SPEW Manifesto

[Lyev]

For fellow CWI-ers, or for just anyone interested. If anyone wants to debate the points, or discuss them that would be cool. Also, I know I'm a member a SPEW, but it would be cool if anyone wanted to try refute any of the manifesto. Thanks for taking to the time to have a quick look comrades.

It took me bloody ages to format this, so please take the time to just skim through

Link to this page: http://socialistparty.org.uk/issue/620/9370

The Socialist 14 April 2010

[FONT=Verdana]Socialist Party manifesto 2010


(Click to enlarge)

Fed up with New Labour, LibDems and Tories...

... axing our services,

... bailing out the bankers,

... swindling their MPs' expenses,

... supporting war in Afghanistan?

Vote socialist
We are living through the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. Although the economy, which shrunk by a massive 5% has now stuttered into growth, a further decline - a 'double dip' - is far from ruled out. So the 2010 general election comes at a decisive time. The British economy is still deep in crisis...who is expected to pay for it?


The Socialist Party is standing under the banner of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

Not the bankers! £1.2 trillion has been thrown at the banks, ringing up a colossal national debt. This has been greedily swallowed up and £6 billion was paid back out in Christmas bonuses alone!

Not big business fat cats! Despite massive lay-offs and redundancies many multinationals have continued to make record-breaking profits. Tesco boasted over £3 billion profit during the depths of the recession last year.

Not the top politicians! Tory Lord Ashcroft has millions stashed away in tax havens so barely pays any tax. MPs implored the rest of us to 'tighten our belts' after voting themselves a pay rise, taking their salary (excluding expenses) to a very comfortable £64,766 a year.

Rather, New Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all agree that working class people should pick up the tab for the bankers' mess.

Death by...10-25% cuts!

Grim reaper haunts NHS market reforms, photo Alison Hill

The 'public sector' is our services - hospitals, schools, council services and the jobs of hardworking public sector workers like nurses, teachers and bin workers. But public sector spending is the target of choice as the politicians try to bring down the huge government debt created by the bank bailouts and effects of the recession.

Working class people are viewed with such contempt that the establishment parties openly compete over who can promise the most severe cuts. Labour chancellor Alistair Darling has boasted that cuts will be 'deeper and tougher' than Thatcher's. The Conservatives say they will cut 'faster' than Darling and the Liberal Democrats call for 'savage' cuts.

Many people, particularly older workers, will be sickened at the thought of a Tory government. The memory of Thatcher's onslaught against workers in the 1980s is deeply ingrained. It is understandable that many will feel the need to go out, and through gritted teeth, vote New Labour in an effort to see off the Tories.

But this will not solve the lack of a political voice for working class people.

There is no fundamental difference between the attacks that a Tory government will inflict on us and the attacks a New Labour government will make. The 'lesser of two evils' is still 'evil' and we need something far better.

Sleaze and more sleaze
The political system is in crisis. Never have the politicians been so utterly discredited in the eyes of so many millions of people. In the last twelve months alone the MPs' expenses scandal, the Chilcott enquiry and the corporate lobbying scandal have rocked the country. The sheer scale of abuse is unprecedented and seeps from every party. The hypocrisy of Labour's election slogan 'a future fair for all' will be laughable to millions.

Workers and their families, students, pensioners and young people have been disenfranchised. The transformation of Labour into New Labour and its adoption of an exclusively pro-big business, pro-free market and anti-working class agenda explains the plummeting turnout in general elections.

But this is not apathy, this is anger. This is disillusionment. This is an outright rejection by a near majority of 'politics' as something they do to us.

We need a party that stands up for working class people.

Join the socialists!
Putting the millions before the billionaires!

Marching to defend the NHS (Click to enlarge)

Socialist policies
New Labour has allowed a massive increase in inequality. Conservative and LibDem policies show that they would have done the same if they were in office.

What would socialists do differently?

Work and Income
New Labour's record

• Maintained a poverty level minimum wage which continues to discriminate against young workers.
• Watched the gender pay gap increase so that women are earning on average 22.6% less than men.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

Unite and RMT trade unions protest over pay

• Trade union struggle to increase the minimum wage to £8 an hour without exemptions as an immediate step towards £10 an hour. For an annual increase in the minimum wage linked to average earnings.
• All workers including part-timers, temps, casual and migrant workers to have trade union rates of pay, employment protection, and sickness and holiday rights from day one of employment. Enforce equal pay.

