[ALB]

See chapter 2 of this pamphlet of ours:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/are-we-prisoners-our-genesI think the term "Neo-Darwinism" might be being used in two different senses here. Perhaps "Neo-Social-Darwinism" might be a better name for one of them.

[ALB]

That we are contesting and the names of our candidates are announced here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Assembly_election,_2016

[ALB]

Quote:

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.   Aristotle

I'm intrigued by this quote which seems to suggest that Aristotle was a supporter of democracy as "rule by the people" whereas he wasn't:http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/greekfeatures/a/democracyaristl.htmI don't doubt the quote is genuine but I've not been able to find the source (not that I've tried very hard) since the context would be relevant to what he might have meant. I suppose he is saying that if you are in favour of democracy (which he wasn't) this would be the best form (even though he doubted it was practicablel). Having said that, while it might not have been practicable in his day, that doesn't mean it isn't today. Hence the popularity of the quote today.

[ALB]

Not been following this thread but this might (or might not) be of some relevance:http://www.sapiens.org/body/early-humans-and-raw-meat/At least it gives some comfort to us omnivores, not that I fancy eating raw meat.

[ALB]

Andrew Neil was much less harsh on him than he was on us, but I suppose he was giving him enough rope. That wouldn't work with us so he used mockery instead.

[ALB]

Similar quotable quotes can be found in Ernst Mandel though not in Trotsky himself (I'm convinced that he couldn't see any difference between state capitalism and socialism).

Cannon wrote:

Emerging from capitalism, the transitional society, will carry over some capitalist methods of accounting, incentives, and rewards. People first will work for wages. They will be paid in money, backed by the gold in Fort Knox, for the amount of work performed.

This shows Cannon's dogmatism as it reflects Trotsky's call in his The Revolution Betrayed (1936) for a gold-based rouble to be introduced in Stalin's Russia. What is odd is that Cannon should have written this in 1953 at a time when even capitalist states had abandoned backing their currencies by gold (though the gold exchange standard for international trade still continued for another 18 years).I don't suppose there are many Trotskyists today who envisage a gold-backed currency in the early stages of their so-called "transitional society" (i.e a state capitalism ruled by their vanguard party) but you never know. There might be a Trotskyist sect somewhere that still clings to this.

[ALB]

Actually, as Trotskyoids go, Shactmann and Draper weren't too bad. Both rejected the nonsense, endorsed by Trotsky  himself, that Russia was some kind of "Workers State". Shactmann argued that it was a new exploitative class society (which he called "bureaucratic collectivism"). Draper recognised that it was a form of state capitalism.In 1962 Draper wrote an article on "Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which we recommended in one of our pamphlets. The article can be found here:https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1962/xx/dictprolet.htmland our reference to it is in this chapter of our 1978 (and 1969) edition pamphlet Questions of the Day::http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/questions-day#Marx_dictate

[ALB]

I think this cloak and dagger stuff will have to do with the fact that the AWL is try to re-enter the Labour Party and the Labour Party is trying to stop this:http://www.workersliberty.org/node/26346But Trotskyist entryist groups are nothing if not persistent. Having said that, I'm sure there'll be some Labour Party local officials who won't mind for the time being extra help in distributing their leaflets for the coming elections. According to the link, one of the AWLers expelled was told about this when she was out canvassing for Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London.

[ALB]

So, Tim, although Reich's theory was wrong he was on the right track: an authoritarian personality (or not) does depend on the way you're brought up.  But is there any evidence that authoritarians can be persuaded to support non-authoritarian solutions? Hopefully yes.

[ALB]

Thanks. Interesting and rather disturbing, especially the bit about fear (real or imagined) pushing the non-authoritatian to vote for authoritarian leaders and actions.It still leaves open the question of why some have authoritarian personalities. The way they were brought up?Also, in a UK context, would seem to explain more why people vote UKIP. After all, Cameron is hardly a strong Leader. But then neither is Farage.This article might also interest those following the Trump for President thread.

[ALB]

So, back to Wilhelm Reich and the Mass Psychology of Fascism which Danny translates as the "Mass Psychology of Capitalism" ?

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Socialist Economic Bulletin is Socialist Action, i.e. Ken Livingstone and friends, who are the group around Corbyn, so this is close to inhouse thinking of the Labour leadership (as suggested also by the bklog post that follows this one). 

I see what you mean as the blog ends:

Quote:

For now though, this weakness puts the British economy in a uniquely vulnerable position in the global slowdown. So it is no exaggeration to say that under current circumstances the need for state-led investment to rescue the economy and living standards from renewed crisis is more acute in Britain than elsehwere in the G7 economies. When John McDonnell says, “our mantra is investment, investment, investment,” this is exactly what is required to stave off renewed economic weakness.

Is it? What's the point of even state-led investment if there's no profitable market for the products?And of course the more of what is produced is invested the less there is for consumption, but that's the way capitalism works. In fact, it's what it's all about and why it can't be reformed to give priority to meeting people's needs.

[ALB]

Meanwhile Osborne backs down from cutting tax relief for the rich:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604They really are the party of the rich. I've never understood why so many who are not rich vote for them (though, I know,  most people don't). But there you are.

[ALB]

Nice headline but I don't know how reliable the interviewee is:http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160306/1035851666/syria-crisis-oil-talks.html

Quote:

The Syrian crisis is nothing but a "game for control over oil riches," where religious and other issues are only used as a pretext, according to William Engdahl, a political analyst for the opinion website New Eastern Outlook. In an interview with Sputnik, William Engdahl, a political analyst for the opinion website New Eastern Outlook, gave his thoughtson the Syrian gridlock, which he sees as a conflict over the country's oil riches, with religious and other issues only being used as a pretext.

According to his wikipedia entry Engdahl is a supporter of the nutty and dubious Larouche movement. Which would make him a bit of a conspiracy theorist and so not that reliable. Not that that necessarily means that there is nothing in what he says here.Russia's English language radio and TV station do interview some odd people.I'm not sure "oil riches" is the right word for Syria's oil whose extent and state is aptly typified by the illustration with the article — a nodding donkey. .I don't suppose there are many of them in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran. Syria as a possible route for rival pipelines that's more credible. In any event, it's not about religion. That is, as he says, just a pretext, though quite an effective one to get people to "martyr" themselves on either side. 

[ALB]

Reminder: here's the definition of "Apocryphal":

Quote:

Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity.

You can say that again, especially as the story was only made up earlier this week by a member of the most despicable Leninist sect in Britain.But what's interesting is the case of Nick Wrack. I think he will only have joined the Labour Party because a majority of his group (the Independent Socialist Network)  voted to do this, against his advice. Here he is last September putting a (good) case against  joining Labour (or, in his case, rejoining):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQHmEj5Ja7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2jH3kCeIQk The bit at the end of the first one is particularly good about those who join ending up distributing leaflets for Labour candidates at national and local elections.

[Author]

Posts