[ALB]

One down but how many more of the bastards to go (and some will no doubt be in the literal sense)? And what about the hypocrites from the Western states would are attending the funeral of the deceased head of the Islamic State of Saudi Arabia?

[ALB]

More here. Aout the proposed shadow boxing between the capitalist parties' "leaders":http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/beer-baccy-and-tv-debatesScroll down to No 6.

[ALB]

Here's a couple of short pieces on it:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1267-march-2010/letterhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1265-january-2010/cooking-books-2-financial-alchemyThere's also been a short thread on it here on this forum:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/why-hasnt-quantitative-easing-caused-inflationBasically,  you're right: the aim is to inflate just "asset prices" not the general price level. In any event, despite QE, the general price level hasn't risen any faster than it usually does now. In fact, it's now rising slower than this.

[ALB]

I'd have thought that the whole concept of "human capital" is itself a condemnation of capitalism.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

(But sounds more like the SPEW to me, and using one of their proxy Labour Party front addresses)

The addresses on the leaflet make it clear that it is aimed at us not Labour or SPEW, either to discredit us or perhaps even to give us credit where it's not due. Or maybe it's just a spoof of the sort that Screaming Comrade Alan has been suggesting we do. Judge for yourself.

Quote:

It appears to us in the Socialist Party that the old Job Centre Plus officers are gradually being turned into Sanctions Centre Plus offices The Sanction Advisors at the Sanction Centre Plus offices have no intention of finding job seekers employment. These Sanction Advisors are there just to impose sanctions.If this were not bad enough, rumours and individual reports show that the managers of these Sanction Centre Plus offices are ordering their staff not to impose sanctions on people who may cause trouble. Burly muscular young men fall into this category. We believe this is due to lack of protective screens. Instead Sanction Centre Plus staff are ordered to target the weak, the vulnerable and females. The thinking behind this is that if these vulnerable females cause trouble, the Sanction Centre plus Storm Troopers can threaten them with physical violence.We in the Socialist Party are going to protest that Sanction Centre Plus staff stop this process of bullying vulnerable females. We in the Socialist Party will provide Guardian Angels, that is muscular young men to accompany vulnerable young females who are being threatened by the Sanction Centre Plus officers. These Sanction Centre Plus officers may complain like Nazi Concentration Camp guards that they are only obeying orders. When the Sanction Centre Plus managers send their jack booted storm troopers to stop our Guardian Angels protecting vulnerable young females from persecution we will have no hesitation in fighting back and calling on the free press to report what is happening in Sanction Centre Plus offices.The Socialist Party is then going to launch the biggest civil disobedience campaign since the Peasants Revolt. Every Job Seeker who is sanctioned should stop paying rent and Council Tax and spend the money on feeding their family. If one person takes on the system, the system will crush you. That is why the Socialist Party working with Residents Associations, Welfare Rights Groups and Charities will organise a massive rent and Council Tax strike. When the authorities ask why hundreds of thousands of job seekers are not paying their rent and Council Tax, our answer will be "Tell us which is more important feeding our families or paying taxes. If you want us to do both stop the Sanction Centre Plus stopping our money."Please help us in our campaign to protect vulnerable people being persecuted by the Sanction Centre Plus.

As if we had enough "muscular young men" among our members to pull something like this off ! Perhaps we can pass the text on to Ian Bone.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

Do we think workers should organise in unions to resist the downward pressure on wages? And the downward pressure on benefits?

This is a different question, to which the answer is yes. At one time the membership of our old Bolton branch and the local Claimants Union was the same, though of course Party members in the union were doing so as individual workers and socialists  who were unemployed (it wasn't a trotskyist-style takeover).Your original question was whether we should urge workers to break the law to resist downward pressures on benefits, to which the answer was that this was up to them and that it was not up to us to tell workers to take risks that we ourselves as individuals didn't run. In any event, we only give general advice on how to resist (e.g do it democratically) while we concentrate on our specific activity of promoting socialism.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

Is it acceptable for Party members who are victims of  the sanctions to take part in such civil disobedience?

Yes, if they understand the risks and want to take them but it's not up to us to tell them or any other workers to do this sort of thing. I think there are some members who still haven't paid the Poll Tax.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

I have sent a copy to you via email  It is  not on headed notepaper or signed.

Looks like an attempt to discredit us rather than Labour — unless, that is, it's an example of the sort of provocative thing Alan thinks we should be doing (but better left to Ian Bone and Class War).

[ALB]

Yes, looks like a Tory dirty tricks leaflet. But not a very clever one since not even the Daily Express now calls the Labour Party "the Socialist Party" (which was once their declared policy).  Can you send a copy to Head Office so we can look more into it.

[ALB]

At the moment we don't have to gather any signatories to contest the Party-list elections, i.e for the European Parliament, the London, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. All that is required is an official letter from the Nominating Officer. Before there was PR for ther Euroelections we had to get 30 signatories (as we did when we contested the North East in 1999)

jondwhite wrote:

It might not be good for the party, but I'd rather gather signatories than the cost of an election deposit for each constituency.

Thanks for the offer. We may need your help in getting the 330 signatories if the Party decides to contest the London mayor elections in 2016.

[ALB]

The total number of households in the 10 constituencies we have chosen is just under half a million. So that will be the number of election addresses we'll have delivered by Royal Mail

[ALB]

While we are speculating on hypothetical scenarios, Ken Macleod in his SF work The Stone Canal (p.175) envisages a government falling because a couple of "World Socialist" MPs abstained:

Quote:

The next day the government lost a no-confidence motion (due to the abstention of only five MPs, the three Workers' Power and two World Socialists) and fell, to be replaced by a more radical coalition drawing in support from smaller parties.

I haven't worked out why abstaining would lead to a government losing a no confidence vote. He can't have expected Socialist MPs to vote in favour of the government in such vote (or in any circumstance). Unless he's assuming that to defeat a vote of no-confidence a minimum number of MPs must take part (vote one way or the other).Also unrealistic is his assumption that Workers Power would more MPs than us. After all, in Vauxhall in 2010 we outpolled them.

[ALB]

If there's a prospect of a socialist election victory in Mole Valley Council in the stockbroker belt of Surrey then we'd be well on the way to worldwide victory. In fact, it could be the last council to fall so the problem you posit won't arise. Today even the Labour Party doesn't contest most seats there:http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/6/District_Results_2014.pdfHaving said that, I've just noticed that the "John David Hayball" standing in Leatherhead South ward is a former member and candidate of the Scargill Labour Party. He got 91 votes (6.2%). A sort of start, I suppose.

[ALB]

Quote:

and the fact that the defendants “used emails with extreme security measures, such as the RISE UP server.

Riseup is one way of trying to avoid State snooping (as well as avoiding unwelcome advertisements). What's wrong with that? Some members use it. More about it here:https://securityinabox.org/riseup_main

[ALB]

Does Chomsky really think we'll have to pay for drinks in socialism. I've a horrible feeling that he might.

[Author]

Posts