Starry Plough, August Edition

by . Thu Aug 14, 2003 20:59

why are the irsp not in the socialist alliance???

by Anthony Thu Aug 14, 2003 21:38

This announcement isn't very useful. It's really just a link to one PDF file. I'd be much more inclined to check it out if I had an idea of what the content is. Other organisations announcing the publication of their latest online edition usually include a synopsis of each piece and a link to a HTML version of the article itself. AFAIK this is the standard for such announcements on IMC IRL. As it stands, this "article" doesn't have any real news in itself.

by angry liberal - labour party Fri Aug 15, 2003 13:53 renrir666 at hotmail dot com

well i'm glad to see yet another bunch of republicans attach some pretend socialism to themselves in the hope that someone might think they aren't completely mad.would you be sitting with the socialist group in the european parliament?i think not,maybe le pen will keep a seat warm for you with all the other people who think flags are more important than people.

by simple simon - hates the Irps Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:07

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks angry liberal. thats the best laugh I've had all day. Class himslef a 'liberal' and then talks about the 'socialist group'.

again

ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

by angry liberal - labour party Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:33

it's just a name not a classification.i know republicans like those though.irish and british,decommission and blow up.the one you get wrong is calling yourselves socialists when you don't even see the links with liberals over progressive policies.do we not agree on graduated tax and abortion and other things from gay rights to war in iraq?i know you don't understand this because you're only interested in flag waving but try to keep up.

by Rapper Tandy Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:45

If you want to be spponfed then you should have stayed in your highstool.

by angry liberal - labour party Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:51

if anyone wants to discuss how socialist they believe sinn fein is in the south then lets hear it.if all you have to give is bad jokes and ignorance than don't let me take up your time.

by Rapper Tandy Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:56

The 'joke' was not directed at you but at the whinger who wants it allon a plate. I'm not the best person to ask about SFs socialism. You might have noticed that I am a supporter of the IRSM.I think that the IRSP definitely is to the left of your Labour Party, but some of the LPs positions are good and there are plenty of genuine Socialists and Republicans in Labour.

by angry liberal - labour Fri Aug 15, 2003 19:07

i'm not sure of the republican content of the labour party but will agree that you are politically to the left of labour(sometimes maybe).what i wonder is whether the majority of sinn fein members recognise or care if the party is to the left or whether it is 99% republican and 1%socialist?

by -@# Sat Aug 16, 2003 15:44

A Labour Party member slagging off another group for not being socialist!! Is this some kind of joke!

Remember it is the Labour Party that is pro capitalist and when in power have implemented cuts and attacks on workers.

by =@# Sat Aug 16, 2003 15:47

Labour is fundamentally no different than the other capitalist parties despite their 'left' turn. People should remember Rabbittes pro privitisation speech at the last Labour Party conference

by simple simon - hates the shinners too Sat Aug 16, 2003 17:38

i have no problem working with progressives in pursuit of a common aim - war in iraq, abortion, bin tax, higer taxes for the rich etc etc. And i have done, and still will. But that won't stop me from criticisng your politics.

what i find so amusing is that you refer to the 'socialist group' in the EU parliament as if it were some kind of revolutionary clique - when in fact it is nothing but a bunch of pro-capitalist 'social democrats' who are tied to the big business agenda. The British Labour party are still in the incorrectly titled 'Socialist International' aren't they? the same BLP that launched a war on Iraq. Yes, very Socialist. What did you do at your international conference? Give them a dressing down in the strongest possible terms? Expell them? Or nothing?

Anyway its fucking all very high and mighty to go on about the terrorism of the left republicans - but then you look at the labour party and who the fuck is running it? Oh yeah, Rabbite, MacManus and DeRossa - all former members of the Sticks. All supporters of section 31 too. but more importantly, two of them were bank-robbers. Oh yes, you can't escape history my friend. But in any case, to claim that the LP offer any sort of alternative is a fucking joke. The only alternative they offer is alternative faces licking the bosses boots.

