[ALB]

I meant someone from his own field of linguistics on the basis of their research and theorising in this field or, if you prtefer, theorising, research and theorising again

[ALB]

All I know was that one of them is on record as saying that he left UKIP because he felt its working class members like him were being treated as mere foot soldiers.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

More:

regarding Chomskys theory, the article wrote:

Speech is the natural, autonomous output of a dedicated computational mechanism – the ‘language organ’ – located in a special region of the individual human brain.

'Individuals' and 'biology'.

It is this biological determinism that was why I was waiting for someone to refute him. A bit suspicious of Chris Knight though, as isn't he a bit of one too (ex-SWP, expelled I think, but in their argument I thought Chris Harman came off best)?

[ALB]

There's an audio tape of the two opening statements in last year's debate with UKIP here on this site:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1326-february-2015/our-general-election-campaign If you want to see a rather amateur video of this (taken on her mobile) plus the UKIP candidate going on and on about the European Court of Human Rights at Strasburg (which is not part of the EU) it's on her youtube channel here: http://www.fanlook.net/view/Oyi1qYopafUIncidentally, two or three ex-members of UKIP have joined the Party in the past couple of years.

[ALB]

I don't understand either what military significance either theory has.

[ALB]

I don't know if this is what you mean by "recorded" but there's a more or less complete record of the Party's debates over the years here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain_debatesScroll down and you'll see we debated the British Union of Fascists in 1935, the Union of British Freedom in 1946,  the Union Movement in 1955,  the National Front in 1969,  the Islamic Party of Britain in 1990, the Luton Cultural Islamic Society in 1995, and UKIP in 2009 and 2014.So we do practice what we preach. I think only the 2014 one with UKIP was recorded in the other sense. There also exists a press report of the 1969 debate with the NF, This was broken up by the Trotskyists, which explains why we've not debated with groups they designate as "fascist" since..

[ALB]

The UKIP candidate in Swansea West is one of the many skeletons in their cupboard:But he wasn't bad enough for UKIP to deselect him (not that they need to as he seems to be expressing their views if rather crudely):http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/no-further-action-against-welsh-8230540We've challenged him to a public debate. This is a better way to contest and expose his views than trying to physically stop him from expressing them as some locally are wanting.

[ALB]

I was going to make the same point as JohnD but he got there first. The purpose of a public debate is not to convince the opponent but the audience. That's why we say it's better to debate fascists, islamists, etc in public and expose their views rather to stop their views being expressed whether by law (as the Tories propose) or by mob violence (as the SWP do).I don't think either that there are such things as instant convincings. What we are talking about is the free circulation of ideas and, as JohnD points out, this as being the best condition for the spread of socialist ideas. I don't suppose we have convinced any "religious or racial extremists" themselves but we certainly have convinced people who were once influenced by them.

[ALB]

Interesting stuff, Hud. But is Chris Knight actually claiming that Chomsky is a Pentagon agent? That would be going way beyond where I'd want to go. I merely want to see his biological determinism refuted.I notice you use the present tense but hasn't Chomsky long since stopped linguistic research, whether funded by (and/or for) the Pentagon or not?

[ALB]

Don't worry, Alan, I'm preparing a file to challenge the Oxfordshire NUT's mistaken decision to not invite all the prospective candidates without providing a justification for not inviting some. It should make an interesting test case.

[ALB]

I know I'm probably making a mistake in reviving this corrupted thread as it risks setting them all going again, but I can't help pointing out that the media are reporting a parallel argument between the Tories and the LibDems over banning Islamist extremists from speaking at universities, with the Tories saying "No Platform for Islamist extremists" and the Liberals saying "Put them on a platform and refute their views":http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/01/government-row-over-limiting-free-speech-on-university-campuses

Quote:

Lib Dem sources insisted it should be open to universities to ban specific speakers if they felt this was justifiable, but they should also be open to use their judgment when a speaker should be allowed so long as his argument is going to be challenged in debate.One source said: “There is a power in rational, thoughtful debate changing impressionable minds. Sometimes it is better to defeat these ideas in argument rather than simply banning someone. That can simply drive the debate underground or off campus to somewhere else. If anyone is inciting violence that is already unlawful, and if a university believes someone should be banned they should be open to do that.”The Lib Dem source pointed out that some student organisations were trying to ban Ukip or the BNP on the grounds that their views were extremist.

