Socialist Worker - any good?

[Marvin]

I'm a member of The Socialist Party, and their campaign for a New Workers Party through the unions - I have a lot of friends in the SWP and have no real ill towards them, certainly personal attacks on their leader and calling members pricks is unneccesary, just couldn't be a member as I disagree with some of the decisions they've made quite strongly, not least the decision to join a single-issue coallition with religious politcial parties, which is the last thing the left-wing should do in my opinion.

I do think that unity amongst the left-wing is important, and I know the SP have been trying to forge links with other groups in order to forge a large Workers Party to be what Labour should be.

I also agree entryism is beyond a lost cause, and the fact that people still offer support to the party that's long since been a left-wing party is the main reason others are failing, not least the unions that pay money to a party that is then screwing them over. It's good to see a few starting to pull out, but if more did, you'd have an instant secure backing for a strong left-wing party.

[rupert pupkin]

That sounds really promising, Marvin. I don't know much about the Socialist Party – what makes them different from the SWP et al?

I shouldn't be too mean about the SWP as I probably share about 90% of their politics. It's just the stuff that pisses me off about them tends to REALLY piss me off.

[biggytitbo]

No. Like socialism itself, it's nonsense. If you require further evidence of this, just look at the history of socialism.

Show me any form of government that's not a load of old rubbish. They all follow the same pattern, they start with good intentions and eventually end up so bloated and overbearing they collapse in on themselves. They should be pruned back so they're as small as possible to minimise the damage they can do.

[Marvin]

That sounds really promising, Marvin. I don't know much about the Socialist Party – what makes them different from the SWP et al?

I shouldn't be too mean about the SWP as I probably share about 90% of their politics. It's just the stuff that pisses me off about them tends to REALLY piss me off.

I know what you mean, I've got pretty angry at various things.

It's just arguments like these are really unhelpful - the more left groups attack each other, the less people will listen to either of them.

Socialist Party are not perfect, but they are very good at supporting campaigns etc and the Campaign for a New Workers Party seems to have good intentions.

Their website is: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/

[thugler]

Show me any form of government that's not a load of old rubbish. They all follow the same pattern, they start with good intentions and eventually end up so bloated and overbearing they collapse in on themselves. They should be pruned back so they're as small as possible to minimise the damage they can do.

That's quite true, but socialism and facism are the 2 very worst.

Wasn't there a communist/socialist based thread on here a while ago in which socialism was completely torn apart for the claptrap it is when people started asking basic questions about how things would function? yes there was.

[Marvin]

That's quite true, but socialism and facism are the 2 very worst.

Wasn't there a communist/socialist based thread on here a while ago in which socialism was completely torn apart for the claptrap it is when people started asking basic questions about how things would function? yes there was.

No there wasn't - people gave their standard opinions on both sides and nobody changed their mind on anything or came out with any great revelations. Like most politics threads then. Don't be so fucking arrogant.

[Sovereign]

As long as your political stance is that advanced, I don't know what else to say. What difference does his accent (as it's the only thing you could use to identify him as upper-class) make to his politics?
Entrism has never, and will never work. Look at Militant, a well-organised group of socialists who tried and failed, miserably, to change the Labour Party from within. Even the Morning Star has started saying the Labour Party is lost to ever being changed that way. Trying to change the Labour Party from within is completely pointless.
Not my experience. And I don't see David Cameron, Gordon Brown, or Nick Clegg cracking jokes either. Why should the leading figures of the SWP be funny anyway?

Thanks for calling me a prick though, Sovereign. If you think democratic centralism is a bad idea, which when it boils down to it means debating something, voting on it, then whether you agree with that particular tactical decision or not getting behind it, but think entrism is a good idea then I'm sad you never bothered having this debate inside an SWP meeting. You're perfectly entitled to hold opinions different to those which have been decided on, and if you'd been to many SWP meetings you'd know that happens all the time. We could be more like the rest of the far left and split over every issue, and fight amongst ourselves rather than fighting as a group for something more important, if you like? There's a reason we're not having this debate about the weekly paper of Workers Power, or the Alliance For Workers Liberty, or the Revolutionary Communist Party, or the Communist Party Of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

