alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You may well be right, ALB, but as our Kids Stuff viseo says, it is the working class that pays for the mistakes of the capitalists. Maybe that should be the main socialist message to make. Only a small fraction of the €240bn (£170bn) total bailout money Greece received in 2010 and 2012 found its way into the government’s coffers to soften the blow of the 2008 financial crash and fund reform programmes. Most of the money went to the banks that lent Greece funds before the crash.Unlike most of Europe, which ran up large budget deficits to protect pensioners and welfare recipients, Athens was then forced to dramatically reduce its deficit by squeezing pensions and cutting the minimum wage.The troika of lenders first stepped in during the spring of 2010 after Athens could no longer afford to finance €310bn borrowed from a wide range of major European banks. Two years later, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European commission and European Central Bank (ECB) came up with a second bailout that centred on a €100bn debt write-off by private sector lenders. Private bondholders saw the value of their bonds drop by 53% and took a further loss by exchanging the debt for securities with a lower interest rate. This eliminated about €100bn of debt, but €34bn was used to pay for various “sweeteners” to get the the deal accepted. That €34bn was added to the Greek debt. Greek pension funds, which were major private lenders, also suffered terrible losses. Then €48.2bn was used to bail out Greek banks which had been forced to take losses, weakening their ability to protect themselves and depositors. Lastly, €140bn has been spent on paying the original debts and interest.Less than 10% of the bailout money was left to be used by the government for reforming its economy and safeguarding weaker members of society.Greek government debt is still about €320bn, 78% of it owed to the troika. As the Jubilee Debt Campaign says: “The bailouts have been for the European financial sector, while passing the debt from being owed to the private sector to the public sector.”http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/29/where-did-the-greek-bailout-money-go
I just read Steve Keen on Greece. He is not returning to his version of credit creation but he does talk about "democracy" in action.
Quote:Firstly they designed a system which would only work if capitalism never had crises. Secondly, when a crisis hit, rather than backpedalling on their flawed rules, they doubled up on them. Then, when the people had the temerity to elect a government which opposed their agenda… Well it’s obvious, isn’t it? The people must be overthrown.http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/06/25/bureaucrazies-versus-democracy/
I always maintained the importance of being a SOCIAList that PARTY rather than a mere Socialist Party.I wonder if the war and rationing had anything to do with the high numbers? Also unlike todays canny branch members, no mention of the cost and the profit to the branch made?These days if the branch can achieve 750 friends on Facebook – i'd consider that a success
This older post from 2012 is of interest i thinkhttp://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/05/16/weisbrot-and-krugman-are-wrong-greece-cannot-pull-off-an-argentina/I find Yanis to be a clear writer in conveying his ideas. Whether he is right in them , i am one hardly qualified to say.
From the horse's mouth http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/06/28/as-it-happened-yanis-varoufakis-intervention-during-the-27th-june-2015-eurogroup-meeting/An interesting reflection on how European capitalist insitutions respond to actual democracy in action….Imagine the audacity of those Greeks …actually asking the population for their opinion and consent !!!
While we were told during the height of recession that some banks were just to big to let fail, it seems countries won't get similar treatment and be bailed out.Certainly the conditions insisted upon the banks for government hand-outs were nothing like the austerity being imposed upon Greece….Just another example of one rule for us…another rule for you.
Depends of the question, which i have no idea what it actually to be. (perhaps someone might enlighten me)If it is a straight , "Do you agree the government should accept the terms being imposed by the creditors and the EU…YES OR NO"…then i can understand why both the party and individual members could answer NO. I would think as a Party we would have a problem if the wording was along the lines of "Do you endorse the government's actions in the negotiations with the EU and creditors? YES OR NO. "
This is an interesting comment from Daily Telegraph writer with the title "Greek debt crisis is the Iraq War of finance"
Quote:Tsipras accused the creditors of "laying traps" in the negotiations and acting with a political motive. He more or less accused them of trying to destroy an elected government and bring about regime change by financial coercion.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11687229/Greek-debt-crisis-is-the-Iraq-War-of-finance.htmlArticle is probably motivated by anti-Eu agenda but there is very much an element of truth, i think.How often have third world governments been brought down by the IMF and the World Bank economic sanctions?The importance of the Greek situation is the domino theory…If Greece prevails, Podemos in Spain …and the left in a host of other countries will be inspired to resist austerity. It is the same policy that Chomsky recognised in Latin America…The powers cannot permit examples of alternatives to exist. An article that is so pro-Syriza, you'd think it was the Morning Star.
