ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Mark Chapman, of the Pirate Party, a minor reformist party, is also standing in Vauxhall:
It doesn't look as if we're going to need Screaming Lord Such to liven things up in Vauxhall. As well as the Pirate Party the Whig Party will be standing:http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/after-pirates-whigs.html
Obviously, once the principle that democracy means that "the majority has its way and the minority has its say" is accepted, there still remain the practical and procedural questions of how you measure a majority, how the minority has its say, etc.
By coincidence Sweden has just adopted "quantitative easing" which the media are also calling a "bond-buying programme":http://www.wsj.com/articles/sweden-cuts-rate-announces-qe-1423731254
That article makes some good points but doesn't actually answer the question it poses of "Did free speech allow the Nazis to come to power?" I wouldn't have thought it did, but the Nazi party did win enough votes to be asked to form a government. In which case, the SWP should more logically be demanding "No Place on the Ballot Paper for Fascists" but that would expose too blatantly the undemocratic nature of their "No Platform" demand.
I think it might be clearer if "quantitative easing" was called by its other name of "asset purchase programme" as that brings out more clearly what it is: the purchase of assets (mainly government bonds) from (mainly) banks by the Central Bank as a way of converting a part of banks' assets into a form that they can more easily spent. Whether they actually do spend any more than they otherwise would is of course another matter.
According to an article on Syriza I read in French, the Financial Times described Syriza's election victory as a "vote insurrectionnel", an "insurrectionary vote". On the surface this sounds like an oxymoron but, if you think about it, it's what the socialist election victory could be described as (and more correctly than Syriza's). I wonder whether we shouldn't start using the term. But I've not been able to find the actual reference in the Financial Times.Maybe this should have been posted on the thread about "Is This How Capitalist Rule Will End?"
AlsoMonday 16 March 7pm. Hall of Wesley Memorial Church, New Hall Street, Oxford (centre)Wednesday 15 April 6pm. Student Union Hall, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus.More details nearer the time.Other news from Oxford is that TUSC will be standing in Oxford East.
One of the reasons he left the Party was over the use of the traditional language of socialism, capitalism, working class, etc. After he left he wrote and published a pamphlet called A World of Free Access which set out the case for socialism without using such words. Actually, it's quite a good exposition of the case for socialism or "a world of free access" as he called it. The text can be found here (scroll down a bit):http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7047After that he went completely off the rails politically.
Here's a good speech on the subject which makes all the good points against "No Platform" which apparently is quite widespread in universities these days:http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/no-to-no-platform-in-defence-of-unpopular-ideas#.VNyAJCwoFqA
Thanks, Brian, that's an important document that we need to make sure all our candidates and election agents have:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/169480/sp-hustings-npc-ukpge.pdfIt is a considerable improvement on past advice the Electoral Commission have given. There is still a let-out clause but hustings organisers will need to be careful if they try to exclude us as we will force them to show that they were being impartial:
Quote:To show your hustings is non – selective you should : • be able to give impartial reasons why you have not invited particular candidates or parties. Y ou should be prepared to explain your reasons to candidates or parties you haven’t invited • make sure that candidates or parties you invite represent a reasonable variety of view, from different parts of the political spectrum • allow each candidate or party representative attending a fair chance to answer questions and, where appropriate, a reasonable opportunity to respond to points made against them by other candidates or party representative • inform the audience at the meeting of candidates or parties stan ding who haven’t been invited. Impartial reasons may emerge from the following considerations: • local prominence of some parties or candidates over others • the number of elected representatives at the local or national level • recent election results in the area • resources and other practicalities constraining numbers of invitees • security concerns Impartial reasons do not include reasons such as your views on the policies of a candidate or party.Mark Chapman, of the Pirate Party, a minor reformist party, is also standing in Vauxhall:https://london.pirateparty.org.uk/2014/09/30/mark-chapman-selected-as-ge2015-candidate-for-vauxhall/Why do they just want open access to the internet and not to the other things in life?
That could well be what the Islamists wants as it will bring them more recruits, just as the Zionists are not so opposed to anti-semitism as it brings them more recruits (emigrants to Israel).
Maybe because there will be no "workers" in socialism as all classes, including the working class, will have been abolished.
LBird wrote:For you ALB, who determines the 'not on everything'?Socialist society obviously, as part of its founding "constitution" (as it were). In other words, the majority who democratically establish socialism democratically decide that an essential part of the society they want to live in is that the minority has its say, i.e that minority opinions are protected from being suppressed by a majority decision. I've offered you this way out of your dilemma, which doesn't involve invoking abstract indivual rights, but you've rejected it.
LBird wrote:Blathering on about 'free association' for individuals doesn't cut the political mustard, I'm afraid.Tell that to Marx who used to blather on about post-capitalist society being an association. For instance, "an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism" (Poverty of Philosophy), "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (Communist Manifest) and "an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common" (from the section on the "Fetishism of Commodities" in Capital).
