Socialist Party Head Office
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Reply by the article’s author to the original question.
It is certainly the case I did not define ‘what constitutes an individual’. When writing an article of a 1000 words or so for a magazine, defining all the terms used is not possible. Had this been a chapter in a book or a pamphlet, then perhaps such a more definitive course could have been pursued.
I presumed, and still do presume, most if not all reader have a working understanding of what the word ‘individual’ means, even if it is not always precisely the same. If the working class does not consist of millions, billions indeed, of individuals, then this suggests a person is little more than a component.
There is surely a dynamic between the material forces affecting the working class as a class and how individual workers respond to those forces. The dominant ideology of the ruling class does much to compromise workers’ responses and people don’t always react in predictable or expected ways.
The material conditions for the working class to consciously act of itself, for itself have existed for quite some time. However, in accordance with Marx I believe, it is people who make history, not the material conditions in themselves. This requires conscious action based on workers knowing what needs to change, why it needs to change and what is the purpose and goal of change.None of this suggests ‘magical praxis’, nor some esoteric substitution, for the struggle of ideas. Indeed, if the working class is to merely act without knowing why it is acting that is certainly anti-intellectual, the by-passing of the intellect. And the class can only know if its constituent parts, the individual workers, know: by what other method can the present prevailing ideology be understood, prevailed upon and overthrown?
The process of change will not entail a single blueprint everyone will simply follow. There will be debates, plans, counter-plans, successes and failures and all the messy arrangements and compromises contributing to the unfolding of a socialist future. I sincerely hope all who contribute to that process, the billions around the world, do so from a basis of knowledge, of knowing. My use of the word gnostic was rather tongue in cheek, but it does encapsulate the notion of profound understanding, an understanding forged through the class struggle around the prevailing material conditions.
D.A.
Critisticuffs has sent us their take on the election result and Trump’s refusal to concede gracefully as is usually expected:
https://critisticuffs.org/texts/never-gonna-give-you-up-trump-and-what-elections-are-for
“Having said which…’the birth of a biosecurity state guaranteed to mean the loss of civil liberties, wholesale’. Eh what? Was the email to HO from a party member?”
No, from somebody whose mailing we happen to be on.
Email received at Head Office, an example of the conspiracy theories circulating about this.
Create a false emergency and then offer a vaccine as the only solution. It’s a false emergency as Covid-19 only has a 0.23% infection fatality rate – on a power with flu. Of course, flu has mysteriously disappeared from view this year which begs the question whether we are mistaking Covid-19 for flu or lumping flu cases together with SARS-CoV-2 cases and thus hyping the figures. A vaccine is not the only option, and neither is it the panacea we are told it is. At least two recent scientific studies have shown the efficacy of using Vitamin D or Vitamin D analogues as a treatment for Covid-19. Similarly, with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), several recent studies show low dose HCQ is an effective treatment against Covid-19. But these conclusions are lost in the corporate scramble to make huge profits and herald the birth of a biosecurity state guaranteed to mean the loss of civil liberties, wholesale, and in the guise of protecting us. It’s always for our own good, is it not? Even if it ends with us all being loaded onto cattle trucks, we’ll believe it’ll be for our own good!Comment from comrade DAP who is not on this forum:
Yes, he hasn’t read that passage that says that as soon as money becomes inconvertible the position is effectively reversed!
While some of the other things he says are not that controversial, this is also odd:
‘Contrary to Adam Buick’s conception of inflation, all prices do not rise simultaneously, and in particular the price of labor power, wages, rises more slowly than commodity prices, improving business profitability.’
Firstly a general rise in the price level doesn’t mean every price rises at the same time or indeed at the same rate. In slumps in particular, some prices can still fall against the general trend.