And btw what ever happened with the Mayor of Dublin guy, was he expelled from the party, or was he just given a public dressing down and allowed back into the party? (I am referrinh to the scandalous Bin Tax vote)

by angry liberal - labour Sat Aug 16, 2003 18:40

i'm more moderate than you so what?most people are.i'm not afraid to say that the socialist group isn'ta revolutionary clique,i don't want it to be.nor do i have any problems with the past of the former dl members(they left all that behind-can you say the same for all these sinners?).i'm a social democrat and proud of it,i don't necessarily agree nor at times do the majority of labour members with actions like dermot lacey and the bin tax but while he was in ofice he made dublin a cleaner,safer place and highlighted issues as far apart as burmese human rights and the homeless.what other party calling themselves socialist even achieved that?it's so easy to sit on the sideline,whinge and complain but at the end of the day we bring people with us and improve things while you're only reffuge is that labour aren't a bunch of commies.bo who.

by simple simon Sat Aug 16, 2003 19:52

"dermot lacey... made dublin a cleaner, safer place"

Em, he did? Cos last time I checked Dublin was still a smelly, flithy and dangerous place, especially at night. Unless of course you mean the recent addition of that architectural masterpiece the Dublin Spike. "I am delighted that my final official duty as Lord Mayor is to put the finishing touches on our Spire which, despite my original doubts, I now think is a wonderful addition to Dublin's skyline both by day and by night," said Cllr Dermot Lacey, Lord Mayor of Dublin. "The Spire offers a point of focus linking the past with the future. It is the first step in our new O'Connell Street and it is important that we be passionate about getting good quality modern building and monuments like this into our city." - And a total waste of 5 million quid. Meanwhile Naas hospital's new wing can't open cos the funds won't be released. How can he serioulsy defend the spike?

Was Lacey kicked out of the Labour Party for his vote on the Bin Tax? Answer: No. Is the bin tax a further tax on working people? Answer: Yes. How does Labour reconcile this fact? A member of their party has voted for an increase in the Bin Tax, a viciously anti-working class measure, yet he was not kicked out of the 'socialist' (ie allegedly pro working class) labour party.

I think the Labour Party could at best be described as 'do-gooder liberals', at worst as the lackeys of capilatism leading the working class to have illusions in such unworkable concepts as 'social democracy', 'partnership' and a 'good' europe of the bosses. SD does not work. We had it all over Europe after the war, and its just being taken away from us again. Every gain that working people fought for is under attack. Hell in America even the right to vote is under attack. We don't need a change at the top, we need a fundamental change in the structure of society. Basically, what I'm saying is that we need socialism/anarchism/communisim, not social democracy. But we still have to fight to keep what we have, and to ensure we get more.

To quote Tariq Ali: "In the last century capitalism was on the defensive and social democracy was on the offensive. That situation has now been reversed. With the disappearance of a global enemy, capital can concentrate on the "enemy within" and all the concessions it was forced to concede can be clawed back. In other words social and democratic rights will have to be fought for once again against the might of a triumphal capialism." The evils of the capitalist system cannot be reformed out of existence. It is impossible. As long as capitalism exists, working people will be on the defensive. And when they go on the Offensive, thats when Labour plays its role of being capital's 'moderating influence' in the class struggle.

And if you think that my dislike of Labour is because they aren't 'Commies' then you are sorely mistaken. I dislike Labour because they have, and will, betray the working class, nationally and internationally. Let's face it, if Rabbitte and his crew got into power tomorrow they would be fundamentally no different than Tony Blair and his mob. Rabbitte has already stated at the Party Conference that privatisation may be a good thing in some cases, and a motion to state Labour's outright opposition to privatisation was voted down.

by why why why? Sat Aug 16, 2003 19:59

this argument is as old as indymedia itself.

Socialists, Communist, Anarchists and Republicans all hate labour. To them Labour are sell outs.

Labour say they are inclusively progressive, and say their a la carte socialism is the way forward.

The others disagree.

The argument then goes around in circles. Queue boredom, and I'm sure some nasty comment about the SWP/SP.

by angry liberal - labour Sun Aug 17, 2003 11:18

i'm sorry but you seem to be stuck in the 1920s and refer to the working class as if they made up a majority or even a large minority.your working class has been declining in numbers since social democracy(not whinging)started and the majority of people in this state and in the rest of western europe(germany at 11% that is a germany under one of those horrible social democrat regimes).did your bunch of side liners have anything to do with that?no.so we can't just rely on working class votes we have to be inclusive,you know change with the times,progress as it were.we are victims of our own success,we got more people better health education etc. and now their children are no longer working class.i shudder even using the term working class when every study(including voting pattern studies here in ireland)shows that every country has between 10 and15 different groups,small/large farmers,liberal professionals,higher professionals,service workers and that people no longer split over class divisions.
here is are some practical questions for you.is the entire reason for having a political party not dissent,therefore if labour disagree over anyhting we split up and argue?if labour did just look for the working class vote(which would cost us overall)would we not have a smaller number of people voting for us and thus never get anywhere or achieve anything worth while?
i'm not ashamed to say that we want most people to vote for us and that we change with the times,if you want a left wing government then you have to look beyond the "working class".

by socialist Mon Aug 18, 2003 16:33

Angry Liberal I think you will find that the working class are in the vast majority and have over last 50 years increased massivly as a proportion of the population.

