robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Roberto, es muy cierto. Muestra las opiniones procapitalistas de la gente llamada de izquierdas como Bernie Sanders en Estados Unidos y en otros lugares.
It looks like the writing is on the wall….
“A modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start,” Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social.
It is a photo of Kid Starmer dressed in military gear with the caption: “Starmer: I am ready to put British Troops in Ukraine: PM´s announcement puts pressure on European leaders to do the same at summit in Paris”
As if…
hahaha Brilliant. Not quite sure how this could translate into improving attendance at branch meetings though!
I remember a long time ago the US was asking its physicists about whether a “limited” nuclear war was possible in Europe. Maybe that’s on the cards still. Maybe that explains the preparing in Europe for war with Russia.
Britain wouldn’t last a day should even a limited nuclear exchange with Russia happen. It would be absolutely obliterated. I cannot believe even an utter twit like Starmer would be unaware of the consequences and so would put this down to just theatrics on his part.
Nor can I see the UK seriously engaging in an official capacity in a conventional war against Russia apart from the fact that it is no longer a world power. If it did unilaterally do that it is likely to precipitate the break up of NATO and as things stand NATO has no intention of officially engaging in a war with Russia. Starmer will be told in no uncertain terms to toe the line
Zelensky is still trying to flog access to Ukraine´s mineral reserves but at a higher price than what is on the table. I don’t really understand what is behind this as I understand the mineral rights have already been bought up by interested parties and of course, a large chunk of those reserves are in territory occupied by the Russian military
Incidentally, I read somewhere that Zelensky´s term of office as President expired a long time ago. Why is he still in power without a democratic mandate?
Then and now trade unions *do* engage in campaigns to change the law, get certain MPs elected etc. Saying we can support trade unions because they operate only in the ‘economic’ sphere, and not the ‘political’ just doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t seem like the right way of putting it.
Yes, that’s true what you say. But we are talking about what should be the attitude of the SPGB towards trade unions. Obviously, we support the principle of militant trade union struggle in the economic field even if, as a political party, we don’t get directly involved (it’s for individual members to get involved). Trade unions do get involved in reform campaigns and there is not a lot that we can do about that, obviously.
However, support for the principle of trade unionism on our part does not have to extend to supporting trade union involvement in reformist activity – only militant activity in the economic field and along sound democratic lines. Which reminds me – is there still a political levy in the UK whereby a part of your membership dues goes to fund the Anti-Labour Party? I don’t know what the situation is now (having left the UK 20 years ago) but I sincerely hope this practice has been discontinued. I remember vaguely there was an opt-out arrangement forced on the unions by the Tory government at the time but maybe things have moved on since then…
Strange question. Two different things can share one, or more, common features without being the same in all other ways. How do you differentiate between a car and a van if both involve wheels and engines?
Yes, that’s sort of what I was saying. A car and van both involve wheels and engines but are, nevertheless, distinguishable. Similarly, trade unionism and reformism both involve a “power struggle” but they too are distinguishable. Not just “are distinguishable” but NEED to be distinguished from each other if we are to chart a clear and principled course of action towards a social revolution
Hey DJP
I spent a good hour or so trying to track down that reference to Marx. I knew it existed as I made a reference to it in stuff I had written ages ago.
Anyway, I think it is this – a letter from Marx to Bolte in 1871:
The political movement of the working class has as its ultimate object, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires a previous organisation of the working class developed up to a certain point and arising from its economic struggles. The attempt in a particular factory or even in a particular trade to force a shorter working day out of individual capitalists by strikes, etc. is a purely economic movement. On the other hand, the movement to force through an eight-hour, etc., law, is a political movement.”
I am not sure I would agree with you on the question of reformism- Yes, in a sense trade union struggle is “political” in that it is a power struggle (which is “political”) but the question then arises how do you differentiate trade union struggle from reformism if both involve a “power struggle”? If you cannot make such a differentiation then you have a problem. If, as a revolutionary socialist you are obliged to reject reformism then it would seem to follow that you cannot support trade unionism (which would be a problem for obvious reasons)
I think the way round this is to distinguish between “politics” in the broad sense you have in mind – as a power struggle – and “politics” in the narrow or formal sense as legislative enactments undertaken by the state and designed to ameliorate the problems that capitalism throws up (reformism)
As a socialist party we obviously cannot go down that (latter) road as that would inevitably compromise our commitment to socialism . We would pretty soon find ourselves sinking into the quicksand and being overwhelmed by the sheer multitude of problems capitalism will throw at us. The revolutionary abolition of capitalism would be gradually forgotten as a goal. It will disappear like the proverbial Cheshire Cats grin
Consequently we do need to draw a line in the sand (and preferably not in the quicksand of capitalist politics if this can be avoided). I think this can achieved by distinguishing between the economic FIELD of action (trade union struggle) and the political FIELD of action in which we engage in as a purely political party that rejects reformism (not reforms as such) and stands instead for social revolution.