Unemployment

Campaigners against youth unemployment from all over Wales converged on the Welsh Assembly on Wednesday to highlight the scourge of youth unemployment in Wales. , photo Sarah Mayo (Click to enlarge)

New Labour's record:

• Allowed unemployment to rise to nearly 2.5 million, officially 7.8%, but in reality much higher, particularly among the young.
• Claim to be tackling unemployment while making plans to sack 100,000+ of the government's own employees.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• No job cuts. Full employment through a massive programme of socially useful public works with a living wage of at least £8 an hour and a maximum 35-hour week.
• No cheap labour apprenticeships and unpaid internships. Guarantee at least the minimum wage and a job at the end.

Pensions and benefits

Workers and their families marched to Trafalgar Square on the trade union backed Save the Welfare State and Public Services demo, called by the National Pensioners Convention, photo Paul Mattsson (Click to enlarge)

New Labour's record:

• Launched a vicious propaganda campaign against the right of public sector employees to a decent pension after allowing private sector bosses to take pension contribution holidays and close virtually all final-salary pension schemes.
• Kept those kicked out of work in poverty with a measly £60 a week, even less for the under 25s.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• An immediate 50% increase in the state retirement pension, as a step towards a living pension. Reinstate the link with earnings now.
• Reject 'welfare to work'. For the right to decent benefits without compulsion or means testing.

Public services

Workers and their families marched to Trafalgar Square on the trade union backed Save the Welfare State and Public Services demo, called by the National Pensioners Convention, photo Paul Mattsson (Click to enlarge)

New Labour's record

• Spent £63 billion on PFI building contracts in the NHS, more than five times the value of the assets built.
• Introduced university tuition fees and then announced more than half a billion pounds worth of cuts to the higher education budget - pay more, for less!

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• A socialist NHS to provide for everyone's health needs, free at the point of use, in full public ownership and under democratic control.
• Free, publicly run, good quality education available at any age. Abolish tuition fees and introduce a living grant.

Housing
New Labour's record:

• Allowed house repossessions to reach a 14-year high, with 46,000 homes repossessed last year.
• Allowed the worst housing crisis since World War Two to develop with next to no council homes built while five million people wait for social housing.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• No repossessions. Nationalised banks should offer cheap loans and mortgages for housing.
• Keep council housing publicly owned. For a massive building programme of publicly owned housing to provide good housing with low rents.

Infrastructure
New Labour's record:

• Continued to subsidise private companies on the railways by nearly £5 billion last year while trying to wreck Royal Mail in the same way, through privatisation.
• Allowed energy corporate profits to soar. Gas and electric companies made profit of £105 per customer on average last year.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• A democratically planned, low fare, publicly owned transport system. Renationalise the railways and the buses.
• End fuel poverty. Cut fuel bills immediately. Take the gas and electric companies into public ownership.

Democracy and sleaze

Clean out the dirty big business politicians - Walthamstow Socialist Party, photo S. Kimmerle

New Labour's record:

• Whatever they like! Whether it is going to war or privatising public services, the government has ignored the views of those who elected them.
• Stuck their noses in the trough. MPs from all three establishment parties have been claiming dodgy expenses on top of their generous £64,766 per year salaries.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• No MP to receive more than the average wage of a worker, to be re-elected every two years, to be accountable and subject to recall and to have their expenses open to the scrutiny of their constituents.
• Abolish the House of Lords.
• Introduce a democratic form of proportional representation.

The banks

Oliver Twist banks - Please sir, can I have some more?, photo www.squashdonkey.co.uk

New Labour's record:

• Continued the Tories' policies of deregulating the City - allowing the banks and finance companies to do whatever they like.
• When this resulted in a collapse of the banking system, taxpayers' money was used to underwrite the banks to the tune of £1.2 trillion.
• Allowed most of the 'banksters' to remain in charge and to continue claiming huge salaries.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• Nationalise all the banks on the basis of democratic public ownership. Compensation to shareholders only on the basis of proven need.
• End city fat cats' bonuses, golden parachutes, and gold-plated pensions.
• For a socialist government to exercise a monopoly of foreign trade, as a means of controlling all imports and exports including capital movements. No 'flight of capital'.
• Reject the diktats of the ratings agencies, the European Central Bank and other unaccountable and unelected international finance bodies. For international workers' solidarity and economic planning across borders.

