rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, it's significant and useful to be informed of how the levers of state are being applied. The potential to actually destroy the Labour party is something we need to be aware of, because of the opportunity it represents.
I'm sure that if the Labour Party falls apart–speed the day!–we'll all be made aware of it in no uncertain terms. A hundred years of their confusionist politics, persuading the working class to cling onto this rotten system, makes them just as guilty as any right-wing parties of perpetuating the misery and suffering of workers. At the very least they are collectively guilty of manslaughter.
I think this forum should be for arguing the case for socialism, not discussing infighting amongst our opponents.
alanjjohnstone wrote:So what is your thoughts? Mine is what dreadful political pundit i make…i thought Yes for Scotland, Remain for the UK …and i thought Hilarity would be the next president of the USA. I even thought the Pirates in Iceland had a chance of holding political office. Never trust me to pick a winner in any election, comrades.Come the election to establish socialism, I suggest you bet that it won't happen–you can't lose! It really would be "Socialism or your Money Back"!
Most workers don't have the luxury of resigning their job on a whim. At least he can now stay home and count his money!
Capitalist Pig wrote:Donald Trump has laid out his policies that include a strong border, fair trade deals, and national soveriengty. The allegations of the democrats that trump is a russian agent is based on nothing and is a false flag. We do have a problem with illigel immigrents coming in in droves, Trump proposes the strengthening of our border so criminals won't be able to smuggle drugs into our country and come over to claim numerious benifets our veterens don't even receive. Clinton wants OPEN BORDERS. so basically anyone can come and go as they please which would destroy our economy and put alot of people in America out of the job. Trump isn't trying to scapegoat immigrents, illegal immigration is a huge problem in our country and we need to deal with it not ignore it. How is wanting fair trade deals evil?? How is wanting to bring business back to the U.S. and put people to work evil? Capitalism in inherently inhumane but Trump does actually care for the american people or else he would just be living his former live-style without being bombarded with personal attacks by the media daily. If you can lay out 3 policies trump has proposed that would hurt the working class I would love it hear it but don't go and say that he is a 'demon' because he is a capitalist. Engels was a capitalist but do you call him a devil?Have you noticed that only birds and workers migrate? A capitalist "takes up residence", but doesn't do any useful work.
it's a far cry from how the US Presidential campaign was conductied in 1908! The empty rhetoric hasn't changed much though.https://archeophone.com/catalogue/debate-08/
SocialistPunk wrote:jondwhite wrote:Saint Jezza on 'socialism'http://i.imgur.com/VHIiLjc.jpgIt's a nice sentiment, something we could all agree with. But he doesn't tell us anything about what socialism actually is.
He probably doesn't know, and even if he did he'd be too scared to define it because it would lose him votes! Phone up the Labour Party press office and ask them what their definition of socialism is.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:See you at ADM handsomeI thought it was the Young Conservatives who went in for match making!
[/quote]More often it's the case and something of a paradox, particularly in bourgeois liberal democracies, that leaders follow public opinion because that is, after all, what is likely to get them elected to office. Whether or not the leaders are able to carry out those policies is a different matter entirely It is then, and examples are manifold, that disenchantment with that particular leader sets in. This is why those who possess a rudimentary understanding of how capitalism works are able to predict the whole boringly repetitive process with such uncanny accuracy. It really is quite amazing that more people don't cotton on…[/quote]It is said that power corrupts, but does the process begin before that? Does the lust for power blinker one's view of the world? Why would a 67-year-old man want to get into power–presumably he wants to be prime minister–when others of his age are considering retirement and spending time in their local? He'll be 71 come the next general election. He'll be expected to work ungodly hours; attend conferences all over the world; deal with affairs of state; make decisions on defence etc. Does he believe in what he is doing in reforming capitalism, regardless of the historical evidence to the contrary? The pay's not particularly good by capitalism's standards, so is the guy just full of his own importance?Is there something wrong with our theory of society which fails to explain why more [workers] don't cotton on?
jondwhite wrote:Does anyone ever question why the support for supposedly political campaigns such as for Owen Smith, evaporate following unsuccessful campaigns to elect an individual? In particular those publicly visible people photographed as supporters at rallies? Does anyone deride the impression that participation is standing quietly behind the candidate at a rally?These people are desperate to be led, so they will be prepared to take "second best" in that department. They are unable to think for themselves, so they require someone else to do that for them. This poses the question: "In a political party who formulates its policies, the leader or the members?"People who require leadership should have leadership thrust upon them, rather than choosing it.
Meel wrote:rodmanlewis said:Quote:Where is the subversion of democracy in the electoral system, which is supposed to hamper our parliamentary road to socialism?At the moment you are perhaps correct, as long as the only thing that happens in an election is the see-sawing between Tory and Labour. If there was growth of revolutionary consciousness, and this was reflected in increasing support for (proper) socialist policies at election time, there might be a temptation to interfere with the process. That’s why I think that the SP ought to be on the side of fostering respect for fair elections at all times, in all groups and in all parties – to help to settle this concept in the minds of the population.
Who are these groups and parties that we should be offering our support to regarding "fostering respect for fair elections at all times"? "Fair elections" don't occur under capitalism. All political parties which have leaders can be ruled out. True, in the UK we have one-person-one-vote, but it's not an informed vote. Workers only get to hear the case for continuing to support capitalism. Our socialist voice is swamped out. While the socialist voice is a small one, workers will continue to support capitalism, regardless of whether we support the current electoral system or not.If the capitalist state, sensing a socialist victory, decides to impose martial law they may try to do it if they think they can get away with it. No amount of "support" for the current voting system will change that.
Meel wrote:Whether you sympathise with Corbyn or not is by the by.The SP is very strong on the principle of the parliamentary road to socialism.It should therefore speak up wherever and whenever the principle of free and fair elections is undermined; whether or not they agree with the likely outcome of the election and whether or not they think the outcome is going to make a difference to workers. (Obviously, the fact that the likely outcome is not going to make a difference to workers can be pointed out at the same time.)Also, this subversion of democracy is happening right here, in our back yard, which is all the more reason for the SP to speak out on the importance of fair elections.Presumably, in a socialist society, there may be elections where you think your opinion may lose. Are you therefore going to be totally disinterested in whether it is carried out fairly?Of course we should speak up when there is subervsion of democracy, but the Labour Party is not an example of a democratic organisation, othwerwise it wouldn't appoint leaders–the organisation is already subversed. It is not happening "in our back yard", but in Labour's. Because the Labour Party is a party of capitalism, they have tended to pick up that society's bad habits.Where is the subversion of democracy in the electoral system, which is supposed to hamper our parliamentary road to socialism? The principle of free and fair elections is not undermined, however the opportunities to put the socialist case are severely limited, because capitalist parties (including Labour) hijack elections for their own interests, and make it virtually impossible for dissenting, socialist, voices to be heard.
If this were printed media the editor would have stepped in and declared this (tedious) subject closed.Do we really need to hear the "C" word any more?
ALB wrote:Of course, we know that the Labour Party has always been undemocratic (controlled by its parliamentary leaders not its membership) and that in government it won't be able to behave much differently from governments under capitalism everywhere.The Labour Party is undemocratic because its members prefer it that way. They want someone to do their thinking for them. It's quite different from a dictatorship where the population are facing the barrel of a gun and can't walk away from it.