Socialists do not have a dogmatic antiquated view of the working class. Socialists do not see the working class as a load of people that work down mines, wear cloth caps and live in poverty. THis is how a sociologist sees the working class. Socialists and in particular Marxists take a scientific definition. The working class are those that have to sell their labour for a wage. This includes people working in offices wearing suits etc. Therefore if you take this correct definition the working class has grown in strenght and importance in the past 50 years.

What you and the LAbour Party say is that the ideas of class struggle belong to the past, that today the worker and the boss are on the same side and have the same ultimate interests. This is complete crap. The capitalist will ALWAYS try to exploit the labour of the worker as much as possible so as to make profits. This is in direct contradiction to the interests of the worker.

What the LP are doing is in effect tieing the working class to the capitalist system by in a clever way trying to destroy any class consciouness among workers. The LAbour Party are essentially just another capitalist party.

by Ois Mon Aug 18, 2003 16:35

'Working class' doesn't refer to people who live in council houses it refers to people who live off a wage. Capitalists (the ruling class) live off interest on capital. The middle class refers to the self employed.

The working class constitutes the vast vast vast majority, but has little or no political power. The capitalist class consitutes a tiny minority but has is in control of the state the media etc. etc. And the middle class is always shrinking and has a forever reducing amount of political power.

The IRSP is a very different party to Sinn Fein. The Irps split from the Stickies (The Workers Party, they came before Democratic Left in case you didn't know) in 1974 I think or 73. They got a lot of support in the early days because they formulated the most coherent and progressive brand of pysical-force-Republican-socialism ever. But then the Stickies killed all their leaders (this was after the stickies were on ceasefire - the ceasefire being the main cause of the 73/74 split).

They are still much more gun-ho then Sinn Fein. But still have a better understanding of the national question then the Shinners as they make the vital distinction between nationalism and national liberation. But they still go around with guns thinking they're mad so fuck 'em, they ain't very nice people. Although (bar the killing people thing) they're politics is probable the most progressive of any 'party' (that's excluding the networks, federations, movements etc.).

Finally liberal politics is in direct contradiction to socialist politics so what are you at?

And the labour party isn't socialist, nor is it social democratic. It is just like Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael a demagogic party; it'll say whatever it takes to get a bit of support, and won't say anything that's against the advice of their press advisors. That said I haven't met anyone from labour that doesn't have a bit of red in them. It's a party of confused socialists who solve their confusion by listening to the capitalist media that says the working class doesn't exist anymore, believing it and then concluding that socialism as a movement can't exist anymore. Poor boys.

by Justin T Tue Aug 19, 2003 14:52

"It's a party of confused socialists"

The Labour Party is nothing of the sort. The Labour Party is an open bourgeois party. They have completely emptied out of any trade union activists or any genuine socialists. The Labour Party now solely consists of bourgeois liberal do gooders, young careerists and TD's fan clubs.

If there are any socialists left why don't they launch a serious campiang to reclaim the Labour Party? Why don't they at the next conference take on the party leadership? The reason they wont is because there is NO GENUINE socialists or lefties left in the party.

by angry liberal - labour party Tue Aug 19, 2003 20:35

i'll reply to you all at once since you make the same redundant points.the working class isn't shrinking?i dare you to back that up.i'm in a party of confused socialists?i know what socialism means and as for not doing anything to promote socialism i see noboby else doing anything bar selling papers.if we are so much like fine gael and ff then why do so maany of us bother and so many people vote for us.you can bother to reply when any of you have done something useful.....ie.never.

by JT Thu Aug 21, 2003 19:01

The working class is clearly NOT shrinking. There are more and more people now selling their labour for a wage than any previous time in Irish history. The entry of women into the workforce is just one clear example of this. For more concrete stats I suggest you contact the CSO.

As for people voting for Labour. The working calss is not one homogenous group of revolutionaries. The working class has a wide variety of consciouness within it. At the moment and probably up until the time of revolution the majority of the working class will have centerist and reformist illusions. But one thing is certain among class conscious workers; the Labour Party are not seen as a working class party.

