| |
 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » Socialism Politics (Trotsky) Forum » Foundation for Proportional Representation-based... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Steve Wallis... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism
Website: http://www.PRsocialism.org Forum: http://tinyurl.com/PRsocialismforum
Newsletter 7 (5 November 2009)
Editor's note: I, Steve Wallis, have written all the articles in this
newsletter. I would welcome replies to points in this newsletter and
articles/letters for future newsletters, posted to the forum (with the
web address above) or emailed to me personally at
revolutionarysocialiststeve at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk. Various socialist
organisations in Britain (Respect, the Socialist Party, CPGB, CPB and
Democratic Socialist Alliance) and Alex Callinicos of the SWP have
come out in favour of PR, and I'd welcome the involvement of members
of those organisations in the Foundation.
As with previous Foundation newsletters, anyone who agrees with the
politics in it can download it from the website (with the web address
above) in Word or PDF format, print it out and distribute it anywhere
in the world (although much is specific to the UK). It focuses on how
a socialist society should operate, in Britain and internationally,
with the final section on strategy for the UK general election due in
2010 at which socialists could make a breakthrough.
No cuts - nationalise banks and use bailout money
The enormous amount of borrowing undertaken by the New Labour
government (even during the boom and with an estimated £175 billion
this year excluding the bank bailout) has made it very difficult to
get anywhere near balancing the books assuming the capitalist economic
system is maintained. If the incoming government after the upcoming
general election doesn't make massive spending cuts and/or tax rises,
investors may lose confidence that they will ever get their money
back, hitting the value of the pound and its ability to continue
borrowing. If it does, that would probably tip the economy back into
recession and provoke massive opposition including demonstrations and
strikes, particularly if it was dishonest about the scale of attacks
on the jobs and living standards of ordinary people during the
election campaign.
The scale of the economic crisis in Britain, in which there has been a
longer recession than any other Western country despite the massive
stimulus package, is so severe due to previous Tory governments
decimating manufacturing and industries like coal and steel to try to
smash the trade unions, with the economy now relying on services
largely based in the City of London. After the run on Northern Rock
and subsequent nationalisation of it and other banks exposed the
failure of banking regulation, that looks foolhardy. This provides big
opportunities for the left, and the right if we fail to take advantage
of them, providing we put across our ideas skilfully, particularly
with respect to where we suggest the money should come from to avoid
the cuts planned by the mainstream parties. Whereas most socialists
oppose wars, Trident and ID cards, the scale of the economic problems
is too great for such savings to be sufficient.
Around £1.3 trillion (i.e. £1,300,000,000,000) of our money has been
spent by Labour on bailing out the banks. Socialists should argue
strongly for nationalising all the banks, but this would cost money
the government doesn't have unless we only compensate pension schemes.
This would allow whatever's left of the bank bailout money to be used
for the benefit of all, avoiding cuts. We should also argue for all
banks, whether currently nationalised, part-nationalised or private,
to be run democratically from below with most control in the hands of
borrowers and savers plus representatives on the boards of trade
unions and the government. Maybe this goes against the traditional
Marxist position of workers' control, but it seems clear that those
whose money is at stake should have more control than those who happen
to work at a particular bank. Now the European Union is forcing the
government to spend another £45 billion privatising the better parts
of the
nationalised banks, probably at knock-down prices - that capitalist
club would never allow the above measures so a socialist government
would need to withdraw (unless socialists come to power across Europe
at once).
Socialist carbon trading to tackle global warming
The upcoming summit in Copenhagen from 7-18 December 2009 (COP15) has
been billed as "the last best hope" to do something globally about
climate change. We should encourage our governments to take real
action, particularly to invest in renewable sources of energy such as
concentrating solar power (CSP) plants in deserts and tidal and wind
power, to both reduce the level of global warming and cut across the
divide-and-rule agenda whereby our rulers divide those deeply
concerned about climate change and those who put their own living
standards first and are sceptical about scientific claims. However, it
would be extremely naïve to expect them to cobble together an adequate
solution and the European Union's estimate of 100 billion euros a year
to fund poorer nations by 2020 (with the EU contributing a mere 7-10
billion euros with £1 billion from the UK and its planned start date
of 2013) does not appear to be adequate - and is chicken feed compared
to the
UK deficit and bank bailout figures mentioned above!
However, a People's Summit for Climate Justice in Copenhagen at the
same time will bring together activists, NGOs and indigenous people
from the global south. We should not limit ourselves to making demands
on capitalist leaders but suggest what we would do in power, as part
of the argument for changing society. Under capitalism, carbon trading
is a licence to pollute but in a mainly socialist world we would need
some mechanism to prevent escalating living standards threatening the
future of the planet. Then, allocating the same amount of carbon per
person anywhere in the world but allowing it to be traded would be a
good way for richer countries to subsidise green development in poorer
ones.
Alternative Vote - Labour's con-trick not PR
The 'alternative vote' (AV) system has been proposed by the Labour
Party for electing members to the House of Commons. With AV, voters
specify as many candidates as they like for their vote to be
transferred to if their earlier preferences are eliminated, until one
candidate gets over 50%.
