ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, that is more or less what we’ve been doing in the area around Head Office. For the past 30 or so years we have contested most elections there: Borough council, general elections, Greater London council, even European Parliament as well quite a few council by-elections.
They have been doing the same in Folkestone.
This serves to build up awareness of us and socialism in these areas. Having said that, in elections we are appealing to the general public and most people aren’t interested in politics, conventional letter alone radical even though up to 70 percent vote in general (but not the other) elections. But we say that our immediate aim is socialism and that a majority is needed for this. So we are practising what we preach.
We also do other things of course such as leafletting protest demonstrations where it can be assumed that those there will be interested in political matters.
Mike Mcnair ends his article on impossibilism and possibilism:
“To pose the question of a socialist alternative, it is necessary to step beyond support for strike struggles, and so on, to posing a policy alternative in the interests of the class as a whole (like limits on working hours) and an electoral alternative.”
This seems to be saying that a socialist/communist party should contest elections advocating, besides socialism (the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life), legal limits on working hours and other measures that could be considered to be in the interest of the working class as a whole as opposed to that of a section only.
But who is to implement these measures? Are they demands to be implemented under capitalism by a capitalist government or by a socialist administration should the party win an election?
If the former, are they feasible under capitalism or will they come up against the economic laws of the system that profit-making should take priority over other considerations? Would they work as intended? For instance, legal limits on working hours could lead (and historically have led) to employers increasing the intensity of work as well as to accelerating mechanisation leading to workers being made redundant.
If the latter, surely the main measures to be implemented would be the abolition of private and corporate property rights over the means of production and the democratisation of the public administration. But that presupposes that this is what the working class want and have voted for (and will have organised outside parliament for).
It is all very well imaging scenarios where there is a mass socialist/communist party, but that isn’t the present situation. Unfortunately, there is currently only minimal support for socialism as an immediate alternative (even amongst leftists). So the urgent need is for those workers who have become socialists to spread amongst other workers that the only framework within which their problems as a class can be solved is socialism.
What, then, is the point of a socialist party putting forward measures that many will see as desirable and possible even under capitalism? That will encourage reformist illusions, attract the support of non-socialists and set the party on the road towards evolving into a possibilist party relegating socialism to a remote goal and concentrating on trying to get reforms to capitalism, as happened to the old SPD in Germany.
Vincent Square Ward is the innermost of inner London wards, being not far from Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. The people there live mainly in luxury apartment blocs or social housing and so without easy access to their letterboxes. In fact to such an extent that we may have difficulty distributing even 1000 leaflets that way. There are 7,600 electors.
At least one person doesn’t like Starmer since there are quite a few graffiti saying “Kick Starmer Out”.
It is a Conservative ward, though at the last election the ward it elected 2 Tories and 1 Labourite. The by-election has been caused by the death of the Labourite. Labour is anxious to retain their representation and the Tories to make a clean sweep of the ward. So both are leafletting the area, giving our leaflet some context.
The national HQ of the Liberal Democratic Party is in the ward. So is Westminster Cathedral, the HQ of the Roman Catholic Church in England. Ours is a couple of miles and 4 tube stops away and so it’s easy to get there to leaflet.
Mike Mcnair of the Weekly Worker comments on our contribution above to the discussion in Prometheus:
https://www.weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1524/going-beyond-strikism/
Another example of how there’s very little thought on the post-capitalist future is when Adam and others talk about the possibility of nuclear power.
To put this in context, if socialism were to be established now or in the coming decades there would still be nuclear power stations. They can’t simply be turned off and will continue to give off heat. Socialist society might as well use this to generate electricity even if it is decided to eventually close them all down.
There is another aspect too. If socialism inherits from capitalism the problem of global warming (as it would) and decides to stop burning fossil fuels altogether nuclear power may have to be resorted to instead until the situation is under control.
Yes, there is a (new) AV and they know about it. Someone said it lasts for more than 2 hours. I only watched so far to the brief description of projects A and B. Have you got to the end? In fact will anybody?
Here’s the YouTube channel. I expect they do it for a living so might not be inclined to let us use it for free, but we can of course publicise it (the first one). Interesting that she calls it “socialism” and not “Anarcho-communism”. Obviously we favour project B (project A is socialism with non-circulating labour time vouchers).
This has given him delusions about his business acumen, which are now playing out in his dealings as President.
Good point. You could be right.
Incidentally, Trump got a mention (beginning of chapter 31) in Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book on the End of History as an example, as a property developer, of someone who serves causes that “are not the most serious or the most just”. So he has been a national figure in the US for over 30 years.
I would have thought that the best description of Trump is that he is a business boss applying the same behaviour on the political field that they do on the economic. Instead of polite diplomatic niceties, ruthless competition exploiting the weakness of rivals and applying the principle that “might is right”.
A previous US President, Theodore Roosevelt before WW1, proclaimed “speak softly and carry a bit stick”. Trump is proclaiming “carry a big stick and wave it about”.
Actually this could be seen as a breath of fresh air clearing away the hypocrisy of the “wars for democracy” and concern for “human rights” that the mealy-mouthed officeholders in other states have tried to fool us with for so long.
The rivalry between capitalist states for sources of raw materials, markets, trade routes, and investment outlets can be seen for what it is — the competitive struggle for profits that is built-in to capitalism.
The first 500 leaflets were distributed in Hammersmith earlier today. The LibDems and the Labourites had been out too. Which is good in the sense that it will give some context to our leaflet which is a generic one that doesn’t mention the ward or the date of the election.
It is a safe Labour ward where they got over 70 percent of the votes at the last election in 2022.
Hammersmith Broadway is not far from Chiswick where the old West London branch used to meet. The branch also used to run a street stall there so it is not as if we are not known in the area.
The remaining 500 allocated to the ward will be distributed next Tuesday and then we will move down the river to Vincent Square which is between Victoria Station and the Houses of Parliament.
The complete article can be found here:
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/09/who-is-mao-tse-tung-1975.html?m=0
The comrade who produces the Grist digest of news items has found this about the guru of the 1980s RCP on a local online news website:
Today members handed out the leaflet at the start of the counter-demonstration:
“Minister backs defence firms after protests” was the headline of an article in the Times on 29 January. The minister in question was John Healey, the Secretary of State for “Defence”. He was reported as saying “at a dinner hosted by the ADS, a UK defence industry trade body”:
“Britain’s wars will not be stopped by boycotting its defence industry, the defence secretary has said, adding that those targetting companies that build weapons for the UK military have ‘flawed’ intentions.
John Healey said it was ‘unacceptable’ that the defence industry was being treated like tobacco and gambling firms. (…)
National security is a ‘precondition for economic security, investor confidence and social stability’, he added.”“Britain’s wars” may not be stopped by boycotting its “defence” industry but they certainly won’t be by the Labour government.
