ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes. One is being submitted to the EC meeting tomorrow. May also be an insert in the i paper if they have a free day.
Yes, there was still a hefty property qualification to stand as an MP in 1929. £150 would have been more than a year’s wages for many workers. So, even though this was the first UK election in which women had the vote on the same terms as men (from their 21st birthday) there was a wider “democratic deficit” than today – a deficit that can never be eliminated under capitalism due to its very nature as a class-divided, exploitative society.
Fortunately, today £500 is peanuts compared with £150 in 1929, making it less onerous for us to stand in elections for parliament which, as current circumstances and events are showing, is still the gateway to political power and so needs to be taken over by socialist delegates as part of the process of establishing socialism. Which of course is the ultimate logic for a socialist party to contest elections, even if it is only a token today but a token of a course of action we think a socialist-minded working class should take.
Found it. Knew I’d seen it somewhere.
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/09/our-first-prospective-candidate-for.html
Useful comment too.
Anyone would think that contesting an election was not “activity”. In fact, in the two constituencies chosen, it is the continuation of other activities by the local branches — a weekly street stall in Cardiff and consistently contesting local elections in Folkestone (as there is no free postal distribution of leaflets in local election this has involved members leafletting the wards door-to-door twice).
It is all very well being nostalgic about the past but the sort of activity the Party did in the interwar years (debates and, above all, street corner meetings) has died out. Our main activity today is distributing the Socialist Standard by post, street stalls and the internet (have a look at our lively facebook page). Besides, as you will know from your activity of putting the Socialist Standard online, the Party did adopt a candidate in the late 1920s (I am sure you will be able to pinpoint the exact date) and was only prevented from actually standing by lack of funds.
Yes. We are standing in Cardiff Central and in Folkestone & Hythe but not in London. We are waiting there to concentrate on the Greater London Regional elections next April and May.
It looks as if that loudmouth Tim Martin may be about to receive his comeuppance:
I don’t know why I still go to Wetherspoons. Well, I do. The beer is cheaper and there’s no music so you can have a proper conversation.
Talking of beer mats, this one was better …
Actually, Chris Gilligan is quite good but you have to listen first to 5 minutes or so of Kliman and the other one going on about Trump being a “proto-fascist” and the need to unite with “centrists” to oust him. I’m afraid Kliman has completely lost the plot politically. Even Gilligan has to dismiss the attempt to liken Boris to Trump.
There is one very odd statement in that article:
“Britain’s decision to enter the EEC stemmed from the need to protect white British national identity after Empire and, at the same time, to continue its relationships with some of its former colonies in the area (Malta and Cyprus).”
Britain joined the EEC (as it then was) in 1973. Cyprus and Malta joined only in 2014. Cyprus got independence from Britain in 1960 and Malta in 1964. So how would Britain joining in 1973 reflect a desire “to continue relationships” with these two ex-colonies? Why would it want to anyway, especially not with Malta which is pretty insignificant and had lost the strategic importance it once had?
And what’s all this about “the need to protect white British national identity”? I don’t see that that was an issue at all. The motive was economic, even if arising from the end of Empire.
This conviction on retrial, after the US-led Coalition has dumped the Kurdish militia to please NATO ally Turkey, can’t be a coincidence following his non-conviction at a previous trial when the militia were the Coalition’s allies:
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/formby-dad-syria-guilty-terrorism-17142772
Hypocrisy and realpolitik know no bounds.
That defence of Von Mises by the Adam Smith Institute does not deny that he supported Fascism in Italy and Austria. It merely seeks to explain this as him seeing fascism as a temporary measure to save free-market capitalism (called “civilisation”) from not only Bolshevism but also even reformist Social Democracy. Quite a few capitalists and other of their apologists took up this position at the time, only to find that once they had surrendered control of political power to some dictator and his cronies they were unable to get it back and re-introduce free-market capitalism. That took a world war.