Note that the Tories are using the same arguments for their "No Platform" policy as the SWP do for theirs:the elitist view some people have "impressionable minds" and should be protected from hearing views that might mislead them.

[ALB]

Here is confirmation that the Trotskyists alternative to the current austerity in Greece is a state capitalist siege econmony:

Quote:

So what should Syriza do if the Troika puts a knife at the throat of the new government and demand 'submission or Grexit'? Syriza should without any hesitation appeal to the 'popular verdict'. Either by means of a referendum or with new elections (if a political crisis results) in which Syriza should put the question squarely in front of the Greek working people: Keep the euro and the memoranda or go for a national currency and pro-workers' policies.If Syriza goes ahead with such a bold counter offensive then the Troikians, inside and outside Greece, will suffer a crushing defeat!Exiting the euro on its own will not solve the crisis of Greek capitalism. The re-introduction of a national currency must by necessity be combined with bold socialist policies: like capital controls, state monopoly of foreign trade and democratic public ownership of the big corporations and banks – and a class internationalist appeal to the workers of the rest of Europe.

As if leaving the EU, re-introducing a national currency, capital controls and a state monopoly of foreign trade would end austerity. It's more likely to make it worse.Presumably this is what they are advocating for Britain too, though I've not seen it spelt out so explicitly.

[ALB]

Not ISIS but from the same stable and just as bad:https://iaoj.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/american-bangladeshi-atheist-blogger-avijit-roy-hacked-to-death-by-suspected-islamist-extremists/And they can't even use the pretext that he was an apostate since he never was a muslim.

[ALB]

There's some good quotes here on just how low the SWP will stoop to win support from Islamists and Muslims generally. Another of example of them promoting and practising "communalist" politics. And they dare to call themselves socialists and Marxists.

[ALB]

Under the headline "MPs set to do battle", yesterday's Oxford Mail contained the following news item:

Quote:

The city's MPs and prospective and parliamentary candidates are set to clash in an education debate tonight.   Oxford East MP Andrew Smith and Oxford and West and Abingdon MP Nicola Blackwood will be at an Education Question Time. The event is at Oxford Town Hall, 7.30pm to 9.30pm. Book at oxnut.org.uk

Since only Tory, Labour, LibDem and Green candidates were invited, to the exclusion of prospective parliamentary candidates representing at least four other parties including us, the following email has been sent to the Oxfordshire branch of the National Union of Teachers who organised the event:

Quote:

I was a bit surprised to read in yesterday's Oxford Mail that you had organised a debate yesterday evening between "the City's MPs and prospectives parliamentary candidates". There are rules governing debates between prospective candidates, as set out on the Electoral Commission's website. See http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/169480/sp-hustings-npc-ukpge.pdf See in particular page 7.I am afraid you may have breached them, by not inviting and/or not explaining why you did not invite all the prospective candidates. This might have the consequence of meaning that the expenses of the debate should be shared by the candidates who were invited.Was there a reason why we and I suspect some of the other prospective candidates were not invited?Adam Buick, Election Agent, for Kevin Parkin, prospective Socialist Party candidate for Oxford East and Mike Foster, prospective Socialist Party candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon.

This can serve as a standard letter for other instances where we are not invited. I've just noticed that a group in a neighbouring constituency to mine is organising a similar event without inviting all the other candidates or giving a reason why they haven't.  We need to keep citing this Electoral Commission document to ensure that the elementary democratic principle that all candidates in an election should be given equal time is respected.

[Author]

Posts