Boo-hoo you fuckin prick. I'm still paying dues to the SWP, and I've been to enough meetings to know the smug, self-satisfied pang-faced seriousness in which it all takes place. Nick Clegg, David Cameron and even Gordon Brown at least attempt to come accross as personable and approachable, even if it is all PR guff it shows more political awareness than the zealous robo-socialists I encountered at SWP meetings. The leading figures of the SWP shouldn't be stand up comics, but not so self-obsessed with their own political wet-dreams that they sacrifice all semblence of humanity and sense of humour. I dont trust people without a good sense of humour and the ability to self-depricate, I wouldn't vote for a machine.

Entrism, or whatever you call it, can work. The Labour Party was never a socialist party. It was a trade union party with a number of socialists in it. That small, but crucial, socialist element within the labour party have been purged and  the direction the labour party has gone in since that has been hard to the right. There needs to be something within the Labour Party to curtail its current right-wing inclination and get it back to achieving its historic mission. I think doing that would have a far more practical impact on british politics than the SWP currently have, which is zero as far as I'm aware.

[thugler]

Socialist Party are not perfect, but they are very good at supporting campaigns etc and the Campaign for a New Workers Party seems to have good intentions.

Their website is: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/

Just had a look at that site. Mind blowingly stupid opinions on nearly everything. Many of which have spelled total disaster in the past.

[thugler]

No there wasn't - people gave their standard opinions on both sides and nobody changed their mind on anything or came out with any great revelations. Like most politics threads then. Don't be so fucking arrogant.

Arrogant? Not at all, I recall the socialist arguments being paper thin, like the idea that competition is unnecessary and that ALL owners of businesses of any kind were evil tyrants exploiting the workers. Which socialist arguments stand up to any criticism at all?

[rupert pupkin]

Wasn't there a communist/socialist based thread on here a while ago in which socialism was completely torn apart for the claptrap it is when people started asking basic questions about how things would function? yes there was.

So, presumably, you think western-style capitalism is just fine and dandy do you?

[Sovereign]

Arrogant? Not at all, I recall the socialist arguments being paper thin, like the idea that competition is unnecessary and that ALL owners of businesses of any kind were evil tyrants exploiting the workers. Which socialist arguments stand up to any criticism at all?

I think someone requires re-education....

... someone fetch me a cattle truck, pronto!

[rupert pupkin]

ALL owners of businesses of any kind were evil tyrants exploiting the workers.

When you boil it all down, though, all workers are exploited to a greater or lesser extent by their employer. That's basic Marxism and I think it still stands up as an argument pretty well.

[thugler]

So, presumably, you think western-style capitalism is just fine and dandy do you?

It's far better than socialism or fascism for that matter. I make no claims of it being a perfect flawless system.

[biggytitbo]

The problem with western style capitalism is it isn't really capitalism. It's a mixture of government and capitalism, where several aspects of the free market, notably finance and money creation, are perverted by the hand of the state to favour the rich. What we're currently seeing with the economic system where failing companies are bailed out by the taxpayer shows we don't have a capitalist system. Having said that, a capitalist system really is the only tenable way of running a modern free society, but only when its based on an equal playing field for everyone.

[Marvin]

As usual Thugler, you give no actual decent argument yourself merely snipe at other people's, you are either arrogant, which is the best option, or just a cunt who wants to sound like they know what they're talking about.

Does capitalism stand up perfectly then? I've never seen any socialist on here say that every business owner is evil, evidence of that quite big claim please? It's quite a jump from saying that working people should not get exploited.

[Sovereign]

It's far better than socialism or fascism for that matter. I make no claims of it being a perfect flawless system.

WRONG!!! Capitalism is rubbish. Socialism is ace.

[thugler]

When you boil it all down, though, all workers are exploited to a greater or lesser extent by their employer. That's basic Marxism and I think it still stands up as an argument pretty well.

No shit it's basic Marxism. It's a completely stupid argument because it makes any kind of personal wealth or progress somehow exploitative rather than deserved or worked for. Jobs have a value, and it's not exploitative to pay people what their jobs are worth rather than the same regardless of the difficulty or skill level of the job. It's a small step away from making ownership of anything illegal. Which is the same crazy thoughtless idea pushed further.