As for the SWP, SP etc not doing anything but selling papers. This is bollocks, for one example just look at the Bin Tax campaign, (which the Labour Party oppose by the way), there is a campaign in which socialists of all hues are active in building opposition to neo liberal attacks. In the Anti war movement socialists buold a mass campaign while the LP thried its best to sabotage it. Also in the trade unions socialists are activly in opposition to the bureacratic leaders, The labour party completely support the bureacracy in ALL the unions.

by bren Thu Aug 21, 2003 19:11

You Labour people really are arrogant bastards. Do you really think that it is usefull to go out every 5 years getting votes for the Labour Party? Is this what you consider to be useful political activism?

Lets look at the record of some more of the active Labour members...

Labour councillours up and down the country including the ex mayor Dermot Lacey have voted for the bin tax. Those that dis not have refused to support non payment as it would break their precious bourgeois law. Their solution is to ask people to vote for them at the next election.

Lets look at some of the other 'useful' activity of the LAbour Party. The Labour Party have on many occasions gone into governemnt with openly capitalist parties and implemented savage attacks on the working class. Remember the tax amnesties and privitisations the last time Labour were in power?

Then can people remember their contribution to the anti war movement? They activly tried to sabotage a IAWM demo in Shannon by jumping on the media red scare bandwagon. They also repeatedly published leaflets calling for sanctions on Iraq to be stepped up as an alternative to war, they also gave the impression that they would have supported the war if it were to have UN backing.

Of course as pointed out by the post above the Labour Party is the party of the bureacrats. These people who are in the leadership of the union movements have completely sold out workers again and again. They live on fat cat salaries and sow illusions that people like Tony O'Reilly are our partners.

They are also an undemocratic party that will expel any socialists that try to organise in opposition to the leadership.

I could go on all day...

The LAbour Party are in NO WAY a workers party and should be treated just like FF/PD/FG.

by angry liberal - labour Fri Aug 22, 2003 14:06

i know you are arguing with me but talk about blinded by self righteous babble.i'm one of these socialist who doesn't like the labour leadership,my party section sent a letter to kick out lacey,i was heavily involved in opposing the war,i'm currently involved in campaigns to increase voter turnout in working class areas and in fighting the bin tax.i don't have to agree with everything labour says but then i don't get my orders from some sp/swp little fucker.
you seem to have forgotten all the good things that labour have done and forgotten all the bad things the far left have gotten up to eg. sp with the cpsu negociations,swp turning the anti-war movement(which by the way you don't fucking own)into a recruitment rally and sf lowering corporate tax in the north.good at pointing the finger aren't you.
labour isn't perfect but in terms of getting things done eg.opposition to third level fees, facist immigration bills and increasing minimum wage,increasing corporate tax. it is streets ahead of the far left who complain,bicker and are the first ones to criticise and the last ones to have an effective alternative.
the fact that you see the anti bin tax campaign(how left wing was far left opposition to it in sligo?)or the anti war protests as yours while thousands of pd,fg,greens and independants turned up is a testiment to your arrogance and supposed monopoly on all that is right.we have 10%plus of the vote and you have what?

by JT Fri Aug 22, 2003 17:10

If you are a genuine socialist in the labour part y that is opposed to the leadership. Which I doubt by the way given your position on coalitions. But if you are genuine I challenge you to organise a serious opposition in the party and through discussion at branches and at teh party conference put forward a socialist programme for the party to adopt, this would include the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy under workers control. If you are genuine you would do this, you would also get involved in building mass non payment in the bin tax campaign despite the policy og the party's leadership.

by angry liberal - labour Sun Aug 24, 2003 16:06

if i were a socialist i would a,b and c.well thank you very much for being either patronising or arrogant enough to tell me how i should advance my opinions in my party.
which i doubt due to your position on coalition?you know my position do you?i hate fine gael's anti-liberal and frankly 1950s view of abortion,gay rights and it's constant law and order bullshit,fianna fail can go to hell for being a bunch of populist bastards,pd's just make no sense-socially liberal(which they aren't even)and economically right wing?,sinn fein are a wonderfully effective wagon for nationalism and wizards at blame.the only parties i am willing to think about are the greens and maybe on a very good day the sp.the only thing i want more than labour to have every seat and pass left wing legislation is for things to get done and for that coalition is a necessary evil.i guess getting accused of selling out is the price you pay against people who were never in government and can always point the finger.

by JT Mon Aug 25, 2003 00:56

OK if Labour do get into government with a majority in the Dail what would you want them to do? Simply pass left wing socially progressive legislation or to set about nationalising the cammanding heights of the economy?

