SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Could there be some confusion with, The Socialist Party formerly known as Militant Tendency, and the SPGB?In the quoted piece, Militant Tendency is mentioned. I can't imagine any SPGB members in any union would be seeking to organise a "takeover", with an aim to using unions as futile, political battering rams.It's just not socialist cricket, old chap, now is it?
With regards to party branding, I have always thought it contradictory for a party advocating global socialism and international working class solidarity, to have opted to place the words Great Britain after the word that proclaims the party aim.I get it to a certain point when the SPGB first formed in 1904, there may have been some idea that the movement would soon blossom, Great Britain was the accepted term and from a socialist perspective was simply to identify the geographical location. But as the years moved on the party still clings on to an outdated "historical" name, so much so that it is emblazoned at the top of every page on this site.Even the BNP don't use the word great in their party name, how ironic is that?
Here are some links to Brands brand.http://www.russellbrand.com/https://www.facebook.com/RussellBrand?sid=51d156f3fb6987ae090dd024e292885e&ref=sI'm not on FaceBook, but the party has a presence,so it wouldn't be too much for some party members to try and generate some dicussion.http://www.youtube.com/user/russellbrandI've recently set up a YouTube account and have started to debate, so I'm gonna see if I can generate some interest this way.https://twitter.com/rustyrocketsI'm not on twitter but some party members are I believe.It may be possible to get some discussions going about his ideas on revolution. Who knows, if he liked what he heard he may contact the WSM. If socialists want to give these a go, I would advise against the hard sell, more gently does it at first.The aim of the game is to make friends.
Found this today while checking my email.http://www.mydaily.co.uk/2014/06/23/primark-shopper-left-in-shock-after-discovering-cry-for-help-found-in-label/?ncid=webmail2Primark once more at the centre of lave labour accusations, this time from the workers in the slave factories.
Quote:Bargain hunters' favourite high street store Primark has come under fire after a shopper discovered the words, "Forced to work exhausting hours" hand-stitched on the label of a £10 floral dress.
"To be honest I've never really thought much about how the clothes are made. But this really made me think about how we get our cheap fashion," she explained.I seem to recall a thread going back a year or two that asked about the party approach and if anything could be done to improve on it. I got my head bit off for my troubles.I don't think it a good idea to drop the word Socialism, just because the WSM don't own the monopoly on the meaning. Communism I get it, the negative connotations are just too big an obstacle. But for most people in western Europe socialism is more associated with a half and half approach to state run capitalism, in the mold of old school Labour. It's a fuzzy association with the idea of distributing wealth in a fairer way while not challenging the fabric of capitalism. We know it as reformism, but most people don't even fully understand capitalism and therefore don't see it as we do.Alternative names or descriptions would simply lead to the same scenario eventually. Most left groups would probably agree with the idea of a, "World for the Workers". For my thinking what sets the WSM/SPGB apart from the rest is the consistent message over the years.Take advantage of it. Don't make the mistake of doing a Clegg.The YouTube stuff is a good idea, but if the party does produce more short vids for it, then members are gonna have to get stuck in when critics inevitably start rubbishing the ideas. If the ideas can't be defended the vids will be a waste of time.
I'm a little surprised to see this thread has gone inactive. The topic is one that is vital to the SPGB/WSM perspective. I've been involved in the discussion with the same character Vin has been and his view is that wages are needed in socialism as a rationing tool.He can't grasp the very different notion of work in the socialism we advocate, instead his views lean on the tendency to see humans as needing, monetary stimulus to contribute to society. He wont be alone in this thinking and fails to grasp that such thinking is tied up with the ideology of capitalism that we are indoctrinated into from an early age.I'm gonna go back to the discussion soon, but was hoping this thread would have been buzzing with discussion on this subject by now.
Quote:He said: "The people of this building (the House of Commons) generally speaking do not represent us, they represent their friends in big business. It's time for us to take back our power.
He added today: "Power isn't there (in the House of Commons), it is here, within us.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/21/russell-brand-revolution_n_5518215.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularOk, it's easy to take a quote or two from a celebrity, but he is not that far away from us. But his celebrity status does mean he is being accessed by the more traditional left wing. Such a shame.
