[ALB]

Actually, apart from the title and the shots of Lenin, Stalin and Mao at the beginning introducing the whole three part series (and which she later said were distortions of Marx's views) it wasn't too bad, even good as a basic summary of Marx's life and views.

[ALB]

Actually it is, not that the tweet is wrong..

[ALB]

A man shouted “Britain first!” before shooting and stabbing MP Jo Cox just hours after Nigel Farage unveiled this. pic.twitter.com/DRHcStOeoB

— The Socialist Party (@OfficialSPGB) June 16, 2016

[ALB]

rodmanlewis wrote:

There is no reason why we shouldn't continue discussing the subject just because capitalist politicians have decided, in the wake of Jo Cox's murder, to declare a halt on the subject.

No wonder they have. She was a Remain supporter murdered by a Brexit supporter.

[ALB]

Here is Comrade Rab's criticism of the 1964 Triple Revolution proposal, still relevant today regarding similar schemes:

Quote:

Let us examine the views of the Committee in closer detail. They propose to "break the link" between jobs and income. Excellent as far as it goes because it recognizes that the workers, in order to live, depend on wages, their only source of income. But it doesn't go far enough because it does not propose to do away with jobs and wages. Capitalism divides mankind into two basic groups: 1. Those whose income is derived from wages in any of its various forms (hourly rates, piece work, salaries, bonuses, commissions, etc.) These are the vast majority who work but do not own. And 2. The small minority whose income is derived from ownership in any of its forms (profits, dividends, stocks, bonds, titles of deed, etc.) These are the ones who own but do not work. (Of course, there are overlappings, but here we are dealing with the general nature of capitalism.) Wages have been well described as the badge of slavery. The very dependence on wages alienates workers from the products of their labor.To propose breaking the link between jobs and income while retaining the market economy is to misunderstand the objective of capitalist production — production for sale on the market. It is fantastic to imagine that capitalist enterprise can compete in the domestic and world markets without reducing labor costs. This is a prime essential. And it is this very drive for profits and reduction of labor costs which speeds the introduction of cybernation. The use of cybernation for the benefit of society is incompatible with the market economy.Further, the aim of redistributing income — the retaining of money — indicates the retention of a commodity society. The need for money arises from a scarcity relationship because of the need to facilitate the circulation of commodities. But money can play no role in obtaining the needs of life when they have become — through cybernation — as abundant as water and sunshine. In an economy of abundance, only the right of access by everybody to what is produced makes sense. The suggestion, then, for reorganizing society by "distributing effective demand" is merely another continuation of the status quo, a proposal — in effect — to distribute poverty among the workers through legislative measures revising the tax structure.

[ALB]

Two of us went to a meeting at Acton Trade Union Club of the Unite retired members section but open to all  to listen to two trade union speakers putting the Remain and Leave case. Except for some still on autopilot since the last referendum in 1975 (when the trade unions and many in the Labour Party were for coming out), the others were either for remain (most) or for abstention. We joined in the discussion afterwards and gave out some leaflets.On leaving Acton Central station when coming, we noticed that there was another referendum debate in a church at the other end of Acton High Street at the same time. The line-up looked interesting (and incongruous): a representative of the FBU and the Bruges Group for leave and a Tory and Kate Hudson (chairman of CND and leader of Left Unity, but in a "personal capacity") for Remain. Yes, Left Unity still exists. There were a couple at the meeting we went to, who were veerying towards abstaining (rather than leave).

[ALB]

Here is not the place to discuss this. There's a separate thread on it here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/gm-foodNothing against herbalism "when scientifically applied" but that's what a lot of them don't want and why they oppose the EU directive on this and are hoping for a Leave vote. From one of their sites:

Quote:

The EU referendum raises interesting questions, and may potentially mean we could supply herbals outside of this Directive.

[ALB]

No.

[ALB]

I'm not worried about GM crops but the "herbalists" and their unregulated concoctioins would have a field day.

