All the same it was
revealing. The LibDems and Labour (represented by another city councillor)
droned out the usual boring stuff about what they plan to do to reduce the
deficit, balance the budget, etc but they were able to put one over on the
Green Party candidate when she tried (and failed) to explain her party's
currency crank view that the banks presently create money out of thin air and
should not be allowed to.
TUSC is pathetic.
Their basic position is just "NO CUTS" but they feel compelled to act
as the other political parties and present a "fully costed" programme.
Apparently the money is there, if you tax the rich and nationalize the banks,
to invest in building a million new council houses, restore the cuts, and
implement immediately a £10 an hour minumum wage. This, their candidate
claimed, would "kick-start" the economy. They're basically Old Labour
reformists. In fact he said that up until the 60s and 70s the Labour Party was
the party of the workers.
Naturally, our
candidate Oxford East candidate, Kevin Parkin, explained that we don't have an
economic policy as we don't want to manage the capitalist economy nor think
that it can be managed and that the only way out was a socialist society based
on common ownership, democratic control, production for use, and free access. The
contrast with TUSC's reformism couldn't have been greater.
Meanwhile, the Oxford
Student newspaper submitted questions to the candidates of Oxford West and
Abingdon, and Mike Foster answered them thus.
1) How has the
campaign been going so far?
The Socialist Party is standing two candidates in Oxford;
Kevin Parkin in Oxford East and myself in Oxford West and Abingdon. We’ve
attended many hustings events, which have given us the opportunity to voice an
alternative to the status quo. I’ve been impressed by the interesting
discussion raised, and how the organisers have allowed a fair hearing for both
the candidates and the audience. We’ve also been invited to give our views to
several local groups, publications and in schools. We’re grateful to those who
are supporting the campaign, especially the Communist Corresponding Society
discussion group. The campaign isn’t really about me as a candidate, it’s more
about presenting a point of view. Personally, though, I’ve enjoyed the
challenge so far.
2) What would you be
able to offer Oxford West and Abingdon that other candidates can’t?
I’m not standing in this election to make promises about
what I would do if I was elected. This is because the role of an MP doesn’t
really represent or work for the benefit of its constituents. The state, and
the very way that our society is put together, can’t be made to work in the
interests of the vast majority of people. MPs who start out with good
intentions about reforms and representing their constituents soon get stifled
by cumbersome bureaucracy and made to follow vested interests or the dictates
of the elite. MPs who don’t start out with good intentions probably have an
easier job. If you vote for the Socialist Party, you wouldn’t be voting to put
me in that position, thankfully. Instead, you’d be making the point that the
whole system which we live under has to be replaced.
3) What do you think
the main issues affecting people in your constituency at the moment?
One issue which has been raised by several people at
hustings events has been local planning developments, especially for housing.
The Socialist Party doesn’t have policies on particular issues like this
because we reject the current framework in which decisions are made. Instead,
our role is to point out the circumstances in which problems over planning
arise. Decisions like where to build houses are shaped by what makes most money
for developers. This means that new houses are more likely to be sold on at a
high price, rather than for less lucrative social housing schemes. Financial
interests have more influence than the needs and wishes of the community or
safeguarding the environment. There’s not much room for democracy in this
framework either. Decisions are made by distant, unaccountable executives,
while campaign groups and local people have to struggle just to make their
opinions heard. Any solutions attempted by MPs can’t change this situation. So,
whichever party is elected, problems over planning are likely to be on the
agenda at the next general election.
4) What do you think
are currently the biggest issues faced by students within Oxford, and how would
you try to address this?
Economic forces have always shaped universities, but the
last twenty years have seen an increasing marketisation of higher education.
The cost of paying tuition fees and student loans prevents many people from
going to university, while those who do become students end up thousands of
pounds in debt. So, financial concerns must be one of the biggest issues faced
by students, and were prominent in the Oxford University Student Union General
Election Manifesto. The state can no longer afford to subsidise education as
much as before, so there is limited scope for any increases to funding. Parties
campaigning for change within the system have to ensure that any reforms fit in
with what the economy allows.
The Socialist Party argues that the system itself doesn’t
work in the interests of the vast majority of us. This is because society’s
infrastructure is owned and managed by an elite. So, we have to buy what we
need and want from them, and what we get depends on how much money we have. If
society was owned and run by the community as a whole, then we could have free
access to education, and all other services and goods.
5) What can your party
offer students that other parties can’t?
The Socialist Party aims to build the number of socialists –
through debate, publicity, the spoken and written word, social networking – and
organisation. We work together democratically and co-operatively to advocate a
new society.
6) For students who
aren’t fully aware of your party and your policies; how does your party differ
in ideals from other left wing parties?
The word ‘socialism’ has several different definitions,
depending on who’s using the word. The Socialist Party has kept the same
meaning since it was formed in 1904, with other groups later using it in
different ways.
For us, socialism means a society where resources,
industries and services are owned and managed not by corporations or states, but
by the whole community. This would involve converting or replacing existing
organisations to make them democratically run. Instead of being employed, we
would work co-operatively and voluntarily directly to benefit the community,
without the waste and financial interests of our current system. As society’s
infrastructure would be owned in common, there would be no need for buying and
selling. People would have free access to all the goods and services they need
and want. Other parties use a definition of socialism which involves retaining
the economy and the state, which we say would mean that an elite was still in
charge.
The word ‘socialism’ also refers to the political route to a
different society. This marks another difference between ourselves and other
parties calling themselves socialist. They say that society can be made to run
in the majority’s interest by changing legislation (especially to give more
power to the state) and redirecting public funding. We say that this approach
can’t work because the economic system won’t allow it. People have campaigned
for higher wages, more funding for the NHS and reductions in pollution for
decades, but the same problems keep coming back. Any reforms have to fit in
with how the economy works, and therefore they can’t fundamentally change it.
Instead, the economic system itself needs to go, along with the current
political system. This could only happen if the vast majority of people
worldwide wanted it and worked for it. Such an undertaking could only be possible
(and legitimate) if it was organised democratically, equally and without
leaders. And this marks another difference between the Socialist Party and
other so-called socialist parties. They have a leadership structure and aren’t
fully democratic, which we say means that they can’t really be revolutionary.
The Socialist Party doesn’t have leaders; all its decisions are made by
elected, accountable groups or by the whole membership. We believe that this
kind of structure points the way to a future society where all organisations
are democratic.
Because of these differences, the Socialist Party doesn’t
call itself a left wing party. We’re certainly not right wing either! Instead,
we’re a revolutionary party.
No comments:
Post a Comment