keeping many of us in Britain from making the transformation and staying in servitude to capitalism!! “Britons will forever ever be slaves” or whatever the songs words are!!!
