ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, it is looking like Starmer wants to be as much a warmonger as Blair was. Maybe allowing Ukraine to attack Russia with British-made rockets is part of his declared policy of making things get worse.
For the record, the result of the election in November 2015 was:
Jeremy Corbyn Labour 29659
Alex Burghart Conservative 8465
Caroline Russel Green Party 5043
Julian Gregory LibDem 3984
Greg Clough UKIP 1971
Bill Martin Socialist 112Just realised why McDonnell thought it might be the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist/Leninist). The CPB-ML is a party in the Maoist tradition and “Abolish Money” wouldn’t have conjured up in his mind another Maoist Pol Pot in Cambodia under whose rule money was supposed to have been abolished.
Hence the importance of Bill’s point that we don’t stand for the abolition of money but for a society in which money would no longer be needed.
Today the CPB-ML is an anti-immigrant and British nationalist party which neither wants to abolish money nor a society in which money would not be needed.
I see that 25 years later the IWW was using the same argument against the Council Communists:
“The IWW is therefore also an opponent of armed insurrection in the class struggle. It is convinced that it will never be a match for capital in military terms, which is why it leaves violence to the ruling class.”
I don’t think Fitzgerald was advocating either bloody revolution or armed insurrection but was simply making the point that the ruling class was likely to violently resist the socialist revolution. Hence the need to gain control of the armed forces, to stop them being used against the workers and to suppress any “slaveholders revolt” by the capitalist class. Any violence would come from them not us.
Actually, both the SPGB and Council
Communists were making the same basic point against the IWW — that the workers can’t ignore the state and simply take and hold the means of production through industrial unions.“My disagreement with the Communist Party of Great Britain over the Hamas question has reached the breaking point. The problem is the party leadership repeated use of terms like “heroic” to describe the events of Oct. 7, which I regard as absolutely reprehensible.“
If the Weekly Worker mob have been describing the events of 7 October as “heroic”, then there is something wrong with them..
I see that at that time (1931) some Council Communists were arguing this:
“The French comrades seem to go a step further by demanding the abolition of wage labor through the abolition of the market and money, while factory life should take place “without the compulsion to work”.
I wonder who they were and what happened to them. The Dutch Council
Communists didn’t agree and drew up a complicated blueprint for circulating “labour money”.For the SPGB criticism of the IWW see:
“the pauperisation of the working class”
I didn’t know that the ICC subscribed to that view.
We didn’t:
Actually, Roger Hallam is quite content with being sent to prison. It is part of his plan to overthrow the government and pave the way for one that will take the actions to combat climate change that he considers imperative.
In his booklet Common Sense in the 21st Century he set on how he sees the revolution developing:
“If they [the government] opt to repress the protestors, they risk a backfiring effect. This is where more people come onto the street in response to the sacrifices of those the authorities have taken off the street. In situations of intense political drama people forget their fear and decide to stand by those who are sacrificing themselves for the common good.”
In other words, he sees the movement for revolution developing as more and more people are drawn into it through being appalled by those (like him) who have “sacrificed themselves for the common good” being sent to jail.
It doesn’t seem to be working according to his plan. Most people, even in “climate justice” activist circles, seem indifferent to his fate.
Article in the pro-government Orinoco Tribune criticizing the electoral commission for not yet having published the detailed voting tallies (“Actas”). It seems that sooner or later they will be published in one form or another.
Publication of Venezuela’s Election Results: To Be or Not To Be?
The cat is out of the bag. It was Cabinet Minister Lucy Powell wot done it. Interviewed on radio and television yesterday she revealed that the new Labour government had abolished the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to appease the “markets”, the international speculators who lend money to governments.