[ALB]

Reading through that MIT article reminded me that this came up over 50 years in the US. Here's the start of an article in the Western Socialist (No 3, 1964), the then journal of our campanion parties in the US and Canada:

Quote:

"GUARANTEED INCOME FOR ALL, EMPLOYED OR NOT"(Summary of a talk to Boston University Students, April 16,  1964)Under the above heading, the New York Times oi March 22, 1964 reported a message from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution to President Johnson outlining its views on Cybernation, Weaponry and Human Rights. Accompanying these views was a program for a transitional period "on the way to a new society." The committee consisted of prominent corporation officials, journalists, professors, labor leaders, spokesmen for churches and civil rights and intellectuals. Of special interest one notes among the signers: James Boggs, Michael Harrington, Irving Howe, Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, Gerald Piel, and Robert Theobald, who have made astute comments on the world in which we live and have furnished interesting documentary evidence of the limitation of our times.THE COMMITTEE'S VIEWSCybernation makes possible an unlimited output by systems of machines which require little cooperation from man, thus making available more funds for the elimination of poverty both at home and abroad. The general mechanism so far employed in the United States is unable to "undergird" peoples' rights as consumers. The main brake on the unlimited capacity of a cybernated productive system, the committee contends, is the fact that distribution is determined on the basis of income-through-jobs. This link between jobs and income must be broken through appropriate governmental action stemming from a recognition of the right of every individual and family to have an adequate income regardless of job or lack of job, so that a new economic, social, and political order can emerge in this country.

It never happened of course. Nor was it likely to.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

It is beginning to look like the Leave campaign will winhttp://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/eu-referendum-panicked-remain-camp-plans-to-take-out-boris-as-polls-swing-in-brexit-campaigns-favour/ar-AAgTXrC?ocid=spartandhp

I can't believe it but it seems to be true. Beating the anti-foreigner drum seems to be paying off. A bit disturbing. The bigots and xenophobes who seem to be swinging the vote will be disappointed, though. Even in the event of a Leave vote there will still be immigration (as British capitalism needs more workers if it is to keep growing), only it would be "controlled". This would add a new category of  "illegal" immigrants too, from Eastern Europe (in fact from anywhere in the EU) to join those from Asia and Africa. The section of the police and border agency staff dealing with this will have their workload doubled (at least) as will the profits of the people smugglers.

[ALB]

I agree that mocking is probably not the best way to convince someone you're arguing with but in this case it's justified at least as a one-off. We've been arguing against the proponents of this reform for over 20 years, pointing out that it would lead to an across the board reduction in wages and so be a wage subsidy to employers.Not once have they been prepared to admit this, claiming that their reform is something the working class as a whole should support as it would be in their general interest. As far as I know, this is the first time that they have openly and explicitly said that their scheme involves a wage reduction for all workers above the poverty line even if their total income is to remain the same, i.e will make no financial difference to the vast majority of workers.Basically, they are proposing a reform of the welfare system that would benefit (if it worked as planned) only those on benefits, allowing them to receive these as of right without means testing or the obligation to try to find work.  Nice if you could get it but hardly likely as long as capitalism lasts.The more extravagant claims about a basic income being a transition towards the abolition of the wages system and breaking the link between income and work are just that — extravagant claims.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But we did ourselves no favours by designating them a political rival…I'll leave others to recite the conference decision which i would have to search out in the archives to cite accurately but i wasn't too enmoured by the conference decision

We shouldn't really be discussing this whole issue here, but as we are, here's the result of the 2011 Conference motions on Zeitgeist:

Quote:

Motion: "This conference rules that the Zeitgeist Movement is a political
organisation within the meaning of rule 6." Central London Branch

For 49 Against 47

MOTION CARRIED
 Motion. "This Conference considers that active support of the Zeitgeist Movement is incompatible with membership of The Socialist Party." East Anglian Regional Branch For 69 Against 30 MOTION CARRIED

I hope you bothered to vote on the first one as the vote was very close. One thing is clear, though, that there'd have to be a mandate from Conference to go down the route you and SP are advocating. Who knows you might get it.

[ALB]

You know the answer, Alan. They're no more interested in unity and cooperation than we are.and any attempt at this would probably fail and end in internal arguments and acrimony. Anyway, it's not such a problem at the presebt stage when it's still just a matter of spreading the general idea as different approaches will get to different people.

[ALB]

I see Critisticuffs are organising a meeting in London on the subject a week Tuesday:https://critisticuffs.org/events/brexit/

Quote:

Brexit – About the Illusion to Vote on British SovereigntyInstead of asking whether to vote Brexit or Bremain, we would like to discuss what hardships — real or imagined — are identified in the debate about the EU and how and why these problems are seen to be forced upon Britain by the EU. In this meeting, we want to challenge sovereignty, which is claimed by both camps as a central pillar for their argument. Sovereignty is at its core is the might of a capitalist state to deal with its subjects as it pleases. Neither Brexit nor Bremain will change that.

Pity I can't go as it clashes with our Eve of Referendum meeting in West London branch. Perhaps someone else can.

[Author]

Posts