The economy
New Labour's record:

• Doing the bidding of the giant corporations, banks and finance companies.
• Like the Tories, overseeing the destruction of manufacturing industry, so that it now makes up just 13% of Britain's GDP.
• Let companies - such as Bosch, Vestas, Visteon, Woolworths and many more - throw their workforces on the scrap heap.

What the Socialist Party calls for:

• Open the books of the major companies that dominate the economy; let popular committees of workers, trade unionists and consumer groups see where the profits have gone.
• For a socialist government to take into public ownership the top 150 companies that dominate the British economy, to be run under democratic working class control and management. Compensation to shareholders only on the basis of proven need.
• A democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people and in a way that safeguards the environment.

How would we pay for all this?
The top politicians and fat cats would have us believe that socialist policies are unrealistic and unaffordable. But there is more than enough wealth and potential wealth in society to bring in the policies we have outlined.

The 100 richest individuals in the UK have a combined personal wealth of over £250 billion. Just £90 billion of this would solve the so-called 'structural deficit' of the UK at a stroke.

Big business would squeal that they could never afford to pay so much, but they are happy that we should pay - with longer working hours, worse working conditions and cuts in public services. It is the logic of the market - of capitalism - that dictates that cuts in public services and workers' living conditions are the only way forward. But we do not accept the logic of a system that is driven by profit and greed rather than meeting people's needs.

The Socialist Party is fighting for every possible improvement in working-class people's lives. The last year has shown that where workers fight back, victories can be won.

Nonetheless, we recognise that under this profit-hungry capitalist system, we will always face a constant struggle to defend and improve our living conditions. That is why we fight for socialist change.

Socialism
All of the policies outlined here are only the first steps towards constructing a new type of society. Modern capitalism has created riches and innovations beyond the wildest dreams of our grandparents and great-grandparents.

Yet we are constantly being told that we have no choice but to accept erosion of our quality of life, increased poverty, worsening public services and longer working hours.

Capitalism's limits
Humanity is capable of space exploration, has mapped the human genome, and can recreate the conditions of the big bang in the Hadron Collider.
Yet the world cannot be fed on the basis of capitalism. For most of human history it has not been possible to satisfy even the most basic human needs for everyone on the planet.

Now, as a result of the labour and ingenuity of working people, the potential exists to eliminate want forever. The barrier to achieving this is the capitalist system itself.

Based as it is on the private ownership of the economy, capitalism creates immense inequality and deprivation when the potential exists for providing a decent life for all.

A socialist government would take the big corporations, which dominate Britain's economy, into democratic public ownership, under workers' control and management, in order to plan the development of society for need instead of profit. This would only be possible with the active support of the majority of working people.

A genuine socialist government would not take into public ownership small businesses, such as local shops, many of which are currently forced out of business by banks withholding credit and by the competition of the multinationals.

Nor would it, as opponents of socialism claim, stand for the taking away of personal 'private property'. On the contrary, socialists are in favour of everyone having the right to a decent home and the other conveniences of modern life.

Making socialist ideas a reality: Organising and fighting back
The Socialist Party does not expect to be able to persuade the fat cats and the pro-big business politicians of the error of their ways. Working class people need to get organised to make change happen.

For fighting, democratic trade unions
The trade unions, vilified in the media, are the largest, democratic, voluntary organisations in the country. They are the first line of defence when workers are attacked.

Nearly seven million workers are members of trade unions. These organisations need to be strengthened and expanded as workers resist increasing numbers of attacks. The number of high profile industrial disputes in the past twelve months shows this process is beginning.

The Socialist Party campaigns in the trade unions for the election of trade union leaders who stand up in the interests of their members.

Fearful of the potential power of the trade unions to defend workers, New Labour has maintained the Tory anti-trade union laws, the most draconian in western Europe. The usefulness to the bosses of these laws was demonstrated in the recent British Airways cabin crew and Rail, Maritime and Transport union disputes. The courts were used to overturn the democratic decision of thousands of workers to take strike action.

The trade union movement needs to put the repeal of these laws at the top of the agenda. Socialists are not in favour of unnecessarily putting the resources of trade unions at risk; however, there are occasions where, on the basis of careful preparation, the anti-trade union laws need to be defied.

If trade unions are then threatened with sequestration the whole of the trade union movement needs to be mobilised in their support. The construction workers' strikes last year gave a glimpse of how - if a movement is powerful enough - these draconian laws can be swept aside.

The Socialist Party calls for:

• Scrap the anti-trade union laws!
• For trade union members having democratic control over their own policies, constitutions and democratic procedures. For all officials to be elected, subject to recall and paid only a worker's wage.
• For unionisation drives in areas such as call centres, hospitality and retail, including among young and migrant workers.

