stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
PS Note to Alan: some of your comrades, at least, really are hostile to the notion of doing something now. See Gnome's comment. I hope you'll take him to task and urge him to donate to Oxfam and vote for the Greens.
It's interesting, Gnome, that you can still make that argument in the present era. Most Marxists would rather argue, following the logic of Marx in Capital, that the defeat of the working class struggle for reform has rather led to and exacerbated our present crisis situation, with its historically unprecedented levels of inequality, attacks on real wages and the social wage, attacks on access to public services, and so on. I'm interested: how do you judge whether any particular reform is "realisable" or not?
It's true that LU candidates are highly unlikely to get elected any time soon, but not true that it is quite impotent. LU has already edged itself into the national conversation, and the Labour party is watching us nervously. (That's not entirely wishful thinking, I've had plenty of personal experience of it locally, despite our present weakness.) The idea that it's better to work in the presently existing organisations I do have a great deal of sympathy for – before I joined LU, I was considering joining the Labour party. But the LU thing seemed open and interesting enough to be worth a shot. It still is, to my mind.As for the caricature, I'm happy to stop it. But you should all stop it too in your own propaganda and articles (a complaint I made while a loyal member).Cheers
Good point Gnome. You're right that I don't think they are really exactly the same, just more or less the same. I think LU's work is less harmful than the SPGB's since it doesn't propagate the idea that doing something now is somehow not worth the hassle.
Or to make my own argument, Robin's words have nothing of substance behind them. What LU is doing and what the SPGB is doing are basically and to all intents and purposes indistinguishable. We're trying to get the working class interested in its own interests and in socialism. And largely failing.
I know that for some people reformism is a term of abuse. But it is not so. All our great successes have been the product of reform. The revolutionary socialist groups confuse real reform with revolution. Their talk of revolution implies, and nobody believes it, that there is a short cut to the transfer of power in this country. What the socialist groups really do is to analyse, to support struggle, to criticise the Labour Party, to expand consciousness, to preach a better morality. These are all very desirable things to do. But they have very little to do with revolution. The socialist groups have to come to see that they too are part of the problem, and that the limits of their own practices, just like those of the left generally, could also be measured in the simple fact that we do not have a majority of support outside for any of our solutions.Argument nicked, with adjustments, from here:http://www.redpepper.org.uk/tony-benn-labours-lost-leader/
Even Thatcherites like the idea (not usually a selling point among socialists, I realise, but still, interesting):http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/the-ideal-welfare-system-is-a-basic-income
"They would want to back the SPGB if they are sincerely putting unity first. Why do you think anyone calls for unity?"I think it would be safe to say that Left Unity would not stand a candidate where any other left candidate was standing. Which is more than can be said for the SPGB, sadly! (Not that it matters much at the moment.)
Alan, we should really try to come to a more sympathetic understanding of each other. Do you really think my support for Left Unity is based on an unawareness of previous attempts to do something similar (both in Scotland, and down here: Socialist Alliance, Respect, TUSC, etc, etc)? Do you really think that the difference between us with regard to Occupy was that my attitude was one of "uncritical support"? I must have explained myself really very badly, for which I apologise.
Or they might just call you "reformist", depending what strand of the left they're from. There! See how you like it!
Of the people I've spoken to, more are fond of and supportive of the SPGB than are hostile. Not even calling them "pro-capitalist" would put them off liking you.
It might do, you'd have to join and move the motion. I did hear that a Left Unity member is standing as a candidate for Ian Bone's Class War party, which raised not a squeak of protest from anyone. So, whatever else our faults, we are more libertarian than you are! (More politically feeble-minded if you prefer…)
Hi Adam,The policy on elections we have agreed is that we will only field candidates where the political support and resources exist for a real campaign. On that basis, I would be against LU standing anywhere, and would prefer to give Tusc and the Green (and yourselves!) a free run. However, I know many people are interpreting those words far more liberally than I would, and have heard mutterings of a candidate standing in Birmingham. So I don't know, I don't think any final decision has yet been made. Hope that helps.
Thanks for sparing me the spiel, but your points don't seem to address anything I've said. I'm a bit disappointed that a motion I supported didn't pass at Conference, but that's an experience common to anyone in any democratic organisation who has ever moved or supported a motion, surely? I've not changed my mind about anything over the past year or so. You say you're sceptical of the possibility of Left Unity's success… but who isn't? You quote my previous comment about the atmosphere in LU being less poisonous than that in the SPGB – but that's still true, the odd row notwithstanding. You say you've recognised something that I've failed to, but I'm still at a loss to understand what it is…Cheers
