ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes it's a very good quote and it is something we can ram down the throats of those who stand for state capitalism. Talking of which I see that Eric Heffer could only comment on Thatcher's correct statement:
Quote:That is absolute nonsense.Well, a leftwing Labourite would say that, wouldn't he.
There are 12 candidates standing for Mayor. If we'd stood we'd have been the only one using the word "socialist":https://www.londonelects.org.uk/news-centre/news-listing/mayoral-candidates-announcedThere are also 12 parties (not the same) contesting the party list section (scroll down the above), once again none calling themselves "socialist".The list of candidates standing in the 14 constituencies can be found here:https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/who-vote/constituency-london-assembly-member-candidatesThe ones in those we're contesting are:
Quote:Lambeth and SouthwarkBUKOLA, Michael Adewale – Caroline Pidgeon's London Liberal DemocratsESHALOMI, Florence – Labour PartyFLINT, Robert – The Conservative Party candidateKANUMANSA, Amadu Santigie – All People's PartyNIX, Rashid – The Green PartyPARKIN, Kevin Leslie – The Socialist Party (SP-GB)RAMADI, Idham – UK Independence Party (UKIP)Quote:North East* includes the boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Waltham ForestALLEN, Tim – Respect (George Galloway)ARNOLD, Jennette – Labour PartyJERAJ, Samir – Green PartyMALIK, Sam – The Conservative Party CandidateMARTIN, Bill – The Socialist Party (SP-GB)SILBERMAN, Jonathan – Communist LeagueSTACY, Terry – London Liberal DemocratsVACHHA, Freddy – UK Independence Party (UKIP)Quote:South West* includes the boroughs of Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, and Richmond upon ThamesARBOUR, Tony – The Conservative Party CandidateBUICK, Adam John Lewis – The Socialist Party (SP-GB)CRAIG, Alexander Alan – UK Independence Party (UKIP)FRIEZE, Andree Michelle – Green PartyROBSON, Rosina Jane – London Liberal DemocratsWHELTON, Martin James – Labour PartyHere, apart from us, in all the constituencies there is only one other candidate claiming to be "socialist" or "communist" — the Communist League, a way-out trotskyist sect, that happens to be standing against us in North East. Respect is standing there too (and maybe the S does stand for "socialist" in inverted commas). So where have all those calling themselves "socialist" gone? No doubt back into the Labour Party. It's a return to the 1970s when we (and the now defunct ILP, whose remnants are also back in the Labour Party) were the only people calling themselves socialist to stand against Labour. Time to insist all the more that we are THE Socialist Party.
Governments have to see to the overall general interests of their country's capitalist class as a whole and as there are conflicting interests they have to arbitrate between these. Steel producers don't like cheap steel imports but steel consumers, such as the car industry, do. The BBC has been reporting this morning that the UK has been opposing the EU imposing higher tariffs on imported Chinese steel:
Quote:The European Steel Association said the UK had been blocking an EU measure which would have tackled the "dumping" of cheap Chinese steel in Europe, which is partly being blamed for the crisis. (….) The UK has argued against higher tariffs, saying they would hit other sectors such as the car industry, which import a lot of foreign steel.I imagine the outcome will be that the government will continue to side with the car rather than the steel industry. Bit of a dilemma too for Len McCloskey and UNITE (but he'll want to have his cake and eat it).
Here's an example from today's papers of junk science in this field of research into "personality" based on assuming that this is inherited (and, as usual with sociobiologists, without putting forward any biological process as to how this could happen, just assuming it):http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4725656.eceThe full paper can be read here:http://www.academia.edu/21585300/An_evolutionary_account_of_the_prevalence_of_personality_traits_that_impair_intimate_relationshipsIt contradicts another famous assumption of the sociobiologists that originally sexual partners were chosen by individuals and which they use to advance theories about all sorts of things.
The fact is that there is no general UK capitalist interest in Leaving.Companies like Tate & Lyle producing cane sugar rather than sugar beet would gain. So would a few hedge funds and other vukture capitalists. But the host of small businesses producing for the home market that are following them are deluding themselves if they think production for the home market is what drives a capitalist economy. They might be relieved of some regulations (perhaps) but if exports are affected and an economic downturn results (as is likely in the case of withdrawal) the home market will shrink too. From a general UK capitalist point of view Remaing In is a no-brainer.I've noticed on the BBC that, when a Remainer makes a valid point (from a capitalist point of view) like this, in the interests of equal time they interview a Leaver who can only say that it's not true. But it still is.