Certainly it is true as you say, that a “lot of the reformist parties came out of the trade unions” but that is precisely the reason why we need to insist on having a clean split -to ensure that we don´t go the same way as all those reformist parties that have been swallowed up by the quicksand of capitalism and have absolutely no interest in getting rid of the system now
But (unsurprisingly to me), the replies generally seem to think this a bad idea. Fair enough.
If you are referring to the meeting (I didn’t attend it) I would be very surprised if anyone there would have suggested it would be a bad idea to discuss the kind of problems a socialist would face in the short term – that is, if I have understood you correctly. I recall that when the production-for-use committee report came out back in the 1990s or whenever it was, the reception was generally positive.
You mention your interest in William Morris. There has always been a strong current of support for the WM approach within the SPGB. There is also a “Fully Automated Luxury Communism” (the title of Aaron Bastani´s book) tendency in the party as well, Some of the most interesting debates within the Party have pitted WM comrades against FALC comrades.
I’m somewhere in between. There are pros and cons on both sides but I tend to place heavy emphasis on the shift in values that needs to occur before we achieve a socialist society. Consumerism is something I am particularly opposed to because it is essentially all bound up with status acquisition under capitalism – a way of reinforcing capitalism – and has little to do with having a reasonably materially comfortable life as such (which we will need to achieve for everyone in socialism as a priority). Consumerism is consumption for the sake of consumption. It is alienated consumption that also has very negative consequences as far as the environment is concerned
This doesn’t look good for the Zelensky regime. Even the attempt to lure Trump with the promise of Ukraine´s mineral riches seems to have failed because 1) rights to these have already been sold off (so it was just an attempted con trick) 2) Most of the rare minerals sites are on land occupied by the Russian military.
Now this:
“No NATO membership, no return to pre-2014 borders, and no more relying on U.S. for military funding – Trump delivers hammer blow to Ukraine as America comes first”I can´t see this war lasting much longer. I read somewhere that there have been in excess of 100,000 deserters from the Ukrainian side and military recruiters are facing increasing hostility when they visit towns to try to harvest more cannon fodder.
One would hope that same is true of the Russian side and that Russian workers in uniform would desert too. Some have but I’m not too sure of the total. This has been a stupid pointless conflict in which workers on either side have absolutely nothing to gain and so much to lose.
Nationalism is a sick death cult. Hopefully, the killing will soon come to an end
DJP
You’re right about being careful about going about contacting ex-members – one has to be careful and so a case-by-case approach would be advisable. But I get the impression that most comrades just lapse – drift away – perhaps, ironically, because of the lack of contact.
You’re also right about the lack of younger members. Geez, when I think back to the days of the old Guildford branch (of which I was a member) in its hey day it was buzzing with younger people. Very few were over 40, I guess. On one memorable branch meeting, we had 5 Forms A accepted (could have been 7 but the couple couldn’t make it that and joined at the subsequent meeting). Those were the days….
Maybe the Party should get into Tiktok or something..
As an aside could I ask why people leaving the party was a subject for discussion in the first place? I would have thought, when compared to other political parties or voluntary organisations in general, the churn of members was quite low. Has this recently changed
My impression is that the Party is fairly steadily losing members at the moment and getting smaller. It is concerning frankly. How this rate of loss compares with other organisations such as those on the left, I don’t know. All the more reason to take seriously the concerns of those who left the Party. How about you DJP? Have you considered rejoining?
I do believe we can turn this situation around and build up a head of steam. Maybe reconnecting with past members could be part of a strategy for renewed growth. But we need to do other things as well.
Personally, I cannot see the point in not belonging to an organisation if your basic values and outlook align with it. It is important to connect. Heaven knows, the SPGB is far from perfect but – let’s face it – it is easily the best option for people of our political persuasion, people who want what we want. What have you got to lose by rejoining?
