[rodmanlewis]

Matt wrote:

It goes without saying we correct those distortions also, without adding to, or being perceived to be a part of, the smear campaign against the individual. I do have sympathy for well meaning reformers of capitalism , subjected to vilification by the media, even if they (the reformers) are in error with their assumptions that capitalism can be reformed.I don't think Corbyn, while incorrect, is just another 'careerist', but I am willing to concede that at any point.

It's irrelevant as to whether he's a careerist or not. He is holding incorrect ideas about the nature of society, therefore he is as dangerous as any career politician, as his actions have the effect of perpetuating the system he wants to "improve".

[rodmanlewis]

Matt wrote:

Every day Corbyn is smeared, so too is our version of socialism. The vile piece in the Guardian today by Cohen is an example.We really can't let these go unchallenged. Their traducing of 'socialism' or Marxism defined by them will win by default.(At least 4 people have indicated they understand what I am driving at and hopefully, might click our link)https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-death-knell-for-labour#comment-79215009

But Corbyn himself is smearing socialism with his own distortions. By all means try to set the record straight, but please don't have any sympathy for Corbyn.

[rodmanlewis]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As others have been saying the media has been dishonestly smearing Corbyn and this report gives some backing to the claim.Academics at LSE analysed months of newspaper articles about the Labour leader and found 75% of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn fail to accurately report his views.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html

Why should we concern ourselves about Corbyn, an arch-supporter of capitalism? We're not in that lucky position of having OUR ideas distorted by the media. Then at least we would be in a position to counter them.

[rodmanlewis]

Ralph wrote:

There needs to be a level of detail, enough to prove workability, enough for confidence, it's not about having the technology or the means to produce, that's kind of a given. It's about structure, processes, expectations, deliverables, timescales, social interactions, keeping the wheels turning through transition. I could have the best resources in the world if I don't have the ability to coherently use them then they're useless.

I agree, so it is necessary to get together a sufficient number of workers (including yourself) who want to see a better world to discuss as much detail of how a new society would work. If they decide that after much discussion there is not enough flesh on the bone, then they can either decide to go into socialism "blind" or give up, go home and let capitalism take its course.What ideas do you have to contribute? After all, we all have a responsibility to society to make our worthy ideas known.

[rodmanlewis]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 From various news reportsLast time it was open to anyone prepared to pay £3 – and it was the £3 supporters, more than the paid up party members, who gave Jeremy Corbyn his victory. This time, supporters will have to re-register and pay £25. And the thousands of new recruits who have joined the party since the referendum will have to pay that fee if they want to vote, because the executive has ruled only those who have been party members for at least six months will have an automatic right to vote. Only those who joined Labour on or before 12 January will be able to vote in the leadership contest. Anyone who joined after then will have to pay an extra £25 to become a "registered supporter" – and will get a two-day window in which to do so.The NEC ruled that only those who have been members for more than six months will be allowed to vote – while new supporters will be given two days to sign up as registered supporters to vote in the race, but only if they are willing to pay £25 – far higher than the £3 fee many Corbyn backers paid in the contest last year. Labour’s membership has shot up to more than 500,000, according to party sources, as both Corbyn’s supporters and those who want to replace him recruit new supporters to their cause. But the introduction of the six-month cut-off point is likely to infuriate members who have joined in recent weeks with the hope of influencing the vote, and will not now be able to do so without paying an additional £25.

As they say, "Never give a sucker an even break!"

[rodmanlewis]

ALB wrote:

I see Chomsky figures among the signatories to this statement:

Quote:

At a time when austerity, insecurity and racism remain real threats to the lives of many people in the UK, we believe that Jeremy Corbyn can help to provide a way out of the mess we are in.

Sympathy with Corbyn for the way the media have treated him as a person is one thing, but support for his reformist Old Labourite policies which failed in the 60s and 70s is another.

I don't have any sympathy for Corbyn, and all politicians who give their enthusiastic support and willingness to administer capitalism. It's a case of "chickens coming home to roost".If a capitalist political party had the "Magic Bullet" for running society they would never be voted out of power. Their favourite excuses for failing are that the previous administration left the country in a mess or there were unforeseen economic circumstances which threw them off course.