I don't know what you are trying to get me to agree to here. Obviously, the brain is part of the physical body and so its development and what it is capable of doing is genetic. That's what genes do. And not everybody's genes are exactly the same. The mind (what a brain actually does as opposed to what it is capable of doing, if you like) is not genetic but depends on the circumstances in which the brain operates and has operated since birth, the early years being particularly important for a person's "personality". There are "mental conditions" and "mental conditions", some caused by the way a person was brought up, others by some genetic defect. Specialists in the field are arguing over which are which. Some, however, seem to be confusing "brain" and "mind".
alanjjohnstone wrote:As an aside, I am intriqued by ALB's caveat "(and that the writer has not acquired notoriety over something we wouldn't want to be associated with)"Who does he have in mind, i wondered?I don't know. I was thinking of someone who had been expelled from another organisation for an act we wouldn't endorse, e.g from a union for strikebreaking or stealing branch funds. Or, for that matter, had been expelled by us. Or, what about having called for a vote for some capitalist party? So, that's Chomsky out. An interview is a different matter of course.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:we are proposing to give space in our Journal to writers who are not members of our Party.No "we" are not. One member has proposed this for discussion here on our non-decision-making "discussion forum". The current policy on this is that we can and have published articles by non-members on condition that the view expressed is one we agree with (and that the writer has not acquired notoriety over something we wouldn't want to be associated with). Not the same thing as giving non-members free rein in a regular column to express their views.
Someone has sent us this. Apparently John Pilger sees Trump as the lesser evil — because of his isolationist position on foreign policy:
Quote:Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.The same might be said of Farage and UKIP in this country as they too are opposed to overeseas military adventures.
More on this new party here. It seems it was set up by a disaffected Labourite (and rich businessman) when he was not selected to stand for Parliament against LibDem Simon Hughes in Southwarkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_People's_Party_%28UK%29http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP2137
It looks like we will be opposed in Lambeth and Southwark by a candidate of the All People's Party:http://allpeoplesparty.co.uk/gla-election-2016-candidates/It's not too clear what they stand for (except capitalism) but their basic slogan "Fight for Equality at the Top" suggests that they are a caricature of "identity politics", i.e just want the top positions in capitalist society to be shared equally by their particular "identity group" (in this case, seemingly, people from West Africa). As if an even sharing of capitalist privileges amongst various groups would make any difference to most people, not even those in the groups concerned. It would just be a case of top jobs for some of them.
Yes, these developments are disturbing and show that history doesn't proceed steadily in a progressive direction but that setbacks and regressions are possible. It might have been expected that there would be a progression from backward-looking dynastic regimes to modernising secular dictatorships to capitalist secular political democracy. But this has not happened. Instead we've seen the rise/return of religious obscurantism in the Arab world. (But also in Turkey where the Erdogan regime is whittling away at Ataturk's progressive reforms).There will be a number of reasons for this, including the inability of the secular dictatorships to improve the material condition of the mass of the population despite their success in the field of education and fighting religious obscurantism. Another will be the accident of history that the world's biggest oil reserves should have happened to be within the territory of a Bedoiun tribe adhering to a particularly obscurantistand obnoxious version of Islam. Their riches have enabled them to propagate this throughout the whole muslim world and before whom the Western capitalist powers have bowed and scraped for geopolitical/strategic reasons as well as to get their oil supplies. But this accident of history might have a sting in the tail: the Saudi royal family's oil resources are situated in a part of their territory inhabited by Shia muslims who could, at some point perhaps with Iran's support, rise up and give the corrupt and hypocritical Saudi ruling family their come uppance and maybe a taste of their own medicine.
I see from today's Weekly Worker that the RSA, i.e Steve Freeman, has thought up a new possible compromise position on the referendum (scroll down here to "compelling case")
Quote:the Scottish working class should vote to remain in the European Union, whilst the English working class should abstain.Completely bonkers !
Just had a leaflet from the local Tories and here's how they get round this:
Quote:How we use your InformationThe data you provide will be retained by the Conservative Party in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and related legislation. By providing your data to us, you are consenting to the data holders making contact with you in the future by telephone, text or other means, even though you may be registered with the Telephone Preference Service. Your data will not be sold or given to anyone not connected to the Conservative Party. If you do not want the information you give to us to be used in this way, or for us to contact you, please indicate by ticking the relevant boxes: Post _ Email _ SMS _ Phone_Not saying we should do this, but is what you'd have to do to avoid any comebacks.