But it’s the last part of that sentence that’s really odd – does he have any empirical evidence for it? Despite setbacks in recent times, we all know real wages have risen enormously since the inception of capitalism. But have commodity prices kept pace in real terms? There’s been a long term increase in average real commodity prices (presuming this is what he means) but it’s well behind long-term real wage growth in most advanced countries from what I’ve seen, though admittedly it’s difficult to get exact comparative data. Similarly business profitability (rate of profit?) hasn’t increased over the long-term, even if the accumulated stock of capital has increased hugely.
A Socialist in New Zealand has asked to circulate her comment on how coronavirus pandemic has been dealt with there. She is referring to a talk and discussion on “Covid and Civil Liberties” on Discord last Friday.
Great talk this morning, thank you. Sorry I had to miss a bit of it because my phone rang and I had to answer it.
I was on the speaking queue and was disappointed that I didn’t get a chance to tell you all about how New Zealand is coping with the pandemic.
It was alarming and saddening to hear how people overseas have resisted the lockdown and see it as a restriction on their freedom. Don’t they want to be kept safe? It is also very upsetting to hear about how some governments have imposed very strict and aggressive penalties on those who break the lockdown.
We never had anything like that over here. I think the difference is because of the way the Prime Minister and the director of health, Dr. Bloomfield, handled the situation and kept us all well informed every evening on the television. We were told to be kind to one another and help our elderly neighbours with shopping etc. We were told that we could go out for walks during the level 4 lockdown but had to keep social distancing and wear masks. People living alone could have another person in their “bubble” as long as that person was not mixing with anyone else. People who were struggling financially, like small-business owners to had to shut down for the duration were given Government subsidies to tide them over.
“Help” and “kindness” are the key words to describe our level 4. Our Prime Minister, Jacinda, told every child in New Zealand that the Easter Bunny was an essential worker but that he might not be able to get to everyone’s house this year. She suggested that we all draw pictures of Easter Eggs and put them in our windows to wish our neighbours a Happy Easter. She also told all the children that they could go out for walks with their parents and play on the sports fields as long as they didn’t get too close to another family. She asked everyone to put a teddy bear in their window so that children could spot them when out having a walk.
We went into level 4 lockdown before we had any fatalities and therefore we have fared better than most other countries.
My daughter’s partner, who is from Argentina, works for the Argentine embassy. When we went into lockdown there were 400 Argentinians stuck here. They had come over here for a summer holiday and then couldn’t get home. They had run out of their holiday money and couldn’t pay for food or accommodation. The Argentine government put money into their accounts to tide them over until we were out of lockdown when a plane was arranged to take them all from Auckland back to Argentina.
We are in level 1 now which means that most things are back to normal. There are some isolated cases in Auckland and Christchurch but they are contained in hotels which have been set aside as isolation units. We are being very careful not to let the virus escape around the country. Our borders will remain mostly closed but if overseas visitors want to come in they have to pre-book a place in one of the isolation hotels where they will have to stay for 2 weeks before they can start their holiday.I hope you can please circulate this information to those who were listening in to the talk this morning (Friday evening for you), as I would like them to understand how we are handling the pandemic in New Zealand.
Regards,
MOGGIEEmail received at Head Office:
I’d like to comment and hopefully hear your view on what has increasingly become evident and that is the emphasis now being placed on keeping the economy open. We surely do live in an inhumane society! For if it were humane then would we not prioritise the safety of everyone, rather than proclaim, like our politicians recently often have, that we must protect the economy. If a government is to have a role then surely that role in balancing the survival of the economy over the survival of the people must be tipped overwhelmingly in favour of the people. We know that social interaction is what helps this virus to transmit and we know that limiting social interaction will reduce its transmission rate. Yet why aren’t we properly and securely locked down? Why are we limiting that lockdown because of the perceived need to keep the economy running? The temporary measures taken and the ending of the furlough system and the fact that many people have really suffered financial hardship during this period are all a disgrace to our ability and our potential. We should be locked down. Resources should be made available to ensure all of us need not worry for lack of during this period, however long it takes. Profit needs to be appropriated. Stored private wealth needs to be accessed and shared. The benefits surely far outweigh the costs? To hear our leaders accept that people will die in the same paragraph as they talk about the need to protect the economy must be seized upon and discussed. It is an opportunity to show the true relationship that exists in society and its inhumane nature.I appreciate your time and reply.D. M.Comrade CS has sent in this;
“The only rational explanation would seem to be that it’s a negotiating ploy to get the EU to agree to a better trade deal from the UK point of view. We will see.”