Do you want to see a Labour government to nationalise these industries or do you not? and if you do how will you go about arguing for this within the Labour Party?

Please answer these questions?

by JT Mon Aug 25, 2003 01:03

I recognise that being in government is no easy task however what I have a problem with is the Labour Party on one hand caliming to be the party of the working class then on the other doing quite the opposite. The party continually sold out and went into coalition with FF and FG and what was the deal? A few pieces of legislation and ministerial mercs. That is a disgrace. If the Labour Party really was a workers party they would only go into government with other workers parties and would set about nationalising, under workers control the large and important industries.

On the bin tax. If the Labour Party are really against the tax why will they not passivly or activly support the non payment campaign? Over the next couple of months the government are going to try and break the back of the campaign, where are the Labour Party in this struggle?

by angry liberal Mon Aug 25, 2003 13:45

ok firstly on the issue of selling out.i have written before that i don't like coalition with fine gael or fianna fail but i don't consider it selling out.i'm not saying mistakes were not made,especially with ff but does ireland have more or fewer industrial safety and rights acts because of labour?i agree it's dancing with the devil but your alternative of a socialist block seems currently unworkable-including lp,greens,sf,sp and left independants we don't break forthy seats and our electorate is the least left leaning in europe.not to mention that that collection of people don't exactly see eye to eye,italy being a fine example of such a failure.i also think that our elections and constitution was made with the intention of compromise and coalition.
Secondly on commanding the heights of industry and being a workers party.i keep repeating this but if a party relies on a working class vote it will always be a minority,courting farmers,middle class professionals doesn't mean we have to give up on the working class.i also think the term socialist has many meanings.i'm not in favour of the bin-tax and want public services to be nationalised,but i'm not a communist i'm a social democrat and i don't see that nationalising the heights of industry is going to improve our society(by our i mean everyones,rich and poor).i don't consider myself any less of a socialist because i consider the wishes of others beside the working class. i can as i'm sure you can see only speak for myself regarding labour's approach to the bin tax.our members have in the past voted for one thing to see the pp declare something else,abortion as an example.i'm not in the dail but myself and many others have voiced our complaints,if they vote for it,which overall i doubt,then i'll campaign against it.i don't claim to always agree with the party but i agree with it more often than any other party and for all the sellout slander it achieved more for workers(supporting or implementing-industrial andprovident societies act 1978,unfair dismissal acts,1977,1993,1994,free 3rd level education and attacking many industrial relations acts,not to mention all the social legislation that you seem to despise)than any other shade of socialists.so a little more than a merc.i have a question.do you really see a workers party becoming the largest party if you don't compromise?

by JT Mon Aug 25, 2003 16:00

I do consider a workers party going into coalition with a bourgeois party a complete sell out and I will explain why. In saying that I do not consider Labour to be a workers party by any stretch of the imagination, they may have been in the past but certainly not now. The reason it is a sell out is because workers and the capitalists are two classes that are in irreconcilable opposition to each other. The more the capitalist increases his profits the more exploited the worker is. By a workers party going into government with the capitalist parties, especially in a time in which capitalism is in crisis, it essentially rescues capitalism by disorientating the workers movement and sowing the illusion 'that we are all on the same side'.

What workers parties should do is refuse to play this role. They should build opposition to the capitalist parties both inside parliament and especially outside through the unions etc.


You contend that workers will always be in the minority. I completely reject this, this is untrue. The vast majority of the population of Ireland are working class, they do not own the means of production and are dependend on wage labour for their income. This is how socialsits define the working class. Now consciouness is a different matter. Currently the consciouss working class may be a minority, but this is not going to be the case for ever. In the next few years more and more workers will be coming into conflict with their employers and the government this will increase consciouness among workers massivly.

"i don't see that nationalising the heights of industry is going to improve our society(by our i mean everyones,rich and poor)"

As i have stated before the worker and the capitalist are NOT on the same side. They are in direct conflict with one another. I agree that the nationalisation of the heights of the economy will no favour all in society, it will favour the vast majority who are workers and will absolutly be against the interests of the minority of capitalists.

"i don't consider myself any less of a socialist because i consider the wishes of others beside the working class."

