ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Giuseppe-Joe wrote:RD laing comes to mind, his The Politics of Experience in particular
Yes, some Party members in the 1980s were keen on him and Thomas Szasz's Anti-Psychiatry. There were a couple of articles on it, I think. I'm not sure those who wrote them still adhere to this view. There does seem to be a genetic element in some mental illness (via the anatomy and physiology of the brain as part of the body), not nearly as much as some claim but still some, as that Guardian article Meel quoted said (and which seems to present a balanced position).Just found one of the articles: "Are You Being Driven Mad?" by S. Coleman that appeared in the May 1981 Socialist Standard (but not one of those in the archives section here but I'm sure there will be some spare copies at Head Office) which quotes favourably Szasz's The Manufacture of Madness.
Just bought something from the local cornershop for £1.29. I don't normally give to charity but faced with two charity boxes decided to give the 1p to the blind rather the Battersea Dogs Home, to help with the white sticks the Tories are planning to tick away
One of the problems with accusing people of betraying principles is: whose principles? If the person never was a socialist, e.g. Sanders, then he can't be accused of betraying them because he never held them in the first place. If it's that person's principle, which differs from ours, he may or may not be betraying them. If, as seems to be Sanders's case, his principle is that a Democratic President is better than a Republican one then in saying that he'll support Clinton if she wins the nomination rather than him he can't be accused of betraying his principles. Also, of course, if someone has no principles they can't be accused of betrayal, only of having no principles, but I don't think that applies to Sanders.
It appears that some pensioners have suffered from the cuts:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pension-credit-cuts-linked-to-increase-in-death-rates-of-over-85s-study-claims-a6933271.htmlThe poorest ones of course. Something needs to be done about capitalism, like getting rid of it.
Looks like they've overdone being nasty this time. Cuts were always necessary from a capitalist point of view, but they decided to concentrate them on people below pension age on the cynical ground that more old people vote for them. Nice to see them come unstuck over this.
One Tory MP suffers from the backlash, and not the least but Zac Goldsmith, their candidate for Mayor of London: See here.Serve him right.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Principles can be bought and Bernie is happy to sell his.That's a bit harsh, isn't it? It's not our case that all politicians are unprincipled self-seekers. On the contrary, it's our case that even if they're not they still can't make capitalism work for the benefit of the majority
Refuting those who think banks can create money to lend out of nothing is too easy. Here's an item from yesterday's Times:
Quote:Profits surge ahead at college-owned bankA start-up bank half-owned by a Cambridge University college has reported a fourfold rise in annual pretax profits to more than £10 million in its fourth year since opening. Cambridge & Counties Bank, which is 50 per cent owned by Trinity Hall, right, said that it had made a profit of £10.2 million last year as deposits rose by 21 per cent to £472 million.The Leicester-based lender focuses on small and medium-sized companies across Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire, attracting more than 1,600 business customers. At the end of last year, It had total assets of more than £500 million, with its loan book growing 66 per cent year-on-year to £416 million.Just do the maths. It's up to the currency cranks to produce evidence of a bank lending more than it has in deposits from outside and what it's borrowed from the money market.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Our blog has highlighted this issue judging it to be another form of European nationalism to the Little Englander type but seriously are they suggesting that exiting the EU will reverse Cameron's anti-refugee policies or encourage Labour to welcome refugees.That's the fatal weakness in the argument for leaving from groups like the SWP which claim to have the immediate day-to-day interest of migrant workers at heart. Clearly Britain leaving the EU will make their position worse than it even will be under the "reform" Cameron negotiated.One conclusion would be that they don't have the immediate interest of these workers at heart, even that they want their conditions to worsen so that they'll be more discontented and more likely to follow their vanguard.To tell the truth, I can't really believe that they are that cynical. It's more that they haven't thought their position through. If they had, and that the lot of these workers was their main concern, they should be campaigning to stay in. But maybe having the sovereign ability to introduce state capitalism in one country is a higher priority for them.
alanjjohnstone wrote:On internet surfs i have come across his name a few times – Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's vice-president, who was dumped by the Democrats for being too "radical" and later accused of being a "communist" when running as a progressive independent , arguing for free universal healthcare, labour reform, and the end of segregation.According to yesterday's London edition of Metro:
Quote:Mr Trump blamed Democrat Bernie Sanders' supporters for trouble at his rallies, calling him "Bernie our communist friend".I don't disagree that there is a statistical correlation between the types of tv programmes men and women like to watch (you won't catch me watching Georgian costume "dramas") or between you getting divorced if you're parents were. That is not at issue. What is is what causes the "personality trait" behind this behaviour. Is it something inherited via the genes? Or is it something formed and largely fixed in the early years of life (may even since conception)? I think the evidence suggests the second is the more plausible, as in the discussion here about attachment theory which starts from this basis. It even applies to other animals.The other view has all sorts of difficulties, not least which genes would be responsible and how they would work to directly influence behaviour since what genes determine is the anatomical and phtsiological development of the individual, not their actual behaviour.Genes do determine anatomical and physiological defects or abnormalities in some individuals which will influence (limit in some cases) what the individual affected can do as well as the attitude of society towards them. In fact it is significant that it is only genes determining such defects and abnormalities that have been identified. None determining behaviour such as "marriage status and television watching" have been and never will be since genes don't determine such obviously culturally-determined social behaviour patterns such as these..And of course the claim that they do is also culturally, even politically, determined. Or is voting Tory also heritable?
Could also have been the word "socialist" of course since the "Left" is assumed to be anti-Common Market as a capitalists' club, etc.
Head Office has been sent this statement asking us to endorse it and circulate it to our members and readers, presumably under the misapprehension that we too are Left British Nationalists.http://votetoleaveeuropeanunion.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/it-is-time-for-voices-to-be-raised-in.htmlWe can't and won't endorse it of course but we can gladly circulate the names of those who have endorsed it . Scroll down to see this roll of dishonour, the usual suspects including the CPB, SWP, SPEW, TUSC, Tariq Ali, John Rees, and a handful of left Labour MPs,