The newspaper headlines tell the story:
Winter fuel payment cut helped stop ‘run on the pound’, says Lucy Powell “We would have seen the markets losing confidence,” Leader of the Commons said (iNews)
UK faced economic crash if winter fuel payment was not axed, Powell says. The Commons Leader says Rachel Reeves’s decision to cut the payment was a ‘difficult decision’ with ‘no alternative’.(Irish News)
Economy could have crashed if winter fuel payments for pensioners weren’t cut, Labour minister claims (Sky News)
Labour cut winter fuel payments to stop run on pound, claims minister (Daily Telegraph)
In other words, the new Labour government within a couple of months only of entering office, has had to bow to pressure from “the markets” and decided to give in to them by cuts to benefits for pensioners.
For the record, here is exactly what she said:
“If we hadn’t taken some of these tough decisions we could have seen a run on the pound, interest rates going up and crashing the economy. It’s something we were left with no alternative but to do.”
(https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/uk-faced-economic-crash-if-winter-fuel-payment-was-not-axed-powell-says-77KCL4JCJFMD5LH3C47535WN7Q/“ … why we had to do that was because if we didn’t, we would have seen the markets losing confidence, potentially a run on the pound, the economy crashing …”
(https://news.sky.com/story/amp/economy-could-have-crashed-if-winter-fuel-payments-for-pensioners-werent-cut-labour-minister-claims-13207619)She later doubled down on the claim in a second interview, telling Sky News: “We would have seen the markets losing confidence, potentially a run on the pound.” (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/winter-fuel-payment-cut-stop-run-pound-3255323?srsltid=AfmBOorYBR2y5ZdusvVAK-X_zPecQ_Aw846uZDZHiQWDb7bkPIdhOEt7)
Even if the total number of working hours a week is reduced when there’s a 4-day week employers will only do it if it improves productivity by their workers working harder during the shortened working time.
This weekend’s i paper has quotes from 3 employers who have introduced a 4 day week with less working hours. In the first case, workers now work 32 hours over 4 days instead of 37 and a half over 5 days. The employer is quoted as saying that “it has increased productivity and energy levels”.
Presumably by “increased energy levels” he means people exercising more energy ie working harder. Of the other 2 employers, the one talks of “better streamlining and efficiency” and the other of “getting staff working when they are at their most productive and creative”.
Of course a 4-day working week has some advantage for workers but it’s not a free gift.
More from the Orinoco Tribune, this time confirming that the Supreme Court requested the electoral commission to publish the tally sheets. Don’t know if this is reliable or not, but why would a pro-government newspaper say this if the government wasn’t going to do it?
“Despite the fact that Venezuelan electoral authorities have presented evidence of cyberattacks on its electoral system, the heads of state requested that the details of the July 28 voting results be published. The Venezuelan Supreme Court had already requested the National Electoral Council (CNE) to do so in its ruling that ratified the victory of President Maduro.”
We are just going to have to wait and see if the electoral commission is going to accede to the supreme court’s request.
That article in a pro-government newspaper seems to indicate that the famous actas (tally sheets) will have been submitted to the Supreme Court:
“Their [the pro-US opposition] demand that 100 percent of the tally sheets (‘voting records’) be submitted by the government, profusely parroted by the world corporate media, is phony (and they know it). Machado and Gonzalez have made several confusing claims, that they have 40 percent of the voting records, then 70 percent and also 100 percent. President Maduro has gone to the Supreme Court filing a review appeal which involves the government submitting all the ‘voting records’ in the possession of his coalition, asking the Supreme Court to summon all 10 candidates for them to submit their voting records.“
I read the part in bold as saying that the government (governing party) would be submitting the tally sheets to the court. Presumably they did.
Also, the Court seemed to request that the electoral commission publish the full “election results” within 30 days of the proclamation of Maduro as the winner. Maybe there is someone out there who can say when the result was officially proclaimed? Maybe it wasn’t 30 days after the date of the election?
In any event, if Maduro wants to claim “democratic legitimacy” for his re-election the government needs to publish them.
Valid point, by the way, asking why the pro-US opposition didn’t submit its tally sheets to the court. What had they to lose?
Book review from the July 2024 Socialist Standard translated here:
https://antropocene.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=543:tre-recensioni&catid=12