You are NOT a socialist if you act in any way in the interests of the capitalist class.

I welcome the fact that you and others in the Labour Party are opposed to the bin tax. Will you now get active in the non payment campaign? It is a very important time in the campaign as the government in the next number of months are attempting to smash it.

You point out some of the legislation that the Labour Party implemented in the 1990s. Of course any concessions workers win from the capitalist is welcome. But we must remember that these were won in a time of economic boom, the capitalist class could afford to buy off the workers movement with certain pay rises, improved conditions etc. But in a time of economic downturn it is quite a different matter. If the Labour Party were elected to power now they would be forced to implement cuts and attacks on the living standards of workers. This was the case in the 70s and 80s when Labour were in government. This is also the case accross Europe where the social democrats are in power, Schroeder is implementing Agenda 2010, Blair has taken on the firefighters and is preparing an attack on pensions and in Sweden Persson has taken on and defeated local authority workers in their pay claim. The Irish Labour Party are not fundamentally any different to these parties. They are all based on maintaining capitalism, if you do this all you can deliver in times of economic crisis are attacks on workers. So the question really is for the Labour Party how are you going to bring gains for workers and at the same time keep the capitalists on board IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE?

I do see a workers party becoming the largest party in Ireland, it will be on the basis of serious workers struggle and not simply a merger of a few pre existinf left groups. ANd I do say that we will need some comprimises to form and build such a party. But these will be principled compromises with other WORKERS organisations NOT CAPITALIST PARTIES.

by angry liberal Mon Aug 25, 2003 16:56

You see things in a very black and white light and i absolutely disagree with this us and them attitude.firstly if those who do not own the means of their labour are exclusively working class,then i as a lawyer am working class along with my doctor and vet friends.i think that overly broad.you mentioned perception,how many doctors consider themselves working class?i think the vast majority of people that you would hope to join your workers party are lower and upper middle class who don't have any intrest in nationalisation on your terms and i have my doubts that their own self-perception as middle class will change.i think classes are more defined by opportunity and access than the means of production.i think that is a common opinion.

you say that there is no leeway for working with non-worker parties as if there was some conspiracy or they lived on another planet.they don't cackle while actively attacking or victimising the working class and just because our bases of support are different does not mean they are absolutely conflicting.alot of the legislation i mentioned which didn't in any way help the employers was brought in under the parties you so hate.If we didn't make a balance between workers and employers then where would the jobs be?how does unemployment benefit the working class.as you said alot of centre left governments are making cut backs.why?because(taking germany for an example)ppl like you went ape and turned germany into a workers paradise with short hours,long holidays,a bullying trade union movement and what happened?rising inefficiency,rising costs and employers who could no longer compete and went under causing the unemployment that plagues germany.i would love the short hours/long holidays to work but it just doesn't and i would love your utopia to work but it just doesn't.we live in a democracy where the people we are both trying to help are aminority(perception or reality,i know we disagree)everyone gets some of the things they want but not everything.i don't see any sense in your argument that we walk the streets and are completely linked through mutual(although i admit at times lobsided)benefit and yet it absolutely has to be us and them.if a strike is called then employers have no workers,but then woekers have no pay or benefits.the fact is that even a majority of the working class(my perception)don't vote for working class parties,people in unions democratically decided to enter partnership agreements with employers(don't completely support it but clearly i'm not the only one who disagrees with your puritan stance).i can't say i accept your view of what is working class and as i've said above i very much doubt that others that you would define as working class would agree with you.thus if the working class is a minority in a democracy compromise is the only option.there is no grand conspiracy,the supreme court judged that bin tax need not be paid,a traditionally conservative body voted to protect the working class.if your theory was true why did they bother?

As for bin charges and labour in government now.it think your point about economic downturns links them both.why after 1983 do we have bin tax?why this double tax?because our government needs money.i repeat that i absolutely oppose the bin tax,there are fairer ways to get the money and i think it more a result of ff incompetence than than the global economy but i'm not blessed with your uncompromising nature and can at least see an argument(while rejecting it)in my party that that money i needed or the place becomes a dump.As for labour in government,we should do what we need to do.of course we should get money from sources which abuse it first-company and corp tax,graduated tax-but if needs be i'd support a government that after exhausting all options(as with labour in the1970s)took away from the working class to preserve the majority.if labour had a majority today you would see higher taxes on corporations and capital gains,a cap on land and house prices,no attack on our neutrality,our health or education.my opinion anyway.
i see no basis for your theory of a capitalism on it's knees,of a conspiracy and parties out to get you,of no compromise and a majority working class.if people don't consider themselves working class then i don't see what grounds you have for just declaring them so and with that goes your dream(a nice one)of a majority far left workers only club.A+ for dreaming F for pragmatism.

by JT Tue Aug 26, 2003 17:05

I have read your reply and it only confirms in my mind that if you are typical of the membership of the Labour Party then the Labour Party are a 100% bourgeois party.