[rupert pupkin]

It's far better than socialism or fascism for that matter. I make no claims of it being a perfect flawless system.

I'm puzzled as to why you conflate fascism and socialism – is it because you don't actually understand what the latter is? I bet you're one of those that thinks it's all about living in Russia and eating raw turnips aren't you? That's Stalinism and has nothing to do with the kind of socialism I believe in...

And capitalism isn't just a flawed system it's a disaster. How many people live on or below the poverty line in this country and the States? Why is the gap between rich and poor growing larger? I could go on...

[Marvin]

I think all thugler is trying to do is unite the divided left-wing factions on the board against a common idiot enemy. Good work.

[Sovereign]

The problem with western style capitalism is it isn't really capitalism. It's a mixture of government and capitalism, where several aspects of the free market, notably finance and money creation, are perverted by the hand of the state to favour the rich. What we're currently seeing with the economic system where failing companies are bailed out by the taxpayer shows we don't have a capitalist system. Having said that, a capitalist system really is the only tenable way of running a modern free society, but only when its based on an equal playing field for everyone.

Capitalism cant exist without a strong, violent and sovereign state to protect it from the working population. Business, big and small, love the state. The magical, mystical hidden hand of the market isn't "perverted" by the state, the market and capitalism itself is propped up by the state. "free-market" capitalism exists only in abstract form, there has never been a society on earth that operated a capital based economy without a state to overlook it. Read John Locke.

Out of interest I'm doing an essay for uni at the moment, and the title is "The state's role is to safeguard liberty and property. Discuss."  I need to make reference to Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Karl Marx during the essay. What, briefly, are your views on that topic?

[biggytitbo]

I'm puzzled as to why you conflate fascism and socialism – is it because you don't actually understand what the latter is? I bet you're one of those that thinks it's all about living in Russia and eating raw turnips aren't you? That's Stalinism and has nothing to do with the kind of socialism I believe in...

And capitalism isn't just a flawed system it's a disaster. How many people live on or below the poverty line in this country and the States? Why is the gap between rich and poor growing larger? I could go on...

Banking and the state are the reasons the gap is growing bigger, its economics not politics. Banking and the state tend to exist whatever 'flavour' of government you have.

What in Britain in 2008, would be socialist policies? Why do you think these would make any difference to banking and economics?

[Sovereign]

No shit it's basic Marxism. It's a completely stupid argument because it makes any kind of personal wealth or progress somehow exploitative rather than deserved or worked for. Jobs have a value, and it's not exploitative to pay people what their jobs are worth rather than the same regardless of the difficulty or skill level of the job. It's a small step away from making ownership of anything illegal. Which is the same crazy thoughtless idea pushed further.

how do you define the value of labour? How much is a job worth? is it worth a) the market price of the product of the expended labour or b) the bare minimum necessary to keep your workers alive and make as much profit off their work as possible?

Answers on a postcard please.

[thugler]

As usual Thugler, you give no actual decent argument yourself merely snipe at other people's, you are either arrogant, which is the best option, or just a cunt who wants to sound like they know what they're talking about.

Does capitalism stand up perfectly then? I've never seen any socialist on here say that every business owner is evil, evidence of that quite big claim please? It's quite a jump from saying that working people should not get exploited.

It's because I'm sick of the same demented ideas being held onto despite reams of evidence pointing to them being ridiculous.

I'm exaggerating slightly with that 'all business owners are evil' but it's only a slight extension of what people believe.

I'm puzzled as to why you conflate fascism and socialism – is it because you don't actually understand what the latter is? I bet you're one of those that thinks it's all about living in Russia and eating raw turnips aren't you? That's Stalinism and has nothing to do with the kind of socialism I believe in...

And capitalism isn't just a flawed system it's a disaster. How many people live on or below the poverty line in this country and the States? Why is the gap between rich and poor growing larger? I could go on...

No it's because I think they are two sides of the same idiotic coin. What kind of socialism do you believe in? Stalinism was an example of what can happen under a socialist system.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's far better than any socialist system you care to mention. Which Socialist nations would you like to live in?