For a new mass workers' party
Unless we are organised politically as well as in trade unions, we will constantly be fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. The majority of trade unions still fund New Labour, yet the government is kicking workers in the teeth.

We argue for the trade unions to break the link with New Labour and to use their funds to build a new mass workers' party to draw together all those opposed to, and fighting against, the policies of the bosses' parties. To be effective such a party will need to adopt a bold socialist programme. We call on the few socialists in the Labour Party to leave and join us in the building of a genuine working class party.

The Socialist Party initiated, with others, the Campaign for a New Workers' Party (www.cnwp.org.uk). Building on this good start, the first significant step towards such a party was made in June last year in the European elections with the No2EU-Yes to Democracy coalition. Importantly, this had the backing of the RMT trade union. Many of the constituent groups are working together in this election with the formation of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition.

The Socialist Party calls for:

• A new mass workers' party drawing together workers, young people and activists from workplace, community, environmental and anti-war campaigns, to provide a fighting, political alternative to the pro-big business parties.
• Labour Party affiliated trade unions to disaffiliate from the Labour Party now and aid the building of a new workers' party.
• Unaffiliated unions to use their political funds to support anti-cuts election candidates and to aid the building of a new workers' party.

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition



The Socialist Party is standing under the banner of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC - www.tusc.org.uk). Again, RMT branches are at the forefront of building TUSC, standing their own candidates in some areas. Leading figures, such as Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT and Brian Caton, general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association have given wholehearted support in a personal capacity.

TUSC is an important step towards offering a genuine alternative for the most militant and combative sections of workers and working class communities. After the general election, and regardless of the vote, the Socialist Party will work to see TUSC, or any new and expanded formation, continue to develop as an alternative pole of attraction for workers and young people.

Join the Socialist Party
The Socialist Party has a proud record. Our branches around the country involve themselves in the day-to-day struggles of working-class people, from campaigning to keep schools and libraries open, to supporting demands for more regular bin collections.

Our members in the trade unions and workplaces are among the most militant in campaigning and organising to improve the pay and conditions of workers. Our young members organise in campaigns and groups like Youth Fight for Jobs, Socialist Students and Youth Against Racism in Europe to help young people fight for their future.

International
Our struggle does not stop at the shores of Britain. Capitalism is an international economic system. Multinational companies exploit the entire world in the pursuit of profit. Accordingly the struggle for socialism is an international one.

We are affiliated to the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI, www.socialistworld.net) which organises in more than 40 countries worldwide. We stand in solidarity with the workers and oppressed of the world in the struggle against poverty, terrorism and war and for a socialist world.

A new workers' party, while crucial, is not the end of the struggle to change society, but an important part of it. On the basis of a democratically planned economy the vast wealth created by workers, the development of production, knowledge, science and technology could promise humanity a bright future. But first we must organise ourselves to end capitalism.

The Socialist Party is made up of people like you - of workers, pensioners, students and young people. We organise democratically and everyone's contribution is valued no matter how great or how small. To get rid of this rotten capitalist system, the cause of so much suffering the world over, and to bring about the socialist future, we need you!

If you agree with this manifesto, then join the fight for socialism - join the Socialist Party.

Socialists: Fighting back!

Socialists: fighting back

Ordinary people have not just accepted the bosses' attacks lying down. Last year cleaners in the HQ of a City broker formed a trade union and fought a successful battle for a pay rise from the minimum wage to £7.20 an hour.

In 2009 unemployed and Socialist Party youth formed the campaign Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ) to organise the increasing numbers of unemployed young people. Winning support from major trade unions, YFJ has three successful national demonstrations under its belt.

This year, more than 200,000 mainly low-paid government workers in job centres, tax offices, vehicle licensing and other civil service departments have staged strikes against an attack on their redundancy pay. These workers are organised in the PCS civil servants' trade union, within which the Socialist Party plays a leading role.

There has also been the action of the British Airways cabin crew against union hostile BA boss Willie Walsh and ballots for industrial action by railway workers to defend the safety of the railways.

Students at Sussex University along with their lecturers have staged strike action, occupations and mass protests to try to reverse the management's attack on jobs and courses. The Socialist Party supported all these struggles.

Environment
The UN Climate Panel predicts a temperature increase of six degrees within a century. Already today, 300,000 deaths every year are related to the direct or indirect effects of climate change.

