[Ed]

I wouldn't say gender doesn't matter but I get what you are saying. As you quite rightly point out it does have major implications on how we behave and interact. It should be recognised that gender is a social construct not based on biological differences. Sex is the term for the biological differences between males and females, while gender is merely an unspoken list of rules on how each sex should behave differently in a social context. We call these unwritten rules masculinity and femininity. I recommend this talk by Cordelia Fine, which is a great debunking of the myth of biological differences between males and females http://fora.tv/2010/10/02/Cordelia_Fine_Delusions_of_GenderI've got to disagree with Alan, I think that things may be getting worse in terms of how society currently sees gender roles. What is it to be a man in today's society?You gotta be hard, you gotta be tough, you have to get respect, you can't let anyone be seen to take advantage of you, you have to be dominant over women, you have to have lots of sexual conquests, you have to be dominant over other men, etc, etc. If you are not you are gay or a faggot or weak or soft. One way to do this, to show this effectively, is to have lots of money, but for the vast majority of men who don't have that luxury they have their bodies, they have their appearance, their language and their demeanor in which to create the desired image. This has become amplified because of the fact that working men have a lack of control over their lives, they lack power and authority, yet more things which are related to being a "real man". This is why we often see expressions of hyper-masculinity in the poorest communities. The reason this is a problem and an issue for us as socialists is that the behaviour associated with masculinity is inherently anti-social and if we're looking to create a social[ist] society it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Furthermore it is (imo) a prime example of alienation of workers from other workers, set in competition with eachother and also from the means of production as explained by Marx in Estranged Labour. Making it inherently a class issue.Alex, in case you haven't got around to this one yet Origins of the Family by Engels is a good starting point on issues of gender roles. And of course this fantastic talk from Steve at summer school.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/family-class-society-engels-anti-oedipus

[Ed]

Hrothgar wrote:

I am grateful to you for taking the trouble to post a thoughtful reply, but it pains me to say that I disagree with your very first sentence (highlighted in bold above).  Nations were conceived long before the French Revolution.  In fairness, I suspect what you are making reference to is the modern concept of the nation-state, but even nation-states existed long before modern times.  In any case, the point remains that 'nation' and 'nation-state' are conceptually different.  My own concept of Nation is synonymous with Race.  In my view, a nation cannot exist without racial integrity and homogeneity, and indeed that very expression could be seen as a tautology.  Race is Nation and Nation is Race.  I would envisage a world without strong 'states', and possibly no formal governmental authority at all.Just dealing with your other point, I see your argument, but when I suggest that notions of Race/Nation are 'natural', I also mean to imply that the concept has existed in some form or other for the duration of human consciousness.  Its various manifestations may not have resembled a nation in the form we recognise it and it will not always have been called a nation, but it was a nation.  Be it a town, a tribe, a group of nomads, or whatever.  Human beings are tribal.  In a sense, it could be argued that your efforts to organise people according to shared economic interests (i.e. a working class) is a sophisticated type of tribalism.  There is a strong element of 'us' and 'them' in your propaganda and to an extent, you rely on the idea of 'blaming' capitalists for the social problems throw-up by capitalism, though I realise that's a simplification as your actual arguments are more systemic in nature.  

I am of course referring to the nation state as this is the only definition of a nation. It's why I used the word country in the rest of the post. But like I said the concept of the nation state is so deeply ingrained that it is difficult to use language that does not imply that nations have always existed. However, this now seems immaterial to the debate, so I won't quibble over definitions. If as you say "Race is Nation and Nation is Race" does this mean that all national boundaries are racially justified? So that there is an English race which is separate from the French race and the German race and the Scandinavian race? If the answer is no, I imagine you must be a great supporter of the European Union and a unified Europe? If no could you tell me how many races there are and how you could begin to categorize people into different races? Hereditary? By sight? By self classification? Or another way?If yes could you explain how all of these countries have their origins in the same culture and were presumably all once part of the same tribe?  If yes how do you explain nations like the USA or any of the former colonies in the Americas? Are they not nations at all? Should all but pure blooded Native American Indians be deported? If you're looking for racial homogenity then surely that's the only logical step for nations which were formed with a complete mish-mash of cultures and ethnicities. Or can the Nation create the race? If that is the case then the colour of one's skin or any genetic differences however slight make no difference at all and what you would actually be speaking of is culture and not race at all.