And a disaster is hardly the word. It's the most stable political system in the world as long as it remains democratic.

Capitalism cant exist without a strong, violent and sovereign state to protect it from the working population.

Whereas under a glorious socialist state, everyone loves the state so much they don't need protecting...

I'd argue that this is FAR more true with socialism. I wouldn't say a capitalist state is violent against it's own people in the same way that socialist states are.

how do you define the value of labour? How much is a job worth? is it worth a) the market price of the product of the expended labour or b) the bare minimum necessary to keep your workers alice and make as much profit off their work as possible?

It's a price based on how much the work is worth to the employer combined with how much the worker is willing to do it for.

Keeping workers alice is not a problem.

Under a socialist state, you expect everyone to be paid the same? then what is the point of working at all, or of progressing or learning skills?

[biggytitbo]

Capitalism cant exist without a strong, violent and sovereign state to protect it from the working population. Business, big and small, love the state. The magical, mystical hidden hand of the market isn't "perverted" by the state, the market and capitalism itself is propped up by the state. "free-market" capitalism exists only in abstract form, there has never been a society on earth that operated a capital based economy without a state to overlook it. Read John Locke.

Out of interest I'm doing an essay for uni at the moment, and the title is "The state's role is to safeguard liberty and property. Discuss."  I need to make reference to Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Karl Marx during the essay. What, briefly, are your views on that topic?

I more or less agree with what you say. The state exists mainly to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful from the rest of us. I believe it was Adam Smith himself who said that. The basic principles of capitilism have always existed and worked on a smaller scale. Trade, mutual self interest, saving today to build for tomorrow. Once a big state get involved, the poor tend to get shafted because the concept of force is introduced. If you can make people do something with force, the concept of mutual self interest is gone, you can just make them do what you want or even more simply, just take their money from them. This is the version of capitalism we current 'enjoy'.

[rupert pupkin]

No shit it's basic Marxism. It's a completely stupid argument because it makes any kind of personal wealth or progress somehow exploitative rather than deserved or worked for. Jobs have a value, and it's not exploitative to pay people what their jobs are worth rather than the same regardless of the difficulty or skill level of the job. It's a small step away from making ownership of anything illegal. Which is the same crazy thoughtless idea pushed further.

I rather like the idea of living in a society where "personal wealth", profit and selfishness aren't the be all and end all. And you're right, jobs do have a value but the worker doesn't see very much of it in his/her wages after taxes and the amount their employer skims off for themselves.

[thugler]

I rather like the idea of living in a society where "personal wealth", profit and selfishness aren't the be all and end all. And you're right, jobs do have a value but the worker doesn't see very much of it in his/her wages after taxes and the amount their employer skims off for themselves.

Why not go and live in a socialist society then?

Anyone who says that personal wealth, posessions, the possibility of progress and achievement (and them being worthwhile in terms of personal benefit) and aspects of capitalist society essential to progress like competition are not necessary is deluded beyond belief.

It's not the be all and end all, but it's an essential part of peoples lives. I'd fucking hate to live in a society where these things weren't possible.

Who the fuck is 'the worker'? What are you trying to say? that someone running a business doesn't deserve more of it's profits than the guy working for him in the warehouse packing boxes? Do you not see how bizarre and nonsensical that is?

In a socialist society why would I want to work at all?

[Marvin]

You see you have shown yourself up by calling Stalinism socialism anyway, that's as stupid as Shoulders calling Mugabe a socialist last week.

Would you like to present your 'reams of evidence'? Doubtful, we've done this before, on this subject and others, and you've always failed to come through, so don't act like you know what you're talking about all the time. It's ok not to.

[thugler]

You see you have shown yourself up by calling Stalinism socialism anyway, that's as stupid as Shoulders calling Mugabe a socialist last week.

Would you like to present your 'reams of evidence'? Doubtful, we've done this before, on this subject and others, and you've always failed to come through, so don't act like you know what you're talking about all the time. It's ok not to.

No I didn't. I said Stalinism was the result of socialism.

How about providing us with a socialist society you'd be happy to go and live in?