[rodmanlewis]

Ralph wrote:

Perhaps you think I'm anti, but I'm really not, it's just frustrating in a way that the impression given by the party is one of a few stuck in the mud individuals pursuing a philosophical pastime rather than a serious goal. Best RegardsRalph

As you seem to be a person who has serious social concerns, surely it is encumbant upon you to get involved with us in the discussion of how socialism could work. If you have ideas to contribute, then let us hear them. I can assure you the SPGB is not a philosophical group looking for "the meaning of life". Life is what we make it.

[rodmanlewis]

JOHN GAULT wrote:

Mr. Buick, who are you to say what I need? If I work hard, and get rich, and want to buy an expensive house, or a luxury car, who are you to stop me? This is the problem of socialism. The leaders decide who gets the money, and the majority must play along. I can decide how to use my money, whether I use it to get food, get a car, or give to the poor. I don't need your help, idiot.

Most workers who work hard still don't get rich. How are they to be rewarded? When someone resorts to insults they have a weak case.

[rodmanlewis]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It is speculative but many revolutions of the past that have succeeded have, it is required no more than 25%-30% active support – which would be enough for an election of any capitalist party. If 20-30% 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.

Perhaps, but those who are keeping their heads below the parapet may not understand the nature of the change and what is expected of them in the new society. That doesn't mean they are hostile to socialism as such.

[rodmanlewis]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'll reiterate my answer: it's not one vote, one time, one answer, but many votes: and the context of the votes is clearly important. 50.000001% is enough, in the right context.

Not if it means a recount.

[rodmanlewis]

Sympo wrote:

"Should we have a revolution and establish Socialism, that is to say a classless, stateless society without money?YesNo

That doesn't tell us what socialism really means. That description tells us what socialism won't be. Socialism means production for use, not profit and common ownership of the means of production.

[rodmanlewis]

Matt wrote:

"And then there’s Liam Fox. I seem to remember some sort of opprobrium being attached to him. Whatever it was, no doubt there can’t have been much to it (even though he was forced to resign or something) or it wouldn’t be getting comprehensively buried every news cycle by Jeremy Corbyn not indicating when leaving a roundabout or something." 

Wasn't he seen dumping some "important" documents in a park rubbish bin a few years back?

[rodmanlewis]

KAZ wrote:

In view of the refusal of certain peoples to accept the results of the recent European Referendum as legitimate, what would be the Party's attitude to a referendum on the revolution itself? We can, doubtless, imagine the circumstances in which this might occur. Would we boycott such a referendum? And if, say, the results were 52% in favour and 48% against, would we accept this as a vote in favour of socialism?

Perhaps you can tell us what the question might be?

[rodmanlewis]

AHS wrote:

ALB wrote:

Some people said that a Brexit vote would unleash a carnival of xenophobia. Unfortunately it seems to be happening. And now whether or not to "Send 'Em Back" has become an issue in the Tory leadership contest whereas it never was in the referendum campaign, only "Stop 'Em Coming In".

It is a shame that our party wrote off this referendum as little more than a squabble between different factions of the capitalist class.British workers will find it harder to unite with workers of all countries and make common cause with them, if they are no longer working side by side with them.Large sections of the working class were taken in by the Brexiters' lies. The SPGB's 'nothing to do with us' approach was absolutely the wrong way to go.If nothing in the real world of politics ever has anything to do with us, why would the workers at large want anything to do with us?

At the moment the socialist case can only be put to those sections of the working class who aren't taken in by the blandishments of the capitalist class. There is little or nothing we can do about that fickle section, who can only see solutions to their problems within capitalism–the only system they know–and react knee-jerkingly because they see other workers as part of the problem, rather than as its victims too.

[rodmanlewis]

ALB wrote:

 In any event, he couldn't bugger things up for them more than a couple of Old Etonians have just done. I suppose it's because they want a Labour Party that, when in office, will fully accept capitalism with its monority ownership and profit motive and apply its economic laws, seeking only to manage the system efficiently (for them).

Interesting mistype ("monority"). Seems just as appropriate!

[Author]

Posts