Somewhere in your piece you claim that the problem with Germany is that it was turned into a 'workers paradise' by far lefts like me! Firstly it certainly is no paradise but what can be said is that the huge working class movements of the late 19th century won many gains such as decent pensions, health care free education, improved working conditions etc. However these are now being attacked by the capitlaists. Instead of defending these rights and critisising the Schroeder government you blame the workers for winning these rights in the first place!!

You made another point that basically said that we should co-operate with the capitalists because they create jobs. Tis is utter rubbish. It is the capitalists that in fact are responsible for unemployment. It is in the interests of capitlaism to have a 'reserve army of labour' so as to keep wages down. But more fundamentally it is the nature of capitlaism that means that it will regularly have crises of over production which can only be solved by sacking workers. This is in built into capitalism. It is only on the basis of soclaism which would see the democratic planning of the economy we can put an end to unemployment.

On class, If you read carefully what I said in my last post I have alreay answered some of your 'critisisms'. I say quite clearly that anyone that primarily depends on selling their labour and does not own the means of production is working class. This would include many doctors, lawyers etc. The working clas is not one big homogenous group of cloth cap wearing manual labourers. It has many layers of consciouness, some of which are not class consciouess whatsoever, some vote for FG, FF and Labour. What I did say is that as more and more people move into struggle against the government and the capitalists inevitably whole layers of workers will come become conscious of their class, this will include some (although probably a small minority) doctors, Lawyers etc.

I'll try to go through some of your points in more detail later when I have a bit more time.

by angry liberal Tue Aug 26, 2003 20:21

1.i don't critise those rights eg.pension which you mentioned but in germany they didn't just get pensions or holidays or short working hours they had earlier retirement than anywhere else in europe,worked on average 3 less hours a day than an american and had the longest holidays i've heard of bar teachers.it wasn't fair and in the end the lack of balance hurt them(unemployment).your response is an example of whaling on the centre left when it tries to be reasonable.

2.again you used words like inevitable and yet where are the facts to back up this great rise of the workers?inevitable seems all too strong.no doctor owns a hospital or lawyer a law library and yet i know more than a few of both more likely to hang a commie than join him.where is this capitalism falling apart?the only thing i see is it tearing us apart because it has become a master and not the servant.the difference between us is that i see that human beings will work intheir own interest.we must convince them that through a welfare state equality gives them a better society,the smartest and most skilled doctors,police and bus drivers not the richest.you throw the baby out with the bath water.

3.if so many peolpe are deluded enough to vote for lp,fg,ff,pd,greens,sf and all the other capitalists(almost every seat going)than it seems your faith must rest in this inevitable change.yet you have no proof.

4.as for me being some kind of wishy washy liberal typical of labour than i'm sorry to say that there is no typical labour person.we are too big and open minded to be made up of one group.so i fear i am only typical of me and even then i'm socialist.

by JT Wed Aug 27, 2003 01:05

"it (the lot of the German worker) wasn't fair and in the end the lack of balance hurt them(unemployment).your response is an example of whaling on the centre left when it tries to be reasonable."

I believe that workers are entitled and it is more than fair to have a free GP service, a decent pension, freedom from summery sacking and so on. These are the rights that German workers are seeing attacked by Schroeder's Agenda 2010. Are you claiming that these attacks are justified and reasonable?

Now can you please point out exactly how unemployment is caused by decent working conditions and a decent welfare state? You can't because there is no connection. But I can point out the link quite easily between capitalism and unemployment.



2.again you used words like inevitable and yet where are the facts to back up this great rise of the workers?

In the upcoming few years we are going to see economic stagnation and possibly recession in Europe. Many countries in Europe are in recession at the moment. This will INEVITABLY lead to attacks on workers as the capitalist class will try to maintain it's levels of profits. This is made even sharper by the constraints of EMU by the way. Workers will not take all these attacks lying down, workers will and have moved into opposition to these attacks. The same will happen in Ireladn to at least some degree. When these people move into struggle against the governemnt or the employers they WILL draw conclusions about the nature of capitalism and the need to build a new workers party. Look at France where this is very much the case where teachers in particular have learnt alot about the nature of capitalism in the recent wave of strikes.

