ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just sent this letter to the local paper:
Quote:I see that the Tory party is not going to contest the by-election provoked by Zac Goldsmith's resignation and is to give him a free run as a Nimby candidate. But if they want it to be a referendum on Heathrow why don't they stand Simon Nayyar who was their candidate in nearby Feltham and Heston at last year's general election? In his election address he listed as one of his priorities: "Supporting Heathrow's growth to secure prosperity for our constituency and country" and declared "I strongly support Feltham and Heston's desire to see Heathrow grow". So much for the view that it is only the LibDems who promise different things in different places.As Richmond Park constituency (Richmond and North Kingston) falls into our West London branch's patch we'll be discussing our activity in it at our branch meeting next Tuesday. We won't be contesting of course (since the party's stopped standing in by elections after being beaten by Mr Blobby) but we'll certainly be doing something, leafletting, maybe a few street stalls (but let's hope it doesn't fall in mid-January).
Just noticed this in today's papers:
Quote:… Left Unity, a hard-left party proscribed by Labour, revealed that it would consider a motion to disband itself when it met for its annual conference this weekend. The move is being considered to encourage members to campaign from within the Labour Party.Let's hope they do it as that will reduce the number of confusionist groups. And let's hope that SPEW follows them in this direction too.
According to our ex-member nuclear energy is or can eventually be a renewable source:
Quote:Numerous books exist about the science of nuclear energy that may act as antitodes to public misinformation. A good one is Prescription for the Planet (2008). It discusses not only the integral fast reactor, which can recycle and generate vast amounts of energy safely from all existing nuclear waste (the buildup of which is often the primary reason for opposing nuclear), but also the plasma converter that has the potential to solve our garbage problem.In any event, we are where we are. Despite not knowing at the time how to deal with the waste (and still not yet being in a position to do it in practice), nuclear power has been developed and exists. There's no point in closing them all down in socialism since even when not used to generate electricity the nuclear reaction will still continue. If global warming gets out of hand (not identified as a potential problem in 1990) it might turn out to be lucky that nuclear energy was developed.
One of our leaflets that aroused some interest as something different was the manifesto we put out in the South East Region for the 2014 Euroelections. It read:
Quote:Make this world oursIn socialism the planet will be like the one you know, but also very different. There is no money. There is no war. There are no rich people. There are no poor people. There are no leaders. All decisions are shared. All responsibilities are shared. Instead of competing to survive, people cooperate to live.This is Earth, under new management. Ours.You now have no bills to pay, no rent, no mortgage, no debts. Everything is free, nothing is for sale, and neither are you. But you want to help, just like others do. There are a hundred things you could do, a thousand more you could train to do.You might have chosen to drive a bus or a train, fix plumbing, coordinate a data network, plough a field, teach a child, organise an event, study engineering, cure a disease, brew beer, rehearse a play. You might choose to work four hours a week, or fourteen or forty. What you do makes everyone better off. That’s your recompense, and it’s better than money. It’s job satisfaction. It’s fulfilment. It’s a life on your own terms, a life worth living. It’s why you make the commitment to work.This is Earth, as it could be in the near future. It won’t be created by the politicians of capitalism. It will created by us, all of us who now produce everything, working together. We can say ‘We want this’. Then we organise to make it happen.Against our combined communications the billionaires can do nothing. Together we can force referendums, elections, votes and take control of nation states. Then abolish property laws and the agencies that enforce them and take control of factories, land, services. It can be democratic, peaceful, and effective. We take control. We take our lives back.This new Earth is not Utopia. There are problems, issues, arguments, accidents, mistakes, false starts or blind alleys. But cooperative management solves the problems as today’s arrogant leaderships never did.If you agree with this you can let others know that this is what you want by voting for the Socialist Party/World Socialist Movement list.We're not supposed to feed trolls, Tim, but your approach might tempt him into getting a second warning. And then we only need a third and he's out.