The capitalist politicians' absolute failure to make any progress on tackling the environmental crisis is breathtaking. But socialists are not surprised by this failure. On the basis of the market, and as long as the profit motive rules, the problem cannot be solved.

While pro-big business politicians are happy to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes etc, they have no real solutions to the problems of the environment. The unwillingness of the Green parties in Britain and around the world to be prepared to break with capitalism has often led them to end up in alliances with the bosses' parties.

The profit motive prevents the adoption of environmentally sustainable practices. To seriously tackle climate change and other environmental problems we need international economic planning and socialist policies. This is the only way of eradicating the huge waste and pollution inherent in capitalist production.

The Socialist Party calls for:

• Major research and investment into replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and into ending the problems of early obsolescence and unrecycled waste.
• Public ownership of the energy generating industries. No to nuclear power.

Afghanistan
The war in Afghanistan is already nearly a decade old. The loss of life of the Afghan people is horrific and getting worse. The death rate among British troops is escalating, with more than 280 killed since the conflict began.

Many generals talk about an open-ended conflict. Afghan civilians live without access to basic amenities like clean water and electricity. Unemployment is rife. This is deplorable. The Socialist Party has campaigned against the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning.

The working class men and women fighting in the British army should be brought home immediately. This does not mean we accept that Afghanistan should be left to the reactionary Taliban and corrupt Karzai government.
The track record of the US and British governments, and their support for corrupt puppet politicians and warlords, shows that their agenda is about control of resources, power and prestige. Socialists believe in international working class solidarity.

Through international campaigns, the trade union movement and the Committee for a Workers' International we campaign for the right of the people of Afghanistan to decide their own future. We campaign against the corrupt elites and call for a workers' and peasants' government.

The Socialist Party says:

• No to imperialist wars and occupations. Withdraw the troops immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Say no to the racist BNP
The far-right, racist British National Party (BNP) claims that it is on the side of working people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wherever its councillors have been elected, the BNP has voted for cuts. In Barking the BNP didn't only vote for the New Labour council's cuts, they proposed extra cuts of their own.

Since BNP leader Nick Griffin was elected to the European parliament (less than a year ago) he has claimed £200,000 in expenses, in addition to his £82,000 salary! So much for standing up for working-class people!
The BNP is a racist party that lays the blame for the problems local communities face - poor housing, privatisation and council service cuts - at the door of ethnic minorities and asylum seekers. This is made easy for the BNP. After all, the rightwing tabloid press regularly stoop to this kind of propaganda. The establishment parties sometimes also attempt to cut across the BNP by echoing their ideas - which instead only fuels them.
By whipping up racism the BNP diverts blame from the real culprits behind the problems of working-class communities - big business, the government and local councils. And when the BNP has been elected it has done nothing to fight for the local people it claims to represent.

The Socialist Party says:

• No to the racist and divisive BNP! For a united struggle for decent jobs, homes and services.
• Oppose discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, disability, sexuality, age, and all other forms of prejudice.
• Defend the right to asylum

Workers' MPs on a worker's wage
The parliamentary system operates so those involved live a rarefied and distant life from those who elected them. Even before expenses, MPs' wages put them in the top 10% of earners.

Expenses put them in the top 6%! Socialists believe that 'representatives' should be just that - representatives. Their living conditions should reflect those of the people who elected them. They should be just as angry as the rest of us about the threat of anti-working class policies such as university fees, privatisation and job cuts.

The Socialist Party requires all of its candidates to commit, if elected, to only taking the average wage of a worker. In the 1980s, Militant, the predecessor of the Socialist Party, had three MPs, all of whom took only a worker's wage. Our councillors and trade union representatives take only strictly necessary expenses, needed to carry out the tasks they were elected to do.

The Socialist Party is standing under the banner of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC - www.tusc.org.uk).

Committee for a Workers' International
THE COMMITTEE for a Workers' International (CWI) is the socialist international organisation to which the Socialist Party is affiliated.

The CWI is organised in, 40 countries and works to unite the working class and oppressed peoples against global capitalism and to fight for a socialist world.

For more details including CWI, publications write to: CWI, PO Box 3688, London E11 1YE.

Email: [email protected].

www.socialistworld.net[/FONT]

Thanks again.

[bailey_187]

With this TUSC, is it going to end after the general election?