But I disagree.
It seems more likely to be deliberate sabotage of the process to rule out any possibility of any deal, because the core group driving policy is the Vote Leave caucus led by Gove and Cummings (Johnson too but I believe the other two regard him as the populist clown who wins votes from morons but who is a bit of a moron himself) – and they have always been determined on a complete crash out, for the reason that the super rich benefit from no deal Brexit as it means zero need to respect any regulation whatsoever.So: tax havens, hyper- exploitation, Victorian capitalism etc….. Also don’t forget that Cummings, though not nearly as clever as he thinks he is, is nevertheless a weirdo whose hobby is social experimentation, eugenics, social engineering, manipulation of populations etc – he has pay masters (possibly including friends he made in Russia when he worked there for several years) but no political principles or ideas, other than ruthless pursuit of power and control of populations. He really is the “mad evil professor” of popular culture – and the crisis of late capitalism has given him power, shockingly & terrifyingly so!There was a vacuum in UK politics as for a generation there has been NO opposition party of any credibility or passion. Promotion of Corbyn played right into the hands of this far right silent coup, and they may even have had agent provocateurs to that end. Starmer is no better – he pulls his punches, hesitating to rip Johnson apart in PMQs, easy as that would be. Just imagine if we had a good socialist speaker with gusto, a Tony Turner or a Steve Coleman tackling PMQs against Johnson! That would be a pleasure to watch, not this pusillanimous shit of the establishment, Starmer……..Comment received at Head Office from Stephen Murphy to the editors’ reply to his letter:
“My only comment, reading the Editors reply, is: Reading the paragraph (‘But you posit a special case…’) – the editors really don’t like people like me, do they? Their thinly veiled anger and intolerance blazes through. God knows where s/he dug all that up from (“..religious people think..we possess a spirit that others don’t have; we see … atheism as a form of disability, we belittle others.. passive aggression etc, etc..”) Quite frankly that paragraph says more about your editorial writers than it does about the Christians I know. Unresolved issues there. I think the gist of my original letter has been answered.”The editorial committee has received the following letter from Comrade Ray Carr about the editorial in the January issue:
I have to say I was somewhat surprised with parts of the editorial in the January 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard – “Brexit done, back to capitalism as usual” Twice this seemed to refer to the Brexit referendum of 2016 as a democratic vote. First it suggests that as the Labour Party was seen as part of the reason why Brexit did not get implemented; “they were punished for, in effect, not respecting a democratically made decision”. It goes on to state; “– but a democratic vote having been satisfied “. Well in the opinion of this socialist, the democratic vote that satisfied Brexit, obviously the December 2019 General Election was about as democratic as the 2016 referendum, namely, not anything to do with meaningful democracy.
A previous article in the Socialist Standard, November 2019 – “Thoughts on Democracy and Brexit” stated that a deeper analysis of the 2016 referendum shows that it was not even democratic in terms of so-called capitalist democracy, which is a very pale shadow indeed of what socialists would see as meaningful democracy. That article stated that 27 percent of the electorate did not vote in the 2016 referendum and this meant that over 60 percent did not vote leave, meaning that those who did vote leave were in fact a minority. We could probably complete a similar analysis of the recent General Election and it would turn out that a government with a large majority was elected by a minority of voters.