I don't share your opinion that the land-grabbing by industrial agricultural conglomorates is progressve and a step forward for humanity. It is merciless, not merciful. Some seem to believe this is the 17thC and the same conditions apply to justify enclosures and evictions. Just who is the "we" who "take over" the small-holdings and fields of the rural poor, btw? I always thought we, the majority, were working towards the free association of producers and where i live the majority are small farmers and they already cooperate at the grassroots in their efforts to achieve a livliehood. Socialism would simply increase and improve upon this. They require few lessons on survival from the "enlightened". Accepting your argument as valid that this "private property" will eventually merge into the common property of all, won't it be by gradual processes ..as we argue that the State withers away. Or are you intending to send in the Red Army Cossacks to drive those so-called kulaks off their land and appropriate the harvests. Nor are the conditions today Russia of 1917. No doubt you will apply the same logic to all those small restaurants who pride themselves on specialised cooking and select menus…they will be closed down, and the patrons ordered to eat in the far more efficient collective canteens…Fourier would be proud of this blueprint that you offer to us.
Can i suggest that for any worker, sheer survival is the number one priority, socialism come second….those languishing in destitution and deprivation, rightly think of only their bellies.
Quote:to cease the struggle is to reduce human labour-power even below the commodity status… Therefore every means that strengthen the workers in that struggle are good in so far as they do so…he has to ask what are the essentials of Socialism. The first essential he discovers is—a human race. Without humanity there can be no Socialism. Directly he admits this he discovers that, even as the frigidly pure, passionless, scientific exponent and advocate of Socialism the every day affairs of men do matter, for assuredly if any calamity threatened to blot Man out of the scheme of things, to obliterate one of the essentials of his scientific obsession, it would concern him.(i dare say this argument can also be applied to those eco-socialists engaged in campaigns over the environment)The underlying ideolgy of the Haywood and Bohn is of course the SLP and the DeLeoniist attitude of the sword and shield…the need for political action to protect industrial action. I forget when it was switched about to express industrial action being the protective of political action.
As you can see from the length of this thread, Paul, this is a debate we have within our organisations and we permit the views of others to be expressed. Our organisation is democratic and we have a structure that has been agreed and which we follow. We do not suppress discussion or exchanges. Ove the years the issue has been raised and often returned to. To change our name means a branch debating it and agreeing to submit a motion to conference where it will be debated again with delegates from all our branches and then the proposal is sent to all individual members in a postal Party poll and the majority vote prevails. I believe that to change a name of an organisation that many members endured persecution in the past for, that many present members have committed themselves to and also made sacrifices is a decision that should not be taken lightly. I think there has to be an almost overwhelming consensus for a change of name. I do not judge that such exists at present and while i am very happy to argue for a change of name, i don't think it should be forced upon others even if a numerical majority existed for a change (and i personally don't believe there is.) However, for the purpose of standing in elections we have registered alternative names with the Electoral Commission:-World Socialist Party (UK), World Socialist Party (EU) and, of course, your own preference, World Socialist Movement which we can opt for at anytime rather than using the customary Socialist Party(GB) or our acronym SPGB.
"It looks as if there's no way out for the capitalist class as well as for the working class."Again i think it depends upon the capacity of the working class to be willing to resist. If they don't, the way out for the capitalist class is simply to keep on driving workers into the ground, lowering wages and cutting benefits, having it both ways…increased share of surplus value from more expoitation and less taxation. Some talk of no return to the 30s, much less further back to the 19th C but is that actually a prospect that may well occur if the unions and workers don't start drwing their red lines and saying "no more…enough is enough"…If we are not able to fight back and lack the confidence to do so…how far can workers be made to suffer the burden? What are the limits we are willing to accept before fighting back…even at a cost to ourselves in the short-term.The Tories are determined to de-fang the unions, what if they succeed and then choose to emasculate them even more…will workers strike illegally and will the unions bear the consequencies of sequestration? Buffet is well known for his quote…there is a class war and our side is winning…isn't that the fact of the matter…despite the rhetoric the employers have grown even stronger, and have not met any real challenge yet for i think Marx talks about classes weighing up their power until only actual battle decides who is the stronger.. ..something like that, anyhow…I am full of despondency when i see the calibre of union chiefs like Len McCluskey etc…Another fear is that we will have again a divergence of militantism regionally…the STUC appear much more ready, (or at least publically say they are) to defy the government and the law of the land..adds fuel to this separatist curse we Scots have at the moment.