The problem is, there always these alliances (No2EU, Socialist Alliance etc) that seem to end quickly. Why? How do they expect to go anywhere

[FSL]

Why are you calling for part-time workers to have things like "sickness rights". Not that sickness rights are a bad thing. Part-time work is. Especially since it's usually done by students who can't afford otherwise or people who can't find real jobs and must make ends meet with half a salary. It just seems too moderate, calling for a non-flexible labor market should be up there with your demands, anyone's demands (having a labor market is bad enough).

Also, nationalizing the top 150 companies. Since it's the UK we're talking that would leave many, many companies with huge resourses and personnel in the hundreds in private hands. Is that necessary?

[Tower of Bebel]

I'm happy to see that trade unionists should also work on a worker's wage. This is a democratic and political demand foremost since genuine socialists should not have any material interest in the continuation of capitalism.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Part-time work is. Especially since it's usually done by students who can't afford otherwise or people who can't find real jobs and must make ends meet with half a salary.

It's a transitional demand and it recognises the fact that (as you imply yourself) many workers do part-time work by choice. All part-time workers should have conditions in line with full-time workers

Also, nationalizing the top 150 companies. Since it's the UK we're talking that would leave many, many companies with huge resourses and personnel in the hundreds in private hands. Is that necessary?

Again a transitional demand - the top 150 companies control about 90% of the economy and would be sufficient to ensure proper democratic planning of the economy. This is not to say that other companies would not be nationalised as and when necessary (or when the companies workers would consider it appropriate) but it recognises that fact that it is not necessary to nationalise everything that moves to have a socialist planned economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm happy to see that trade unionists should also work on a worker's wage. This is a democratic and political demand foremost since genuine socialists should not have any material interest in the continuation of capitalism.

1) Bob Crow doesn't have a skilled workers wage at all.
2) Although I modified my "private-sector collective bargaining representation as a free legal service" to include government compensation there on average skilled workers' levels, where is that demand aimed at? Is it a call for the state to regulate trade union pay? If, on the other hand, it's aimed directly at the trade unions, how can it be political given that it isn't aimed at the broader society?

[Raightning]

1) Bob Crow doesn't have a skilled workers wage at all.

To be fair, Crow's not a Socialist Party member, only of the TUSC (although the man's a reactionary in awkardist clothing anyway), and this isn't a TUSC document.

[FSL]

Again a transitional demand - the top 150 companies control about 90% of the economy and would be sufficient to ensure proper democratic planning of the economy.

Pretty sure that's impossible. Any data?

Basically, nationalizing 150 companies would leave you where China is today. If that.

[Q]

Pretty sure that's impossible. Any data?

I was unable to find any data on the UK, but Forbes says this about the globe:

The Forbes Global 2000 is a categorization of the largest publicly listed companies in the world. Together they employ 72 million people, own $119 trillion in assets, and generate $30 trillion in revenues annually – approximately 46% of world GDP.

While the UK is a more developed economy than the "average" in the world, I also think 90% is a bit high for a number. I would rather think something along the lines of 70%. I also would like to see some data.

Basically, nationalizing 150 companies would leave you where China is today. If that.

Correct. While "democratic control" is aired quite a few times in the piece, it doesn't explain why this is necessary or how it would function. Under the heading "Democracy and sleaze" the piece puts forwards three demands:

- No MP to receive more than the average wage of a worker, to be re-elected every two years, to be accountable and subject to recall and to have their expenses open to the scrutiny of their constituents.
- Abolish the House of Lords.
- Introduce a democratic form of proportional representation.

All good and well, but is that it? The Netherlands and Israel are two countries with near-perfect proportional representation. Yet these countries are both very capitalist.

The lack of call for any kind of political hegemony of the working class in the form of extending democracy far beyond the parliament is perhaps the most important omission in the piece and makes the overall programme more Trade Unionist than Socialist.

I wonder why this was omitted. Isn't it our task to try and elevate political awareness within the workers movement? Doesn't a sole focus on economistic ("trade unionist") demands reinforce illusions in the state (for example: the demand to nationalise x, y and z by the state)?

That said, I do think it is a good platform for struggle, with demands that can reinforce the movement and organise new layers of workers. This is certainly a strong point overall.

[Tower of Bebel]

Q, to be fair, even a "more democratic proportional" system could benefit the British left a lot. The current system in both the UK and the US keeps any alternative out of parliament. An alternative in both the broad and narrow (c.f. CWI-speak) sense. But I wrote could, not would, because the left could always screw up.