New Labour politicians have justified it on the grounds that it would
make electoral successes more difficult for the British National Party
(BNP) due to the necessity of reaching 50% after transfers. AV favours
moderate parties and the left would suffer as well as the right.
Though sometimes called a form of proportional representation (PR), it
is not at all proportional; a study showed an even bigger Labour
landslide at the 1997 general election if conducted under AV!
Like the Electoral Reform Society and Liberal Democrats, I favour the
'single transferable vote' (STV) system. With it, there are multi-
member constituencies and votes are transferred if earlier preferences
are eliminated or get more votes than required to be elected. As well
as being fairer it gives voters the opportunity to choose between
candidates of the same party, removing power from party machines. No
need for the 'primaries' that the Tories have started introducing.
Under STV, Joe Higgins was elected in the Irish Republic, twice to the
Dáil and this year to the European Parliament, despite being in a
fairly small party (the Socialist Party), and other candidates to the
left of the mainstream parties achieved victories in local elections
across Ireland this year too. Keeping the left out is surely a
motivation of New Labour politicians rather than just the BNP.
A Daily Telegraph poll suggested that 22% of the electorate would
"seriously consider" voting BNP in the wake of BNP leader Nick
Griffin's appearance on Question time. However, we need to keep a
sense of proportion. The same poll showed that only 3% would vote BNP
if there was an election tomorrow! Media bias can of course give a
boost to fascism, and the ITV News the day after Griffin's appearance
only gave the large figure, and even more blatantly the following
day's Sun suggested that it was a setback for the BNP that two thirds
wouldn't vote for the BNP "under any circumstances" (the discrepancy
explained by don't knows) again without giving the 3% figure.
Due to the advantage a genuine form of PR such as STV gives to both
extremes, left and right, it looks very unlikely that the capitalist
parties will introduce it. Although STV remains a policy of the
Liberal Democrats, leader Nick Clegg has indicated he would not insist
on PR as a condition of entering a coalition government. We advocate
STV more as a policy that should be introduced after a socialist
revolution (alongside participatory democracy and internet referenda)
than a demand socialists can expect to win under capitalism.
Countering BNP arguments on immigration
Part of our strategy to defeat the BNP has to be countering their
arguments on immigration. Unfortunately, the left has usually only
made points without justifying them (like the SWP slogan "asylum
seekers welcome here") or used moral arguments (like "capital can move
anywhere in the world so why shouldn't workers") - good up to a point
but we need to think strategically about how to achieve our goals as
well.
It would be electoral suicide to call for 'open borders' on an
election leaflet without justifying such a position, and I would
suggest that people coming to the UK from all over the world with
their wealth of experiences helps radicalise people and, after helping
us foment revolution here, they can return and overthrow their leaders
back home! Once again, capitalist politicians are not going to
implement such a policy, so perhaps we should focus discussion and
arguments on what a socialist government should do in a mainly
capitalist world or a mainly or fully socialist world. Clearly we
would want visitors from overseas to experience socialism and learn
from us, but there remain questions I'm posing for debate.
Should immigrants receive benefits, even if they aren't granted
British citizenship? Arguably the inability of Eastern Europeans from
countries now in the EU to claim them has led to many returning home
when they can no longer find work, and if a government changed policy
on this it could give the BNP a big boost. It would of course be
inhuman to not give asylum seekers benefits, especially considering
they can't work legally. Should all residents (over a certain age
which I'd argue should be 16) be allowed to vote and stand for
election? I'd say yes.
Support call for new anti-capitalist party in Britain
The next general election (in June 2010 at the latest) is a great
opportunity for the left. We should take advantage of the hatred of
mainstream parties (saying our candidates would live on an average
constituent's wage would be popular in the wake of the expenses
scandal), bankers and the capitalist economic system generally. If we
argue socialist politics skilfully (with some ideas on this presented
above), we can win seats and maybe even hold the balance of power.
I have previously argued for a Democratic Revolutionary Socialist
Party (possibly with that name), advocating socialism with
proportional representation as well as participatory democracy and
possibly on-line referenda. Since this idea has not been taken up
(with most others less keen on PR and preferring broader initiatives)
but something similar to my suggestion of a revolutionary anti-
capitalist party (inspired by such a party in France) is taking off -
see www.anticapitalistparty.org.uk for details, including a Facebook
group which has attracted over 450 people and a rally on 14 November.
It should be discussed whether the party is to be openly
revolutionary, but it would be best with a fairly minimal programme,
encouraging individual candidates to put forward their own views and
vote according to what they really believe if elected, like
independents. The momentum against MPs lying and following party lines
is good!
Divisions on the left are unfortunate but unavoidable. Maybe this
initiative can bring in other significant forces, but we should seek
electoral pacts with the rest of the left including the Green Party to
avoid standing against each other.
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk[ Indian mirror
(containing same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve,
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,http://www.bebo..com/galaxiamusic
My socialist band, Red Day:
http://www.red-day.net,http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:14 am
|
|