[Ed]

Hrothgar wrote:

Thank you for this reply, but it doesn't get to the root of things.  It may be that human beings share a common genetic ancestry (and I am inclined to accept we do, as this does seem logical), but even if true, that says nothing of whether nationalism (racism) is a natural force, impulse or tendency among human beings.  To the contrary, it may tend to support the premise I adopt here, but in any event, to simply assert that we have common ancestry and therefore nationalism (racism) is incorrect or wrong is a non sequitur and leaves the opposite assertion unexplored.

The concept of the nation has only been around since the French revolution. So how can a concept which is only 214 years old be classed as natural? Prior to the creation of the nation state the boundaries of the Kingdom you lived in depended merely upon how great your feudal lords holdings were: this could be as arbitrary as whether your lord's grandmother had lands in the Kingdom of France or in the Holy Roman Empire or nowhere at all. Here's a short video showing the extent to which borders changed in the last 1000 yearshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8As you can see the borders of Kingdoms only started to settle down after the concept of nationhood was created. But the last 1000 years are merely a blip on the radar of human history. It's about 0.5% of the total amount of time we can say that human society has existed. So what was going on for the other 199,000 years? How can humanity have only recently discovered such a "natural" concept? The only logical conclusion must be that it is not natural at all and merely a by-product of socio-economic conditions. In other words a social construct, an idea that has no natural basis outside of the human imagination. I know it's difficult to get your head around it; in my opinion it's the idea which has been most fervently ingrained in our consciousness throughout our lives. So much so that the very language we use is very difficult to separate from the concept of a nation. But even historians who have vastly different politics to those of a socialist concur that the nation state has only existed for the last couple of hundred years.

[Ed]

I have more of a problem with the word "revolutionaries" on the front cover.

[Ed]

I definitely prefered harbourne to fircroft. I'm wondering though have you ever enquired about Warwick University, I've heard the facilities are excellent. http://www.warwickconferences.com/

[Ed]

Just have to comment on the absolute hypocrisy of Jamie Oliver. He's 38 years old now and is a multi-multi-millionaire. In 1997 at the age of 22 he was given his own t.v. show the naked chef. Later that very same year he was cooking dinner for Tony Blair. He says in his 20's he worked 80-100 hours a week in the kitchen. This was presumably not while he was making TV shows, writing cook books, cooking for the prime minister and other assorted celebrities. Three years later he got a $2 million contract to be the face of Sainsbury's. Are we really to believe he was working 80-100 hours a week for any longer than the 2 years of his 20's that he worked before he was famous, or is it like most of what comes out of his mouth, bullshit.sorry I know it's not the point and is a bit off topic but that riled me a bit.

[Ed]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

YMS's argument of population numbers not effecting wages smells very fishy tro me. It's like saying that the amount of money in circulation does not affect inflation.

This actually would be the case if we still had a gold standard, the number of notes in circulation was irrelevent, as the price of gold determined inflation rates.  Look at it this way, in some countries surplus population does exist, and as the slums rise, the wages simply cannot go any lower, people aren't priced into the market. Imagine a world in which the supply of potatoes was unlimited, would you have an unlimited supply of chips?  No, that would depend entirely on how many friers there were, both in value terms, and in technical terms.

I suppose that's what I get for only reading 19th century economics. I'm so behind the times.

[Ed]

jondwhite wrote:

Why wouldn't you seek to overthrow the capitalist system if this is the cause?

I think this is the main point. There is only one solution to most of the problems workers face and that is the abolition of capitalism. I don't really think it's our place to be telling workers & or the ruling class how to make a better capitalism. The point is to end it. Yes human beings should not be constrained by arbitrary and artificial boundaries. But at the same time that does not critique how things are right now. Immigration under capitalism does produce many disadvantages for the working class at the moment for both those incoming or those already in the country receiving them. Migrants who migrate purely for economic reasons often don't want to do so. They leave behind their families, their friends, their communities. Who in turn all suffer as a result of their absence. Most often having to live in impoverished conditions in the country they arrive in. I think it would also be pretty silly to deny that there are no adverse effects for those in the country receiving migrants. YMS's argument of population numbers not effecting wages smells very fishy tro me. It's like saying that the amount of money in circulation does not affect inflation.

Quote:

Lets look at this from the other angle, if the rate of investment rises, i.e. profits are high, then labour becomes scarce, and employers will offer higher wages to encourage workers to work for them.  Both scenarios happen independent of population numbers.

Correct, but what happens then is that immigration is encouraged to counter the rise in wages and redress the balance.