If we consider how democracy might operate in a society of common ownership and democratic control which would have been brought about by a conscious majority organised in a democratic way both politically as well as in other ways, we would conceive of a situation where decisions would be made by people who would be well aware of the consequences of both sides of the discussion and this would be backed up by a free flow of information, therefore a democratic decision could be made. Both the 2016 referendum and the recent General Election had neither of these requirements of democracy and this would apply to any referendums or elections within capitalism. In fact in regard to the two votes being discussed the opposite was the case, both were decided on the basis of people being unaware of their true interests and being flooded with misinformation and mass media bias.
Obviously it has to be accepted that not everything can be considered in a short editorial, but it is surely unwise, to say the least, to give the impression that we consider capitalism as democratic, it is based on the dictatorship of capital and therefore meaningful democracy within it is impossible. We of course recognise that the limited opportunity it gives us to stand candidates and put forward the socialist case in various elections and in other ways is an advantage when compared to totalitarian dictatorships, and we need to make use of these opportunities whilst we have them. However whilst recognising this we need to be as critical of the lack of genuine democracy available within capitalism as we arein all of its other outdated and unacceptable features.
The member of the Socialist Labor Party of America who visited our Conference this year has emailed to say he is in full agreement with the article on fascism, attaching a pamphlet he wrote in 1994 that takes the same anti-nationalist position:
Email received at Head Office on the article “Nativism: Covert Racism”:
Many people’s issue with immigration is not racism as the article (“Nativism: Covert Racism” Jan 2020 issue of the SS) asserts. It is to do with management. The national health system needs to know in advance how many people it may potentially have to treat and also have an idea of the breakdown in age, for example, so that they can train enough doctors and nurses in the right areas of care to adequately meet the potential numbers of patients. It’s the same issue with state education in terms of numbers of schools that need to be built, numbers of teachers that need to be trained, and the language proficiency necessary to cope with the different languages spoken by pupils. Housing is another issue. All this needs to be organised well in advance. However, open door immigration means that from year to year overall numbers of people in the UK (or any region in the UK) may rise or fall and age ratios may also drastically change – meaning changes in resource allocation must be swift which is not possible as it takes years to train teachers and years to build hospitals, etc.In a socialist society the migration of people would be managed in such a way that the places of destination would be resourced adequately and timely to meet the demographic changes.The idea of a points-based immigration system (proposed by the Conservatives) goes some way to solving the immigration issue in contemporary UK society, though I’m well aware that in a socialist society many of the concerns we are confronted with due to national borders and regional wealth disparities will have largely disappeared and people will be free to decide where they want to live. It will just be a matter of accommodating those needs with the time constraints that those needs bring with them – and the idea of a points-based immigration system will be seen as nothing more than an anachronism. (And I say that even though I have a fear of spiders!)Louis Shawcross, N. Ireland.Head Office has received the email below commenting on Rear View:
Dear Friends
As both a Christian and a subscriber, and avid reader, of the Socialist Standard, I am always interested when you include an article about religion. Alas, I am usually disappointed by the content – whereas the majority of your articles are well thought out and intellectually stimulating, religious reference is invariably cliched and simplistic. Your ‘Rear View’ column (January) was a prime example. I think one of the problems is that atheists in general tend to have a rather simplistic view of what scholars mean by the word ‘God’, and they assume that what they are rejecting is what theists are accepting. (The supernatural, heaven, hell, miracles, virgin births etc., etc.) If I may, briefly, put my own views, it may enlighten fellow readers.
I attend church because throughout my life I have had a sense that there is more to the physical world than ‘meets the eye’. Theologians give this otherness expressions like ‘the beyond in our midst.’ Or, as Paul the apostle suggested, ‘..that in which we live, move, and have our being’. Some call this otherness God, or Spirit, The Tao, life force. No, not a big man in the sky. Simply something underlying.
