[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.

[ALB]

Three members and a sympathisers were out for a couple of hours this afternoon in Hounslow mainly to distribute our EU referendum leaflet. Hard-going in this area where most of those passing by were not speaking English but either a language of the Indian sub-continent or of Eastern Europe but we gave out the same number if leafletts as usual. We did manage to engage in some conversations on socialism as well as the referendum. One of our opening gambits — that it was a vote to decide which Old Etonian should be Prime Minister — didn't work as we got the reply "I don't object to our leader being an Old Etonian. We need to be led by intelligent and educated people". Back to the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists !On the referendum most were in favour of Remain on the ground that "we are in and it's not worth the trouble or risk of coming out". Someone on the Islamic stand giving out free korans also expressed this view. Further down the street was a Leave stall run by UKIP including their candidate for the area in last year's general election when he over 6000 votes and 12.6%. The silent minority, then. No sign of Remain leafletters.Next and last weekend before the vote: Kingston.

[ALB]

I have now checked the facts with the French-language websites of those who proposed the Basic Income referendum, and1. The question on the ballot paper was simply are you or are you not in favour of the introductionn of an Unconditional Basic Income (without any figure being mentioned).2. The figure of 2500 Swiss francs was mentioned in their campaign literature and they say represents just slightly more than the poverty line in Switzerland.3. Their campaign literature said that, with the introduction of Basic Income, wages would be reduced by its amount.When I first read this third point I couldn't believe it but it's true, black on white. Here is what the French version says referring a graph:

Quote:

Les salaires vont en effet s’adapter pour devenir un complément du RBI. Par exemple pour un RBI de CHF. 2’500.-, une personne qui touche actuellement CHF. 8’000.- de son employeur ne touchera plus que quelques CHF. 5’500.- de salaire qui viendront s’additionner à son RBI.

For French-language readers who can't believe what they are reading, here's the source:http://rbi-oui.ch/laboratoire-sur-le-financement-du-revenu-de-base-inconditionnel/Here's a rough English translation of this killer quote:

Quote:

Wages are going to adapt themselves to become a complement to Basic Income. For example with a Basic Income of 2500 Swiss Francs, someone who at present gets 8000 Swiss francs from his employer will not get more than 5500 or so wages which will come to be added to his Basic Income.

So, anyone with a wage above the poverty line is not going to be better off: their income will be exactly the same, with instead of it all being paid by the employer, part will be paid by the State and part by the employer.If this is what those in the English-speaking world in favour of a Universal Unconditional Basic Income are proposing they have conceded our argument that it would lead to a massive downward pressure on wages. In fact it's part of the scheme. So we don't need to argue this anymore and we can simply laugh them out of court.

[ALB]

I agree, Stuart, there's a certain logic in voting "no change" in case change makes things worse and that this is one reason why up to now not many have opted for socialism. It's also why, if I wasn't a socialist, I'd have voted NO in the Scottish referendum and REMAIN in the EU one. Capitalism is bad enough as it is without the risk of things getting worse by some leap in the dark. If the Lexit people help UKIP win the referendum I don't know how they will be able to forgive themselves. But then they think worse is best as that means more discontent for them to try to exploit. Ordinary people don't. Which is why (sticking my neck out) I think REMAIN will win.

[ALB]

I'm not sure the discussion is taking into account how radical (and so unrealistic and unworkable) the Swiss proposal seems to have been. According to the BBC report above:

Quote:

The proposal had called for adults to be paid an unconditional monthly income, whether they worked or not.The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child.The amounts reflected the high cost of living in Switzerland.

That's 30,000 Swiss francs a yearly or £21060. As stated, the cost of living in Switzerland is higher (and the pound sterling is falling) but even £18,000 a year for everyone.The BBC report adds:

Quote:

It is not clear how the plan would have affected people on higher salaries.

Yes it is ! There would be a hugely powerful downward labour market pressure to reduce them by 30,000 SFr a year.I'm not sure how accurate the BBC report is (I've not checked) but 30,000 SFr a year for everyone as a right would really upset the labour market in Switzerland with unforeseen consequences. Maybe that was a factor in the massive NO vote. After all, what other reason could there be for rejecting a proposal to be given 30,000 SFr a year free?

[ALB]

Imposs1904 has found another promise on urban transport by another mayor:http://www.business-review.eu/news/bucharest-could-have-free-public-transport-says-newly-elected-mayor-108156At least it's better than giving people a "basic income" and then charging them to use public transport, though both reforms will have the same effect of exerting a downward pressure on wage levels.Khan was warned during the election that he was making a wild promise as the capitalist enterprise that is Transport for London has to at least balance its books and was never going to get the subsidy from central government that would be the only way to honour his promise.He made similarly wild promises on housebuilding. He'll betray them too, for the same reason. Capitalism puts profits before people and imposes this on politicians who might promise (and event want) the opposite.

[Author]

Posts