Quote:

That depends entirely on what the form of labour is.  Some jobs can't be split, and you might need to invest in more consumables/facilities if you want to take on the extra worker, it may be cheaper to employ one t £10 than two.  Again, it is the structure of capital that drives the labour market, not the population around it (which is only epiphenomenal, i.e. it only changes the surface of the deep structures).

This is only true of the small capitalist. Not of the figurative "1 percent". This is precisely why the call for immigration controls usually comes from the petit bourgeois section of society. As it adds to their inability to compete with the bourgeois proper. It is precisely this inability to compete with the ruling class that brings their interests in line with those of the working class.In conclusion economic migration at the current time produces both benefits and detriments to the working class, it produces massive benefits to the large capitalists and mainly detriments to the small capitalist. There is only one solution to these detriments which is to abolish the causes of economic migration and thus end the concept entirely. The correct position, at least in my book is not to offer alternatives on how capitalism should or could be run. But to analyze it honestly and show the reasons why it's abolition is the only thing in the interests of the world's workers. To take the position of no immigration controls under capitalism is just as ludicrous as the position of immigration controls under capitalism, let us not forget it is also a utopian liberal wet dream. It's like the fly sitting on the windshield of a speeding car shouting we should take a left here. We as workers don't control legislation under capitalism and if we did we would only be taking part in it's management thereby removing ourselves from our class position. One solution revolution!

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

It's the SWP. The bit about the "revolutionary party" is a bit of a give away.

Of course it is , my point though is that many groups who call themselves revolutionary socialists will use the same language as us. It's their actions which will determine whether or not they are socialists or liberals not their rhetoric. The excitement over this proposed platform is not something that I share and I completely agree with Stuart when he says this. A silly notion from the start. 

stuartw2112 wrote:

, on the other hand, proposing a link up, even though secretly (not put in the letter, though not that secretly if you're going to be daft enough to admit to it on a public forum) you have no hope for it at all and disparage everyone involved in it, but think what the hell, we might make a point and pick up some members. Who're the opportunists, again, I'm confused?

[Ed]

So I thought with all this excitment about the proposed platform of left unity I'd take a look at some other party's platforms. Ten internet points if you can tell who it is. 

Quote:

For socialism The present system cannot be patched up - it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system.Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need.For internationalism We live in a world economy dominated by huge corporations. Only by fighting together across national boundaries can we challenge the rich and powerful who dominate the globe. The struggle for socialism can only be successful if it is a worldwide struggle.Against racism, imperialism and oppression We oppose everything which turns workers from one country against those from another. We oppose all immigration controls and campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. We support the right of black people and other oppressed groups to organise their own defence. We campaign for real social, political and economic equality for woman and for an end to all forms of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people.Revolutionary party Those who rule our society are powerful because they are organised – they control the wealth, media, courts and the military. They use their power to limit and contain opposition. To combat that power, working people have to be organised as well. The *********** Party aims to bring together activists from the movement and working class. A revolutionary party is necessary to strengthen the movement, organise people within it and aid them in developing the ideas and strategies that can overthrow capitalism entirely.We are committed to fight for peace, equality, justice and socialism.

Fellow travellers? 

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ed said “workers decreasingly see themselves as members of any class let alone the working class”  see this post:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/open-university-survey-class  Or this one: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/comments/now-there-are-seven-%E2%80%93-or-are-there If one has to detect the single most important cleavage in Britain today, it is not between ‘middle’ and ‘working’ class, but between a small corporate elite and everybody else…This distinctive elite has not been recently recognised in previous forms of sociological class analysis – though it is certainly manifest in the public imagination.” my emphasis

sigh, but do the working class themselves acknowledge their own class? You can post all the studies you like but they are divorced from reality. Since we're posting random shit check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZ52-XgUjA 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ed said “There are no reforms in the interest of the working class.” No health and safety law, no environmental legislation ever protected the well-being of the working class? The vote was not a gain and once given couldn't be so easily removed but instead extended? The NHS never gave the ordinary worker the expectation that his medical treatment should be free and available ?(despite NICE rationing)

This bears no relation to what I said but whatever. Bah I've heard that crap about how we should be grateful for the NHS my whole life. From cradle to grave right?:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1942/some-socialist-points-beveridge-reportLaborite bollocks, false consciousness talking. It's the advances in medical technology which have benefited workers more than any capitalist legislation. I suppose next you'll be saying that the soviet union was fantastic because they had low unemployment? Do you support syndicalism as well even though workers labour would still be being exploited? Where does the lesser evilism stop? Was Saddam Hussein better than the US led occupation because he gave good health care? The point remains if any capitalist reforms have some slight advantage to the working class it is merely a surprising by product of a reform tailored to strengthen and maintain capitalism. The advantages to the bourgeoisie far outweigh any to the proletariat 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ed said  "trade unions have never been as weak since their early days" 2012 increase in union membership of 59,000 was driven by a rise among private sector employees, taking total membership in the UK to 6.5m. However, this is still higher than pre-40s – the peak was 13m in 1979