I personally have no great views about heaven or hell, what happens (if anything) when I die. In, fact, I am agnostic about many things theistic. I occasionally pray, but whether I am talking to myself or not, I have no idea. But yes, I am spiritual – I have a sense of wonder, awe, fascination with the world, beauty, love. I question meaning and purpose. I have a sense of connectedness with something deeper. Purely phycological? Meta-physical? Who knows. I like church because I have a sense of mystery about this whole, strange state, of being human, and I like being with like minded people. I know enough about quantum physics to know that the physical world is far weirder than normal ‘reality’ suggests. I know enough about the debate on consciousness to know that the majority of scientists would say that the relationship between thought and matter remains as much a mystery as ever. And I am aware of the fact that whether light is observed as wave or mass appears, oddly, to depend to some extent on the observer. Bizarre indeed! None of this, of course, proves there is an underlying non-material entity to creation any more than it disproves it. But the whole thing really is too odd to suggest, as Rear View does, that everything can be ‘adequately explained…!’ A bold and rather premature statement indeed!
My other point in writing is that I am interested in how you see a truly socialist world treating ‘religious’ people. There is no point in saying that, because everything would be so wonderful, people would have no recourse to ‘pie in the sky’ and gods. That would simply be regurgitating the old cliches. There will, I suspect, always be people, like me, who are more ‘spiritual’ than others, as there will always be people who are artists, musicians or sportspeople. But, just as an artist is unlikely to stop painting because they are told that a photograph gives a much truer sense of reality than oil on canvas, so why bother, a spiritual person won’t necessarily stop being ‘spiritual’ because the state says, ‘but can’t you see what science can do..’
My question is, would people who want to meet together to meditate, ponder, ‘pray’, be forbidden, even persecuted (as in many places already.)? Would socialism want to wipe ‘religion’ off the face of the earth just because their ideology does not agree with it? Would the majority dictate what one is allowed to think (as ‘political correctness’ already does)? Worrying.
Should you print or reply to my letter in any form, I hope that you will refrain from the usual list of historic (and present day) religious horror stories to make your point. Yes, we all know about the crusades, the Reformation, modern day ISIS, child abuse etc etc. Yes, we all know that organised religion is part of the establishment and the Churches have vast wealth and why should bishops have a say in parliament. And yes, I know the God of the Old Testament is hardly a role model for love and forgiveness. Socialists get very annoyed (quite rightly) when the media rubbishes socialism largely because they don’t understand that there has never been a true socialist state. In the same way, Christians would say that the horrors perpetuated in the ‘Christian’ name have never been truly Christian, and that the Christian vision of ‘the Kingdom of God’ (love, peace, goodwill, equality, brotherhood etc.,) have likewise never been achieved. We have that in common; socialists and Christians are both mocked and ridiculed in today’s Britain. Let’s at least try to understand each other.
I will just finish by saying that I have written this from a Christian perspective. I am sure disciples of other faiths could say similar things. Finally, I think your journal is an excellent read. Capitalism and its feed consumerism is no way to run the world. There must be a better way.
Kind regards,
Stephen Murphy
South West Regional branch report:
We decided that we should carry out some work in the Salisbury area as that is where we meet, despite the fact that none of us live there. So five of us met up and delivered a few hundred leaflets around several roads not too far from where we meet. There were still quite a few leaflets left over and the rest were distributed in Poole, so we managed to use up all the leaflets.Our discussion in branch focused on how we might turn the votes we receive into something more concrete and we wondered if in the two areas where we had candidates whether we were able to do canvassing as opposed to just leafleting, as we thought this might give us more idea of some of those who may have voted for us. The point was also raised about doing follow up campaigns in the area where we had candidates as this might prove useful. Of course we do recognise that the main problem with these points is having the numbers to carry out these activities.On a final point and concerning the general leafleting around election time we were wondering about how we deal with any responses if, for example, people contact head office and apply for 3 free standards or whatever are those details sent on to the branches concerned so that there can also be a local follow up.Overall we felt that given the circumstances surrounding this election the votes we received in Cardiff and Folkestone was not too bad a result.