1) Bob Crow doesn't have a skilled workers wage at all.
2) Although I modified my "private-sector collective bargaining representation as a free legal service" to include government compensation there on average skilled workers' levels, where is that demand aimed at? Is it a call for the state to regulate trade union pay? If, on the other hand, it's aimed directly at the trade unions, how can it be political given that it isn't aimed at the broader society?

Yes, bassically - as you say - the worker's wage demand should be general, i.e. aimed at society as a whole. This one isn't (see also the debate on nationalization and what kind of political, democratic response is needed to avert another "national socialism"), but I'm happy 'cause it's still a step forward compared to TUSC.

Another possible problem is the role of Crow. TUSC keeps people on board who propably wont be able to persuade their unions to join the campaign. Even with the concessions both the SWP and the SPEW have made . In the end most "trade unionists" will turn out to be the "usual suspects".

[Jolly Red Giant]

While the UK is a more developed economy than the "average" in the world, I also think 90% is a bit high for a number. I would rather think something along the lines of 70%. I also would like to see some data.

I am sure the data is available somewhere - the key message the piece is trying to get across is that a very small number of individuals and companies control the economy and taking this section of capitalist society into public ownership would facilitate democratic soclialist planning.

All good and well, but is that it? The Netherlands and Israel are two countries with near-perfect proportional representation. Yet these countries are both very capitalist.

The key demand here is the one for MP's to be paid a workers wage. Also there is no such thing as a 'near-perfect' - they all have anomolies and are manipulated by the bourgeoisie - the key issue again in this demand is the democratic nature

Correct. While "democratic control" is aired quite a few times in the piece, it doesn't explain why this is necessary or how it would function. Under the heading "Democracy and sleaze" the piece puts forwards three demands:

The lack of call for any kind of political hegemony of the working class in the form of extending democracy far beyond the parliament is perhaps the most important omission in the piece and makes the overall programme more Trade Unionist than Socialist.

I wonder why this was omitted. Isn't it our task to try and elevate political awareness within the workers movement? Doesn't a sole focus on economistic ("trade unionist") demands reinforce illusions in the state (for example: the demand to nationalise x, y and z by the state)?

In terms of all three of these comments - this is a small election manifesto/leaflet - it is not a detailed explanation of socialist policies or how a socialist society would operate. It is designed as an introduction to socialist ideas and contains basic transitional demands that are addressed specifically at the election. It would be a mistake to over-analyse its content without keeping this in mind.

[Q]

I am sure the data is available somewhere - the key message the piece is trying to get across is that a very small number of individuals and companies control the economy and taking this section of capitalist society into public ownership would facilitate democratic soclialist planning.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that we would have a stronger argument when we can back it up. Just saying the 150 top companies comprise of 90% of the economy, while in fact it is less then that comes over as rather silly, no?

The key demand here is the one for MP's to be paid a workers wage. Also there is no such thing as a 'near-perfect' - they all have anomolies and are manipulated by the bourgeoisie - the key issue again in this demand is the democratic nature

Compared with the UK the Netherlands and Israel certainly have a "near-perfect" proportional system. Of course the bourgeoisie tries to influence things in their favor, mainly using the media.

I agree with Rakunin that the introduction of a PR system in the UK would relatively be a huge step forward, but I think it would be confusing to not put it in a broader context of how we understand socialist democracy as contrasted to bourgeois democracy.

In terms of all three of these comments - this is a small election manifesto/leaflet - it is not a detailed explanation of socialist policies or how a socialist society would operate. It is designed as an introduction to socialist ideas and contains basic transitional demands that are addressed specifically at the election. It would be a mistake to over-analyse its content without keeping this in mind.

The point I was trying to make is that exactly in an election pamphlet we should drive home the point that bourgeois democracy is extremely limited and make the point that we fight for a political hegemony of the working class, the vast majority of society, as a prerequisite to socialism.

Limiting ourselves to merely trade unionist demands is wasting an opportunity. We have the opening now to explain why we're better than "the good old days" of Labour, why we transcend that. These demands don't.

[FSL]

the key message the piece is trying to get across is that a very small number of individuals and companies control the economy and taking this section of capitalist society into public ownership would facilitate democratic soclialist planning.

Looking at FTSE 250 I saw that pretty much every company there has not hundreds but thousands of employess. So the message I'm getting is that you could own stocks of a gigantic capitalist company in a country ruled by communists.

So what's different than say Old Labor in UK's case?