You missed this one from our self-styled "UserExperienceResearchSpecialist":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/free-kittens#comment-35841
Osama Jafar wrote:Thank you all, you may find me wrong if you clinged to words; i hope you focus on "positive" critic to come up with simple practical scientific plan to offer to public, & i think if this thread continued we may get to it.Can we begin with the zietgiest movement:I got the phrase positive critic some were & i liked it
The coming into being and spread of the Zeitgeist movement showed one of the points we have always made — that the growth of socialist ideas does not depend entirely on socialists spreading them, but they are thrown up by the capitalist system as they are the obvious solution. As far as we know, TZM came up with the idea of a moneyless, stateless world of abundance quite independently of people like us.So, this was a welcome development. The trouble is they are not at all clear as to how to get there. Our Summer School in Birmingham was on the theme of Money and, as they too stand for a money free society, we asked them to send a written contribution in answer to some questions we put to them. David Dann replied on their behalf. Here are the first three questions and his answers:
Quote:How do you erwisage a money-free society coming about? Spontaneous evolution? Gradual reform? Mass political action?Honestly, it's hard to say how the transition will unfold. A specific strategy can be planned but the economic, social, technological or even ecological climate can rapidly change, then that plan may not be viable any more. All we can do is average out various scenarios and act accordingly.Global social movement tactics would become critical to put pressure on the existing system, along with helping change the intents and values of the culture itself by vast education and communication projects. The culture needs to learn that we are all bound by the same natural laws; we either align our values and beliefs with these scientific understandings as they unfold, creating harmony, health and prosperity or we suffer the inevitable consequences.As technological unemployment will be increasing, creating parallel systems like mutual credit systems, time banks and community sharing systems would be needed. It would combat two things:It would help those who are in need, especially for those who have got skills but are poor, andas governments and corporations look the other way to the mounting problems,this will put pressure on them as it will create less money circulating in the economy.Do you see any place for electoral action in the struggle for a money-free society?Within the current electoral process there are two ways I look at this. If the majority doesn't vote (as a great amount already don't) then it could send a message to the government and the world the lack of confidence the public has in this system, which in turn could lead people to be more open to the idea of a different system. But on the other hand, if someone running for office could greatly help facilitate a big positive change like unconditional basic income or reduction of the working week or the country running on 100% clean renewable energy, then one could say that there may be some merit to it. We can't rely on electorates, as the self-preservation mechanisms of profit and growth of the market system stop any real structural change from happening but we should do whatever we can.Referendums should be protected as they can act as a form of direct democracy even though they are guite minor in their outcomes.Why do many TZM members and supporters seem to see banking and monetary reform as a move in the right direction? How can mending the money system be a step towards ending it?If we had debt forgiveness where it becomes obvious to the point where an individual or country cannot be tortured, it would take a lot of stress off people that is so desperately needed at the moment.Another intermediate step, which might be possible, is to create a currency not based on debt if we used technology to track its value, not based on floating exchanges but actually attribute it to the value of goods produced. So with an advanced tracking system it would possibly enable a position where it's less necessary to have money because it could make all the calculations and feedback, which would increase efficiency.A big disappointing really.
Comrade Browne read this statement in full which he said was among papers before the EC:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban#comment-33854
The latest issue of Kittens mentioned in the Announcements section here contains a definitive criticism of the Universal Basic Income reform from a Marxist perspective:https://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/Here's an extract where thet criticise the position of "post-autonomist Marxists" who campaign for this reform:
Quote:In the name of realism these radical supporters of a Universal Basic Income want to end capitalism while presupposing its continued existence. If people are free from any compulsion to work for a capitalist company, this would destroy the capitalist mode of production. This, after all, relies on the workers to produce the products which are turned into profits. It also relies on the exclusion of workers from these products so that they can become profits. However, at the same time, the same supporters also ask the same capitalist firms to produce the profits to pay for freedom from them in the form of a Universal Basic Income. They want both: the continued existence — for now — of the capitalist mode of production where the reproduction of each and everyone is subjugated to profit and the end of this subjugation by providing everyone with what they need. They want companies to make profits, which relies on and produces the poverty of workers, while at the same time ending mass poverty. They want to maintain the exclusion from social wealth through the institution of private property and end this exclusion by giving everyone enough money.Not possible of course.
After their definitive demolition of the Bitcoin reform, in their latest issue they demolish the Universal Basic Income reform:https://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/I'll mention this on the thread here on it.
He's resurfaced again. Here he is talking (eventually) about "communism" though the interviewer seems to have a clearer grasp of what it is (and isn't)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc5Vuucx640
Actually, that's not the exact wording of the floor resolution carried at ADM. It's:
Quote:“This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen.”It was carried 8 votes for, 2 votes against, with 3 abstentions.As you say, it's not binding, i.e is only a recommendation not an instruction. However, there is a Conference Resolution (from 1986) stating that if an EC decides not to follow a floor resolution they have to explain why to the Party:
Quote:This Conference affirms that although Autumn Delegate Meeting recommendations are not necessarily binding on the EC, they are more representative of Party opinion than EC resolutions. Therefore the EC should take cognisance of such recommendations and give reasons for its failure to put such recommendations into effect.I would add that, as someone who was present, my impression was that the mood of the meeting was that it was the "indefinite" rather than the suspension itself that was considered to be unfair.
