[ALB]

From last weekend's i paper's croosword;

Quote:

Political group, prats possibly, sheltered by body of people (9,5)

There's no question about them "possibly" being prats. They definitely were !

[ALB]

This whole thing is ridiculous:

Quote:

Banks won’t be able to create money for themselves anymore, they’ll only be able to lend money that they have from savers or other banks, or even, if necessary, money that the Swiss National Bank has provided them,

This is more or less what happens today !I think that what they are proposing is that banks should no longer be able to lend out money deposited in a current (as opposed to a savings) account. They'll just have to keep it as if they were a safe deposit service. That doesn't make sense from a capitalist point of view as it means that temporarily unused money won't be able to be channelled to those who want money to spend and are prepared to pay interest to borrow it.It is also likely to mean that banks will have to charge for storing people's current account money, i.e charges will go up. No more "free" banking. I imagine that this is what the opponents of the measure will be emphasising during the referendum campaign and could be a winner for them. We'll see.Strictly speaking, this is not currency crankism as the proposed measure is feasible, just silly.

[ALB]

I know he has said he wants to rejoin Labour and said he would if Corbyn became leader but he can't do both, i.e stand for mayor against the official Labour candidate and rejoin.

[ALB]

What is more interesting is the trajectory of the members of this leading Suffragette family. The mother ends up a Tory. One of the daughters a Seventh Day Adventist,  another a fascist and a Roman Catholic and another an admirer of the Emperor of Abyssinia. I wonder if this was typical of the Suffragettes. If so, it would back up our contention that, essentially, what they stood and struggled for was Votes for Rich Women and so not worthy of socialist or working class support.  A demand for universal adult suffrage would have been more acceptable but that's not what they wanted, only votes for women on the same terms as men at the time. Which would have left most women and one-third of men without the vote. And we're supposed to admire them.

[ALB]

Not as bad as suggesting that there are some members who sympathise with bombing ISIS. Sometimes you go too far.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

ALB wrote:

Of course not. What a silly question.

That should satisfy interested sympathisers. Stop asking us silly questions. Sorry cde but that is a dumb response

But it's clearly not a genuine question from an interested sympathiser. The question on its own could be if it came from somebody who had "never heard of us". But not this:

Quote:

 there seems to sympathy for those opposing ISIS for some un explained reason. Perhaps if someone can enlighten me

That reads more like something from someone opposed to us who's trying to stir things up.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

If nothing else, it will stimulate a wider debate with the 'enquiring worker'.

The trouble is that irony never works as people tend to take you literally (which would be counter-productive in the example you propose).

[ALB]

Of course not. What a silly question.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

Workers dont take sides in wars, LBird was correct. There are no interests justifying the shedding a single drop of working class blood. Still stands for me

Agreed (of course) but I think you meant that workers shouldn't take sides in wars as, unfortunately, many do. But that's not the point. The point at issue is why workers should not take sides.Is it because there is no difference between political democracy and political dictatorship and that the difference between the two is of no significance to workers and a matter of complete indifference to them?orIs it because we don't think that taking sides in a war is a way of defending political democracy recognised as a gain and of use to the working class?We have never said that it is a matter of indifference to workers whether or not political democracy exists. We can't as our whole case for an essentially non-violent change-over to socialism depends on its existence, quite apart from it being a condition for our everyday activities as an open, democratic, socialist party (meetings, publications, contesting elections).Actually, if we are honest with ourselves, our basic position is the quasi-pacifist one is that workers should not kill each other.The ultra-left, in the strict sense of the term (see here), precisely don't take part in anti-fascist demonstrations. They don't because they are equally opposed to political democracy and don't think the one is any better or worse than the other. Which has never been our position.

[ALB]

The ADM doesn't make decisions so you are off the hook.  Nor does Conference on the day as all motions (proposed by branches) discussed there then go out to an individual vote of members, whose results are binding and have to be implemented by the EC.