Amazing seeing as how Britain's population has remained a stable 38,000,000 ……… oh wait besides which surely they should be judged by their actions rather than by their numbers? Their willingness and tendency to take strike action for example. Trade unions today are a joke, useless and as I said and most importantly divorced from their membership. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Support means to me endorsing the actions of others if we view them positive but not necessarily offering any material assistance o intervening as a political party. i support workers on strike but it doesn't mean i want to lead the strike, stand on the picket line and determine the course of it . If a local community want to take direct action to stop a particular closure i support them but i don't instruct them to do it. Support for me means agreeing with a certain thing.

sure agree/advocate same thing you agree with it you don't want to do it yourself but you advocate others doing it. I see no contradiction with what I said. But what you are saying is that you advocate/agree with/support reforms to capitalism. Whereas I am saying that we need a revolution. This may just be me but I save my support for things which I can have an influence over through my own actions. Reforming capitalism is something I can have no influence over.

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…what does support actually mean in practice?

To me support means to advocate something.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Since socialist ideas do not spring up from nowhere, but develop through a complex process of personal and learned experience, advances in the class struggle will inevitably be linked, to a greater or lesser degree, to demands for reforms. There can be no denying that major reforms and material improvements achieved have strengthened workers and widened their vision of what to expect from life.

Actually I can deny it. In a time where trade unions have never been as weak since their early days and have become almost completely divorced from their membership, in a time where workers decreasingly see themselves as members of any class let alone the working class, where indivualism reigns supreme and people feel increasingly isolated from their communities. This has coincided with the major reforms instituted by the ruling class. The working class is in many ways weaker than they were 100 years ago. What is indisputable is that reforms pacify the desire for revolution. The ruling class itself acknowledges this in some rare moments of honesty.   

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Reforms to benefit workers are not impossible.

I can't disagree more strongly. There are no reforms in the interest of the working class. The only thing in the interest of the working class is revolution. No reform to capitalism is implemented unless it benefits and strengthens capital. To suggest otherwise is to labour under the same misconceptions as the Left Unity or SWP or the Labour Party or any other number of social democrats. To suggest that reforms are in the intersts of the working class is to suggest that capitalism is in the interests of the working class; just a slightly nicer one than we have now where perhaps we even get a little bit more of the value of our labour than we do now. This is lesser evilism, saying that one type of capitalism is better than another.  The only progression left for the working class is the abolition of capitalism; anything which sustains and strengthens capitalism is conservative.

[Ed]

The comments section of this article should help.http://socialistunity.com/can-the-green-party-become-the-main-party-of-the-left/ 

Quote:

Every time the Greens have got into power anywhere in Europe they have turned out to be the same old right-wing anti working class bigots as the rest of the capitalist parties. Brighton is proving the rule. Last time I went to a Green Party hosted public meeting the were condemning people in multi storey flats for not growing their own fruit and veg. All their remedies for the environment are aimed at hammering ordinary people – not big business.

Quote:

Don’t see why not as when in power they act just like Labour: submit and cut (Bristol, Brighton). They then wring their hands, apologise, claiming that they are living in the ‘real world’ & their cuts are better than the Con-Dems ones.

I lol'd at them thinking that left unity would be any different

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do you think we scared off the original poster, Sotionov ? If he is still reading the thread, i wonder if he has had his questions answered to his satisfaction.

No I doubt we scared off Sotinov, I doubt he was coming back to this thread. His questions were answered but I suspect he would have only been satisfied if we had agreed with him. I don't think his opinion was changed.if that's what you mean. Although you can go ask him yourself if you feel the need. http://www.revleft.com/vb/mutualism-t181834/index.html?t=181834

[Ed]

LBird wrote:

Ed wrote:

Dictionary definition of truth

So you regard 'dictionaries' as objective statements of 'facts'?How does your dictionary define 'Communism', comrade?

Well if truth is in the eye of the beholder I and the dictionary can be neither wrong nor right or perhaps both at the same time. Since (if) truth is subjective so must fallacies be. You gotta really love dialectics to find that contradiction plausible.

[Author]

Posts