[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.

[ALB]

I don't think Syriza can be fairly accused of "betrayal". They sought election on an anti-austerity programme and got a mandate from the electorate to try to negotiate less onerous terms from the EU. Most of those who voted for them will have done so to strengthen their negotiating hand in this (much as trade unionists vote for strike action in the government-imposed strike ballots here). They won't have been expecting Syriza to bring about revolutionary or even radical change in Greece just some mitigation of austerity. It's the leftists, inside and outside Greece, who have illusions on this score and are accusing Syriza of betrayal but of what they, not the Greek electorate, expected of them. Of course the Syriza government can't end austerity. Withdrawing from the EU and setting up a state-capitalist siege economy (which most of the leftists want in effect) wouldn't end austerity either. In fact, it would probably make it worse.

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

It was a car crash, but would an SPGB candidate really do any better under that kind of questioning? After all, you're proposing, not 500,000 new homes, but social housing for the whole planet. How much would that cost?

It wouldn't cost anything in monetary terms. Just the materials, energy and people's time, of which plenty will be available once the artificial scarcity and organised waste of capitalism has been ended. Are you saying, Paxman, that this couldn't be done and that millions of people must continue to live in shanty towns? Next question.There's also this of course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rjv71HyAPg

[ALB]

Here's another car crash interview:http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-natalie-bennett-105384#KBiswSjQ6LtMIy9D.97That's what happens when you claim to be able to reform capitalism so as to benefit people. It's just not credible. Even "Revolution, the only solution" is more credible or at least less incredible.Pity they don't go for TUSC in the same way (their reform promises are even more extravagant than the Greens'). Maybe they will. If not, we can do it.

[ALB]

For the benefit of Latin scholars in Oxford here's our message:

[ALB]

Here's a TUSC election clip for Alan to comment on and suggest we do something similar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfsNNcha6pU&feature=youtu.beThe content is very vague and doesn't say much.

[ALB]

Excellent talk and discussion yesterday afternoon in Clapham, London, at which the various meanings of "conspiracy" were dissected. From now on I'm going to follow the speaker's conclusion and talk about "cover-up theories" rather than "conspiracy theorists" since it is the cover-up aspects that those who go in for this thing emphasise. The point was also made that even if an alleged cover-up was uncovered that wouldn't affect capitalism and in fact that most cover-up theorists think that present system would be ok if there were no cover-ups, i.e. no bad guys in charge.The  talk and discussion were recorded and so should be available to a wider audience in due course.

[ALB]

I thought they always took the Muslim side. They seemed to have forgotten that the Muslims in Crimea wanted to stay part of Ukraine because they felt they'd get a less worse deal there than as part of Russia.

[ALB]

Ironic and amusing information in this interview with a German historian on which country was the biggest debt defaulter of the last century:http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/economic-historian-germany-was-biggest-debt-transgressor-of-20th-century-a-769703.html

[Author]

Posts