Baron von Mises is often presented as a liberal but in fact he was an opponent of political democracy who favoured an authoritarian political regime, as exposed by Quinn Slobodian in his recent book Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. In his review of it in the 19 August edition of the London Review of Books Alexander Zevin, basing himself on Slobodian, notes:
“In July 1927, the acquittal of three right-wing militia members for the murder of a war veteran and a child in a working-class district set off a general strike and demonstrations. Protesters put the Palace of Justice to the torch, and the police fired into the crowd, leaving 89 dead. ‘Friday’s putsch has cleansed the atmosphere like a thunderstorm,’ Mises wrote. ‘The street fight ended in complete victory for the police.’ He believed Mussolini’s victory had for the moment ‘saved European civilisation. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.’ Talk of workers’ ‘right to the street’ or of ‘universal, equal and direct voting rights’ was often, he believed, cover for ‘terror and intimidation’. By contrast, he insisted to a group of German industrialists in 1931 that ‘the capitalistic market economy is a democracy, in which every penny constitutes a vote.’ Elected by means of what he called a ‘consumer plebiscite’, the rich depended on the ‘will of the people as consumers’, even when their wealth was inherited, since it could ‘be preserved only by those who keep on earning it anew by satisfying the wishes of consumers’. In 1934 Mises joined the Patriotic Front, launched the year before to rally support for the Catholic conservative and nationalist regime of Engelbert Dollfuss, which banned the Nazi and Communist Parties and forged an alliance with Italy. In February, Dollfuss moved against the socialists, putting down a fitful uprising of workers in Linz, shelling Karl Marx Hof in Vienna, expelling the Social Democrats from parliament and passing a new corporatist constitution”
So, Von Mises’s opposition to socialism was not just on theoretical grounds but involved active support for moves to put down and destroy the workers movement in his native country while he lived there.
We should return the compliment (perhaps instead of engaging in endless arguments with his followers about the so-called “economic calculation” argument against socialism). In any event, his support for Mussolini and for the Dollfuss dictatorship in Austria is something we can point out.
There is a certain logic in his opposition to political democracy if, like him and fellow Austrian Baron von Hayek, you think that people vote with money when as consumers they decide what to buy.
I don’t think quantitative easing can be described as hyper-inflation, at least not in the sense of leading to a huge rise in the general price level. This hasn’t happened because the extra money is made available not to the general public but only to “financial markets”. Here it does have an inflationary effect, raising the price of stocks and shares which has the effect of reducing their “yield” (the income they bring in as a percentage of their nominal value). The aim is to reduce the rate of interest more generally and to make more money available (by buying bonds off them) for banks to lend and so kick-start an economic revival that way.
The trouble is that bank lending is demand-led not supply-led. So, making it easier for banks to lend will have no effect if there is not a demand (from creditworthy borrowers) for loans, which in turn depends on profitable production prospects. In the absence of this, all QE does is increase the price of stocks and shares. It doesn’t lead to an economic revival. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Which seems to be what’s happened. Pouring more water into the drinking trough want make any difference if the horse doesn’t want to drink.
Good point which explains why so many looking for a way-out have turned to various money and banking reform schemes, which we know will make no difference (in fact some could make things worse). This diverts critics of the consequences of capitalist society from the real way out: a political and social revolution that will lead to the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life so that production can be directed towards directly satisfying people’s needs and distribution take place on the basis of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” — and in which money and banks will have become redundant.
So, as was to be expected, a deal has been done. Also, as was to be expected too, it doesn’t give the religious sectarians of the DUP a veto as was initially floated. Apart from the arrangements for Northern Ireland, the withdrawal agreement is exactly the same as May’s.
The Irish backstop (which would have kept the whole of the UK in a customs union with EU in the event of no trade deal being negotiated with them) would probably never have been invoked as some trade deal was bound to be agreed. It did, however, strengthen the EU’s hand in these negotiations. The EU has now agreed to give this up. In the (unlikely) event of no trade deal within 5 years it’s only Northern Ireland that risks remaining aligned (which, incidentally, is what the EU originally proposed; it was May who in a concession to the DUP insisted that whatever applied in NI should apply to the whole UK).
The “political declaration” is also different in that it holds out the prospect of the future trade deal being a free trade agreement rather than some closer trading arrangement with the EU. That’s not really what the dominant section of the British capitalist class want but the political declaration is just that — a non-binding declaration of intent, just a piece of paper. If the withdrawal agreement itself is accepted, nothing prevents a future government ignoring the political declaration and negotiating a different trade agreement retaining a closer alignment with the EU and easier access to its single market. That’s still to play for for the dominant section of the capitalist class even if the new deal is accepted.
The opposition parties, who are representing the interests of the capitalist class better these days than most Tories, still seem to think that they can get the UK to remain in the EU and are going to try and sink the new deal. With the help of the DUP they may well do so. We’ll see on Saturday.
If they succeed, then what? More of the same, the same old, boring and irrelevant debate about the trading arrangements of the British capitalist class, complicated by the political ambitions of the career politicians on both sides of the House of Commons. It’s a dismal prospect. The side show has ceased to be amusing and it’s time the actors were booed off the stage.