And by the way, freedom of movement for capital is one of the key points in the Maastricht treaty. Would you support a withdrawal from it? Basically from the EU then? Otherwise, that part about controlling foreign trade and preventing capital flight is pretty null.

[Crux]

And by the way, freedom of movement for capital is one of the key points in the Maastricht treaty. Would you support a withdrawal from it? Basically from the EU then? Otherwise, that part about controlling foreign trade and preventing capital flight is pretty null.

Well, we stand for the dismantling of the EU on a european scale.

[Raightning]

Looking at FTSE 250 I saw that pretty much every company there has not hundreds but thousands of employess. So the message I'm getting is that you could own stocks of a gigantic capitalist company in a country ruled by communists.

So what's different than say Old Labor in UK's case?

I'd imagine the difference is that 'Old Labour' accepted the foolish idea that the state can have any control over the means of production without total control over the commanding heights - and this is talking about the Attleean party, at that.

Once in power, for a brief period the party aimed for a gradual program of nationalisation (and they basically halted this after about 20% of the economy was in public hands, speaking of 'responsible capitalism' and how the capitalists now were working in the national interest). They did not see nationalisation as 1) an immediate necessity or 2) a means towards central planning, just something to ensure the capitalist economy runs more efficiently. When it was in the capitalist interest to own something, they owned it; this is rather the basis for the 'consensus' between 1950 and 1980, after which far stupider and greedy men set the economic tone.

The difference between that and the CWI view is that the CWI know that large-scale capitalism must be crushed, and quickly. I'd also venture that this would mean seizing control of said companies rather than the negotiation and 'deals' that reformists have a horrible history of when dealing with 'nationalisation' of any sort. Again, I reserve judgement on how realistic that is with the group's tactics and outlook, but that's the essential difference that separates CWI socialism and 'Old Labour' social-plutocracy.

That, and a belief in worker's control and so on, are probably the main difference between SPEW policy and the old Labour policies, although I'd be happy to be corrected if I've missed or misrepresented something.

[FSL]

Well, we stand for the dismantling of the EU on a european scale.

So no withdrawal and therefore, no control of foreign trade and prevention of capital flight until then?

[FSL]

The difference between that and the CWI view is that the CWI know that large-scale capitalism must be crushed, and quickly.

Which is why leaving companies with thousands of employees in private hands seems too moderate. Unless you define large-scale capitalism to be only of Wal-Mart size.

[Crux]

So no withdrawal and therefore, no control of foreign trade and prevention of capital flight until then?

Well, no not really, all I am saying is that we have an all-european strategy.

[Raightning]

Which is why leaving companies with thousands of employees in private hands seems too moderate. Unless you define large-scale capitalism to be only of Wal-Mart size.

The intention I imagine is that eventually those companies outside the top 150 would be brought into collective ownership; it's just a matter of seizing a definitive public role, and eliminating the corporate vanguard who would be sizable and strong enough to oppose the implementation of a socialist policy.

The CWI's policies here, as in many cases, seem to be based on countering counter-revolution. All the parasites must be dethroned eventually; as I've read it, the policies they're setting out here are based on building conditions where that's even vaguely possible.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Q, to be fair, even a "more democratic proportional" system could benefit the British left a lot. The current system in both the UK and the US keeps any alternative out of parliament. An alternative in both the broad and narrow (c.f. CWI-speak) sense. But I wrote could, not would, because the left could always screw up.

Well said. In the Anglo countries, there would be at least moves to form something similar to Die Linke.

However, it should be party-recallable, closed-list, and pure. For example, a girl studying sociology, Yvonne Ploetz, replaced Oskar Lafontaine - while USPD-praising Dietmar Bartsch has become Gregor Gysi's right-hand (or left-hand) clapping man after the Lafontaine fiasco.

Yes, basically - as you say - the worker's wage demand should be general, i.e. aimed at society as a whole. This one isn't (see also the debate on nationalization and what kind of political, democratic response is needed to avert another "national socialism"), but I'm happy 'cause it's still a step forward compared to TUSC.

To be fair to SPEW, the Workers Party of America also calls for "No union official to be paid more than the average wage of their membership."

Did you read my recent article "Socio-Income Democracy, Part II"? Although what is posed there is perhaps a threshold demand, it would enable plebiscites on establishing average skilled workers' compensation levels for trade union officials.

Going the transitory action platformism route of Krichevskii (not aimed at society as a whole), however, means that the workers wage demand in unions should already be in the "Purely Economic Agitation" phase and not in the latter ones.