"no doctor owns a hospital or lawyer a law library and yet i know more than a few of both more likely to hang a commie than join him.where is this capitalism falling apart?"

Don't get hung up on Doctors and lawyers. There will probably never be a time when an overwhelming number of people from these professions will support revolution. The point I was making is that the working class are not simply one homogenous group, it contains different layers. Some of these do not have a strong tradition of struggle or a high level of workers consciouness eg teachers or some civil servants. But if and when these sections of the working class move into struggle many will develop a workers consciouness.


"the difference between us is that i see that human beings will work intheir own interest. we must convince them that through a welfare state equality gives them a better society,the smartest and most skilled doctors,police and bus drivers not the richest.you throw the baby out with the bath water."

I do recognise that people work in their own interest. It is in the interests of the capitalist to pay as little to his employee as possible in order to make more profit, it is in the interest of the worker to also get as much pay as he possibly can. When times are good you may well be able to convince the capitlaist to give more pay or to fund a decent welfare state but when times are bad he will simply act in his own interest and roll back any gains won by the working class.

"3.if so many peolpe are deluded enough to vote for lp,fg,ff,pd,greens,sf and all the other capitalists(almost every seat going)than it seems your faith must rest in this inevitable change.yet you have no proof."

Things will change, things are constantly changing. Today a majority of workers do vote for capitalist parties but this is not set in stone. As capitlaism becomes more and more harsh and parties such as Labour show that they offer no way out people will begin to look for an alternative. My proof lies in the history books, there are countless examples of this happening.

You claim that capitalism is not in crisis. Well i it is not in crisis why can capitalism not afford to house feed and educate billions of the worlds population? If capitlaism is not in crisis why is it the case that millions of childern do not live to see their 5th birthday due to preventable illness? If capitalism is not in crisis why are billions being spent on wars that are for profits and prestige when the world needs money to be spent of food and medicine. If capitalism is not in crisis why has the level of profits not risen since the early 1970s?

by angry liberal Wed Aug 27, 2003 18:38

1.on germany.you ask me why i'm opposed to a decent welfare state?i'm not,i'm opposed to the extremes(there weren't any of your fair pensions,but excessive early and costly pensions which decreased the worfforce in an aging state).it is not in the interests of a country with such an old population to continue the over reverence in which it holds them while every else crumbles through under funding.

2.lawyers etc.i got what you were saying(class conscious,layers),it's just deluded.ppl don't vote on class lines and see class as based on money and opportunity not means of production,they accept the link between employers and workers and they accept the competition of capitalism if not all it's extremes.against this your blind excuse is that a huge recession will open their eyes,look at history.well i have and it turns out that not every recession since the industrial revolution has lead to a workers rising.i did notice some examples of ppl in crisis running to extremes-facism and 1917.it seems your inevitable revolution is based on history yet i can find proof in the same source disproving your theory.shocking.the world has moved on and left you behind,stay in 1917 if you like.people don't see things the way you do not because they are wrong but because you are.

3.you point is that capitalism at the moment is really bad.howso?were there not wars and famines and want before?you sound like lenin telling us that ww1 is the last greedy gasp of capitalism.don't worry he was wrong too.the world is bad,but not exceedingly worse than it has been before.i want to reform it,to make the excesses of war useless and yet leave room for human nature.capitalism is cylical,it wil get better again and the bombing of iraq isn't any worse than the bombing of guernica or dresden,or any atrocity in capitalisms name.reform it.

4.your argument is based on assumptions such as 1-ppl will come around even though they really don't seem to be bothered 2-this will happen when the particularly bad capitalism makes them angry,although i can only look back at history to prove this and since capitalism is still here i seem to be wrong.i accept that their are winners and losers and i don't see apoint in telling the winner that he can't have his prize.but i do take alot of it of him and give it to the loser.by your system nobody would play in the first place,no losers but no winners.simplistic but then our disagreement is basic.i don't think capitalism is that much worse than it used to be,is exploiting the third world new?i think it needs radical changing but not your kind.i believe some ppl tried that,the ppl under the system didn't seem so content.prove to me that economic meltdown is inevitable,that a majority of ppl will want your system and not mine and why they should.