Couldn't agree more with ya Steve.As you rightly point out the risks are great and assurances can not be guaranteed, no matter what the pro frackers say.If contamination of any water tables were to happen, then those who rely on it for drinking water are to put it bluntly, "fucked".Is it worth the risk? I would imagine given the strong possibility of contamination, fracking would not take place in a socialist society, as the risks are simply not worth taking.
Hi pgbThat's a fair point about the nature of the show HardTalk and I agree with you that Piketty seemed to handle himself well. But I don't think Sackur was being Devil's Advocate on that point, Piketty was not having a go at the nature of capitalism as such, he agrees with it as an economic system, as Sackur would have been aware. So I saw his praise for the dynamism of capitalism as an unnecessary defence, as he went on to say that standards of living for ordinary people have improved. As I pointed out he must see starving children in "undeveloped" countries as a smudge on the glossy screen of capitalism, "…capitalism has delivered and continues to deliver." with Piketty in agreement. Didn't see much in the way of Devil's Advocate there.I still stand by my view that Sackur is an apologist, as are m0st mainstream journalists.
Found this while checking out some news on my email service.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/17/iraq-tony-blair_n_5503110.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularDid Bliar simply underestimate the potential for post invasion complications, which is now the most he admits to?
Just watched most of an interview with Piketty on BBC's HardTalk. Seems he is not so liked by many of his fellow economists. Probably a case of one of their own letting on about the nature of capitalism. When the interviewer Sackur pressed him he stated several times he believed in market forces and capitalism, but was not so comfortable with the examples of extreme inequality that are increasing. He explained that the info regarding wealth accumulation is far from transparent.Not really a surprise that the establishment don't like the info on wealth distribution to be easy to interpret. That Sackur is a blatant apologist for capitalism, openly claiming it is a dynamic system of opportunity for all. It's as if the likes of him think the millions of people who go hungry every day are an unusual anomaly, or acceptable "collateral damage".
Cheers Vin, that worked. I'll check it out, but probably won't get involved as I am not that knowledgeable regarding Marx, never was really and even less so now. But maybe I could find a way in, I'll see.
Hi VinI've tried clicking on the link you provided but nothing happens. Even pasted the address directly into my search bar, nothing. Is there a name for the guy and is there a title I can search for on Youtube?
When I was a fledgling socialist, my father was a friend and mining colleague of a chap called Bobby Gleghorn. Bobby was a member of the North East Branch of the SPGB. It was because of his friendship with my father that I became a socialist, later joining the North East Branch.Bobby was an inspiring advocate of socialism, and also a very kind, warm compassionate man. He encapsulated the spirit of socialism with action as well as words. It was from him and my parents that I take my socialist values. The reason I bring this up now on this thread, is because of one particular principle he advocated. He would encourage the asking of questions, any questions. He stood by a socialist principle that said if proven wrong, it would be accepted openly. He would not shy away from difficult or awkward issues and enquiry. I think that is a vital principle for any socialist society, there is no shame in admitting when you are wrong. Something I will gladly do if my position can be shown to be misguided.On this issue, I have stuck to facts, while some created convoluted imaginary scenarios, others stayed silent when their reasoning was destroyed, I have even been accused of distortion and calling party procedure undemocratic. All tactics to stifle open discussion. Yet I have answered everything put to me consistently.Now there is convenient silence.Is this the model for dealing with awkward issues in a socialist society?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:Did Vin break party rules and regulations, as has been insinuated recently by YMS? A simple question requiring a simple answer.Something I emphatically have not done. Please withdraw that remark. I have only explained the practical and procedural underpinnings of the party's democracy. I have made no comment about the recent events, other than to note their procedural validity.
SocialistPunk wrote:I've looked at the party rules 1 and 6 and I don't see the relevance to this case. Could you please explain how these rules apply to (in this case) a party member criticising the party?Young Master Smeet replies.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP: "signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party."What am I expected to make from your reply to my question? I see no evidence of me engaging in any attack on your integrity YMS.
