SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:No need to teach your Grandmother to suck eggs, Alan. I've probably been around the party a darn sight longer than you have and introduced quite a few more workers into membership.
OMG! This is priceless.I've been a member of this forum for three years now and this is the second time I've heard someone banging their own drum about how many socialists they themselves have created.Strangely enough, or perhaps not, the other person was a hardliner as well. Anyone remember JC?
[sarcasm alert]Forget everything, this is a game changer.I just heard on the news that, hold onto your hats, he doesn't wear a tie.The utter bastard!
Quote:A damning report by MPs released in March of this year found that severe financial hardship caused by benefit cuts was driving people to kill themselves.The Work and Pensions Select Committee said 40 people had taken their own lives since 2012 because of problems with welfare payments.Quote:Changes to benefits during Iain Duncan Smith’s tenure at the Department for Work and Pensions have been controversial.The Work and Pensions Select Committee said there was evidence that sanctions to benefits were geared towards punishing people for being unemployed and might not actually help them find work.The MPs said there was evidence that the benefit cuts for unemployed people caused more problems than they solved and might be "purely punitive".ALBI would suggest not having a general strategy or a way to organise appropriate responses is part of the problem with the lack of progress the SPGB has achieved in getting noticed.One thing's for sure, not having a strategy is probably a good strategy to keep a movement small.
So we've got Corbyn defending the right to free speech, in contrast to Cameron and his chums from the Bullingdon Club, those good natured "wabble wousers" standing up to unscrupulous restaurateurs with their daddies cheque books.But let's be fair, just because a bunch of rich boys, some of whom are high ranking Tory politicians currently in power, join a silly club while at university has no bearing on class division in society? Or does it?
This discussion is essentially about more than Corbyn, it's about SPGB strategy. Whether it's effective to continually hammer the "left" of politics or whether to press the attack on the existing powers that actively promote and defend capitalism.There has been economic upheaval around the globe since 2008. As usual it's our class that bears the brunt of the in built insanity of capitalism, with no end to austerity measures in sight. This should be a time when the SPGB/WSM makes its biggest gains, in terms of support/membership, as people frustrated with the status quo look for alternatives.There is plenty of evidence that alternatives are being sought after. The question should be, how does the SPGB/WSM tap into this pool of frustration.I've already said the "left" hold more in common with us lot, regarding progressive social ideas, than do the "right". Given that fact, does it make sense to attack the "left" with more venom than the "right"?I suggest the SPGB use intensive attacks on the current overtly pro-capitalist government in order that it might attract the attention of those who gravitate towards the "left", precisely because this UK government revolts them so much.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think many endorsed DJP's earlier contribution that we should not go for the player but play the ball.But at times i think there is a good case of shooting the messenger, IDS being one such person deserving of personal attack, in that he launches many such character assassinations himself against claimants. One of the regular columns i very much appreciate is Greasy Pole and its personification of capitalist politics as expressed by Ivan. (Like Tony Blair, IDS was born in Edinburgh, so i think a few Weegies can also be free with their invective)Even the capitalist legal system admits various levels culpability in crime and motives can be a mitigating factor in the sentencing. Our resources are limited so we must be nuanced in their deployment and make sure our criticisms and campaigns are used to best effect.Better to be noticed for giving loathsome politicians in positions of power (power to destroy lives) like IDS a good savaging than someone like Corbyn who hasn't been put to the test yet. The Greasy Pole is more often than not an eye opening read. Surely it could be followed up with a ruthless publicity campaign now and then. Sooner or later such an approach would get the SPGB noticed. Unless the SPGB don't want to draw the attention of the establishment?
Spot on Meel, perfectly put.I doubt if many on this forum would find a problem with what you've said. But I'd be interested to hear a hardline SPGB response.
ALB wrote:Actually, I think the front cover should be on the refugee crisis, but could go along with "Can Corbyn defeat austerity, where Syriza failed", especially as it looks like Syriza, having failed, is going to be voted out of office on 20 September.ALBIf I were a member of the SPGB I would second your idea of the front cover of next months Socialist Standard being about the refugee crisis. A much more important issue.
ALB wrote:A suggestion:Quote:the next Standard cover should be pictures of Watson and Corbyn with the strapline: Landslide! New Syriza leaders electedDon't all shoot at once.
If a Corbyn – Syriza comparison front cover is unavoidable next month. May I suggest something along the lines of "Can Corbyn defeat austerity, where Syriza failed?" The images could be of cues at food banks, images of homeless people and other emotive issues, (from the UK and Greece) with a similar sized, ie not overblown, photo of Corbyn.For starters it suggests his motives are honourable and so it's not aggressive. And it asks a pertinent question. Once inside the non personal critical analysis can commence.Surely the hard liners can understand the need for an intelligent approach?
Robbo203 wrote:You mention the difference between a non-socialist and an anti-socialist. I think Caroline Lucas would be classified as the former rather than the latter. I interpret "anti-socialist" to mean active opposition to the ideas and values of the socialist movement. I don't think she can be called that even if she does not have socialism as her chosen explicit political goal in mind. It is silly to argue that there are no difference whatsoever between individuals who fall under this heading , let alone those who are not in the SPGB. i.e. 99.99% of the population. I'm not in the SPGB . Am I, then, a non socialist or even an anti socialist?[my bold]Unfortunately Robbo, there seems to be some socialists who claim people like Lucas, Corbyn and Brand are worse than the current anti-working class, anti-socialist lot in government here in the UK. The reasoning given, that the "lefties" will, lead the workers down another cul-de-sac (the implication being, it is a deliberate act).It appears that some socialists prefer the..err..honest approach of avowed supporters of capitalism (the Tories) over the often misguided approach, of many on the left of the political spectrum.It's obvious that some on the left, although likely to agree with our vision of socialism being a desirable way to organise society, probably think it unlikely to come into existence. (An attitude I have come across time and time again in my "socialist conversations" over the years). So they strive to work for the betterment of peoples lives with what currently exists. Are they really as bad as the pro-capitalists? If they are then full hostility is warranted. If not, a more intelligent approach is required. The reason being, if we wade into such people we risk alienating their supporters, who may be sympathetic to our view.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Can one have socialistic ideas but not socialist ones?I would have thought so. The socialism we talk of evolved from "socialistic" ideas, did it not?
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:Osborne is a complete and utter prat.I just thought that was worth repeating
Replace the letters p and r with t and w.
