ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dan, there's a long running thread on this question, where we record all the incoming evidence against the "thin air" school of banking:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/100-reserve-bankingHave a look at it too.
There are two theories as to how banks can "create" money. One is that of Major Douglas and his fellow currency cranks that they can do so out of nothing by a simple stroke of the pen or these days by a simple keyboard stoke. The other is that they do so out of money they already have or supplied by a central bank like the Bank of England in Britain. But, as DJP has pointed out, this is a question of definition – if you define bank loans as money then by definition that is what banks do. But the real issue issue is still whether they "create" the money they lend "out of thin air" or loan already existing money. As Alan has pointed out, just because we don't think banks have the powers that currency cranks attribute to them doesn't mean that we defend them or are their unwitting agents. We want a society where there'll no banks. Which is far more than the currency cranks want.
Interesting article which points out that these pilot schemes are not testing a "universal basic income" but a reform of the poor law system : in this one (and presumably others) the "free money" is conditional on being unemployed under certain circumstances:
Quote:Kela, the national social-insurance institute, randomly selected 2,000 Finns between 25 and 58 years of age who were already getting some form of unemployment benefits. The subsidies were offered to people who had been unemployed for about one year or more, or who had less than six months of work experience. Participants in the trial would receive €560 (about $645) a month from January 2017 to December 2018, whether or not they came to earn any additional income.The trial size was cut to one-fifth of what had originally been proposed, and is now too small to be scientifically viable. Instead of giving free money to everyone, the experiment is handing out, in effect, a form of unconditional unemployment benefits. In other words, there is nothing universal about this version of universal basic income.Since staying in the tariff-less and friction-less single market is in the overall interest of the British capitalist class, there can only be two explanations for the behaviour of the Tory Breshiteers: either they are using popular prejudice to further their careers and climb further up the greasy pole or they are stupid (or both of course). Business chiefs are beginning to get fed up with them — sometimes their political representatives get out of hand and bugger things up for them. This could be a case in point.
Sympo wrote:Do you think Marx and Engels were socialists during the writing of the manifesto, or did they confuse state capitalism with socialism?Yes they were socialists by then (and had been for 3 or 4 years), no question about that, but they drafted the Communist Manifesto at a time when the material conditions for a world socialist society had not yet completely evolved. So they were prepared to support measures that they thought would hasten this evolution. The material conditions for socialism now exist and have done for a hundred years or more, so the measures they supported to hasten this are not relevant and of historical or academic interest only.
Part 4 has now appeared too. I think that's the whole article:http://sapiencia.eu/la-politica-del-marques-de-sade-e-4/
Maybe, we know what they are against, but what are the for? In any event, they give "anti-capitalism" a bad name.
Conference Motion just carried:
Quote:This Conference instructs the EC to set up a committee to look into the implications of the Party becoming a national membership organisation, and to report to 2018 Conference.” For 75 Against 25 Carried.I don't think we are necessarily committed to the view that everybody's (or anybody's) individual behaviour is flexible (though this may be the case) but rather to the view that human social behaviour is, as witnessed by the great variety of behaviour patterns throughout the history of our species, and so a fixed "human nature" is not a barrier to a socialist society working.
We set up table right outside the BBC. Six people out leafletting. This was a pro-Corbyn Labour march, not just anti-austerity. That'll be why there were no Green Party or anarchist contingents as on previous anti-austerity marches. Every mention of Corbyn's name was greeted with loud cheers and Corbyn T-shirts abounded. What with Glastonbury and now this, he's clearly becoming a cult figure.It was also a field day for the various Trot sects. Unfortunately next to us were the maddest of them — the Spartacists and Workers Hammer, though they at least weren't "Jeremy" worshippers. Closely following them in the madness stakes must be the "Socialist Equality Party" which had a leaflet on "The political implications of the Grenfell Tower fire" in which they said its impact as going to be like that of "the 1912 massacre of 250 striking miners in the Lena goldfield" in Tsarist Russia:
Quote:The massacre had a catalytic impact, arousing the latent, suppressed hostility of the Russian masses to the existing order and sparking a wave of mass strikes and a re-eruption of revolutionary sentiment.Things are not going to be the same after the Grenfell massacre but it's not going to bring Bolshevism.
He's said it again:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40461726
Quote:He also feared aggression was "inbuilt" in humansThough I suppose it could be argued that he has downgraded his view from an assertion to a fear.
It has now been decided to set up the literature stall at the beginning of the march (rather than at the end in Parliament Square). So, look out for us somewhere near the BBC headquarters at Broadcasting House, Portland Place, Marylebone, London W1A 1AA from 12 noon on. We'll be leafletting in Parliament Square too but without a stall. A member might be stationed near the statute of Churchill with a stack of leaflets.
ALB wrote:I doubt if even the Tory/DUP government will be able to hold the line on this.Although the Labour amendment was defeated (Tories and DUP against all the others) it's clear that the government doesn't know which way to turn on this and will probably eventually abandon it:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/28/tory-austerity-policy-chaos-number-10-does-u-turn-u-turn-public/
It's a trade union demand which socialists as workers and trade unionists can and do support, especially as prices are now rising much faster than wages. I doubt if even the Tory/DUP government will be able to hold the line on this. Clever parliamentary manoeuvre by the Labour Party as the DUP must have the votes of quite a few public servants (these being a higher percentage of the workforce in Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK)..