[biggytitbo]

You see you have shown yourself up by calling Stalinism socialism anyway, that's as stupid as Shoulders calling Mugabe a socialist last week.

Would you like to present your 'reams of evidence'? Doubtful, we've done this before, on this subject and others, and you've always failed to come through, so don't act like you know what you're talking about all the time. It's ok not to.

What is socialism, in 2008 Britain? Bearing in mind you can't make the markets, banking or globalisation vanish?

[Sovereign]

It's because I'm sick of the same demented ideas being held onto despite reams of evidence pointing to them being ridiculous.

I'm exaggerating slightly with that 'all business owners are evil' but it's only a slight extension of what people believe.


No it's because I think they are two sides of the same idiotic coin. What kind of socialism do you believe in? Stalinism was an example of what can happen under a socialist system.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's far better than any socialist system you care to mention. Which Socialist nations would you like to live in?

Whereas under a glorious socialist state, everyone loves the state so much they don't need protecting...

I'd argue that this is FAR more true with socialism. I wouldn't say a capitalist state is violent against it's own people in the same way that socialist states are.

It's a price based on how much the work is worth to the employer combined with how much the worker is willing to do it for.

Keeping workers alice is not a problem.

Under a socialist state, you expect everyone to be paid the same? then what is the point of working at all, or of progressing or learning skills?

Welcome to Marxism 101. For the record I am not a Marxist myself, although this part of Marx's theory isn't one I have any major objections too. Socialist theory considers the state a part of the capitalist super-structure. This is to say, the state is paid for out of the surplus labour of the working people, dont worry I'll explain what that means in a bit. The state works on behalf of the property owning classes, wether they're aristocracy or self-made entrepeneurs, to enforce private property rights and protects those who own the economy. Therefore the state is the main obstacle to achieving a socialist state. As Marx predicted, once the propertlyless working-classes refuse to give their labour to the property owners and take control of the means of production for themselves, the contemporary capitalist state would wither and die, being relegated to the "dustbin of history" along with feudal barons and slave owners.

The main objective of socialism is the abolition of class based exploitation and to establish an equal society in its place. The greatest obstacle to achieving this is the state, which enforces and legitimizes the rights of one class to own property. Therefore any truly socialist system must have as its principle policy a method of getting rid of the state. Socialism and the state are not compatable. Look to Soviet Russia if you want proof of this.

To suggest that socialism requires a state more than capitalism shows to me that you have a limited understanding of socialist theory and you are basing your opinions on misconcieved notions of what socialism actually is. The idea's you expressing are prevelant, they are nothing more than smear attacks by those with vested interests against and ideology that poses them more threat than any other. Hence you you so mistakenly equate socialism with fascism and use it as a loaded, pejorative term in so many of your posts.

By the way, the term class is used in this context to describe your relationship with the economy, it has nothing to do with if you like sugar in your tea or if you went to a private school.

As for the value of labour, I'll have to be brief, I'm off out. People in industrial jobs are automatically paid less than the value of their labour. A very weak example of this is the carpenter. A carpenter, working for Comfy Chair.inc, gets paid £40 to produce a fine chair. That chair has a market value of £80. The employer maks £40 profit by virtue of the fact he owns the means of production alone, even though the employer contributes nothing in terms of labour or skill to its creation. The worker creates something worth £80 and gets paid half of its "market value". Or the consumer buys something worth £40 for twice it's "labour value".

Socialists generally want to create a society that has a labour theory of value, where the carpenter is paid the £40 for his chair by the consumer and where the employer is cut out of the transaction completely. The employer's only contribution is that he owns the means of production, he has the property rights over the economy and therefore in order to produce anything they have to dance to his tune and make money in his behald. This is a form of exploitation, and the only way to stop the exploitation is to get rid of the employer. The only way this can be possible is by the carpenter to forcibly seize control of Comfy Chair.inc, so he can own the means of production collectively with his fellow employee's (or comrades) and where there is no obligation to provide a dividend to shareholders or any form of profit. However, because the property rights are protected by the state, the iniquity of the private ownership system is protected from this fate. Which is why socialists object to the state on principle.