[ALB]

And:We are fully aware of the sufferings of workers in Iraq and Syria under Islamist rule, and wholeheartedly support the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights against the powers of suppression, but the history of the past decades shows the futility of war as a means of safeguarding democracy.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Our message has always been a plague on both houses…We don't design hierarchies of oppression

Actually, this is not quite what we have said. Certainly we don't take sides in wars, but we  have always recognised that political democracy is better than dictatorship (is this designating a hierarchy of oppression?) , as in our 1939 statement opposing the Sond World War:

Quote:

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is fully aware of the sufferings of German workers under Nazi rule, and wholeheartedly supports the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights against the powers of suppression, but the history of the past decades shows the futility of war as a means of safeguarding democracy.

In other words, our position has been:political democracy is important to the working class but cannot (or even should not) be defended by taking sides in a war between capitalist states.It is not the same as the ultra-left position, as put forward by L Bird and endorsed earlier by Vin when he said L. Bird was expressing the Party case, that socialists don't take sides in wars because there is no fundamental difference between fascism and political democracy or, today, between an Islamic state and political democracy on the grounds that both are capitalist states.Of course an  Islamic State is worse for workers than the limited political democracy that exists in Britain, France, etc  (or even than political dictatorships like fascism or stalinism or, for that matter, Baathism). There can be no argument about this and we shouldn't suggest that it's a matter of indifference for workers whether they live under such a state or in a political democracy.Our position is that political democracy is valuable to workers but should not  be defended by taking sides in wars and that, in any event, this is not why capitalist states go to war or are going to war in Iraq and Syria today.

[ALB]

The Electoral Commission turned down our appeal against them (belatedly) disallowing "SPGB"  as a variant of our registered name that could be used on the ballot paper. We still haven't given up pursuing the matter and are waiting for them to supply us with a list of other acronyms they have struck off and also those they have allowed.In the meantime they have offered us a free replacement variant. We proposed "The Socialist Party (SPGB)". They rejected this but said we could have "The Socialist Party (SP-GB)" on the grounds that while SP and GB are immediately understandable by anyone SPGB is not. Strange logic but we have accepted.Actually, on reflection, SP-GB is not bad as it is saying that we are the SP in GB rather than of GB, i.e bringing out that we are using "Great Britain" only in its geographical sense without the otherr horrible, nationalistic even imperialistic connotations of that term. And, for those concerned about it, "The Socialist Party (SP-GB)" will avoid confusion with Militant Tendency who have also taken to calling themselves the "Socialist Party".In fact, "The Socialist Party (SP-GB)" could even be something we could use on the ballot paper instead of "The Socialist Party (GB)" and "The Socialist Party of Great Britain" that we have used up till now.What do people think?

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Spikeymike #51 "PS: The 'Socialist Party' you joined is not I presume 'The Socialist Party' as in the SPGB – the latter party has a pretty good website dealing with some basic anti-capitalist ideas though neither organisations are anti-parliamentary."Ghostwhistler #53 "The only socialist parties I'm aware of are the SWP and the Socialist Party. If there's a separate group called the Socialist Party of Great Britain then, assuming it's not the latter, I haven't heard of them. I'm talking about the group formed from Militant."Auld-Bod #61 "You asked if socialists entering parliament had been tried before. Though I have strong reservations about the SPGB, in the December issue of their monthly journal, ‘Socialist Standard’, is a good article – ‘Cooking the books – You can’t buck the market but you can abolish it’, which debunks the Labour Party and all socialists, who wish the reform (or patch up) capitalism. It’s on their website."These are the only messages which mention ourselves.

Now we learn that 2 out of the 3 who were discussing us had heard of us and looked on us relatively favourably

alanjohnstone wrote:

And as you see the title of this thread is part of a direct quote.

No, it isn't. He said "haven't heard of them" rather than "never heard of them", which is not so dismissive. Nor so gloomy. Half-fullers would have titled this thread "SPGB — pretty good website" or "SPGB — good articcle".

[ALB]

It seems that, of the 70,000 non-IS rebels mentioned in Cameron's dodgy dossier as being on the ground in Syria ready to take on IS, 65,000 share the same ideology and will only want to take IS's place in imposing Islamism on people in Syria; in other they are just members of rival Islamist gangs:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367662/15-Jihadi-groups-65-000-militants-ready-replace-ISIS-defeated-share-aim-create-Islamic-state-destroy-west.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490Looks like, on Cameron's figures, there will only be about 5000 moderate, ie non-jihadi, rebels in Syria …..

[Author]

Posts