ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have no fear of democratic mandates. I just think that there are some fields where this should not apply, precisely over what ideas individuals hold and express as well as over what food they eat or clothes they wear. Some decisions should be taken democratically, others individually. Obviously I don't think that an individual should be able to dictate decisions on such matters either, though they can seek to change people's minds about them.Anyway, supposing that a decision has been taken to try to prevent the expression of some point of view, what do you envisage should happen to those who persist in expressing it?
Here's an anecdote from the Monument (page 137):
Quote:True, not all the Party were food reformers. Bill Read, an East London speaker, who kept a workmen's eating house, used to bellow that vegetarianism was a capitalist plot to lower labour costs by making the working class feed on grass.Today, too, not all the Party are food reformers …..
Young Master Smeet wrote:The NHS makes a good 'wedge' for socialist ideas that otherwise are hard to crowbar into debate.True, and we've used it in Oxford with a letter in this week's Oxford Times:http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/forum/letters/11770223.Revolution_needed/
TUSC may not be able to get on UK TV but they can on Russia Today:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dUJ2VVJAwFoOnce again, no mention of socialism but maybe that's a good thing since their "socialism" is state capitalism.
I think The Monument places the incident earlier than that, in 1914-15. It's detailed on pages 48-50. The membersof a branch who voted against the branch expelling an individual member were themselves expelled in a party poll. A move was then made to charge the members who had voted in the party poll not to expel those who had voted against the expulsion of those who had not voted for the original expulsion. As it could only have happened because the ballot was not secret, it would seem to make a case for secret ballots.
By "anyone" I included institutions as well as individuals. I don't think any instiution should ban the expression of views, even if it has a democratic mandate or majority backing to do so. I agree that no "lone individual" should have this right either, nor should any private association like UAF or the SWP. Nobody or no body should. On the other hand, "lone individuals" should be free to express their point of view without punishment or retribution.Actually, and no doubt this will confirm your worst fears about "liberal individualism", I think that this article in the US constitution gets it about right:
Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Suitably adapted, this could apply in socialism too.What frightens me, rather, is a "totalitarian democracy" in which a majority vote can determine which views can be expressed and cannot be expressed. I know you can come back and argue that a majority has first to determine that no decision can be taken "abridging the freedom of speech" and that it is by virtue of this decision that individuals can express themselves freely (as opposed to some inalienable right of individuals to free speech). I hope you do.
There was a protest meeting outside the Oxford Union building in central Oxford yesterday evening against the leader of the French Front National, Marine Le Pen, being invited to speak in a debate there.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11775436.Protesters_turn_out_ahead_of_Marine_Le_Pen_talk_at_Oxford_Union/We were there distributing our leaflets, the one saying we're standing in Oxford East and Oxford West and the one on "Identity" which denounces nationalism (text here)Meanwhile here's the publicity on the website of St. Margaret's Institute, in Polstead Road, Oxford, where Mike Foster, our candidate in Oxford West & Abingdon, has been invited to speak this Sunday evening:http://www.smi-oxford.org.uk/news/events/index.php
LBird wrote:Isn't the real issue 'who determines' what counts as a view that should be given a platform, and one that shouldn't?.No. It's about whether anyone should determine what views shall or shall not be allowed to be expressed.
No need for that. The more the idea of a "moneyless society" gets into circulation and is discussed the better, even if Harvey himself is proposing "funny money "(one that ca't be accumulated or "non-oxidisable" as he calls it) ratrher than this.
Already signalled and under discussion from this post onwards on this thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/thomas-more-and-abolition-money#comment-20245
Here's the debate that got away. Since our candidate in Oxford West & Abingdon had just given a talk at Head Office on "Health and Homelessness" and since we learned that the National Health Action Party was also standing we wrote to their Oxford branch suggesting a debate on some such topic as "Which Way to a Lasting Free Health Service?" They have replied:
Quote:I'm not sure whether a debate between just our 2 parties would be a good use of either your candidate's time or ours – there's very unlikely to be much difference on either NHS nor the vital necessity of challenging the neoliberal consensus of the past 30 years! If you can persuade Nicola Blackwood and Layla Moran to agree to an debate where they can be asked publicly to defend their support for Lansley's dismantling and privatisation of the the NHS, alongside Sally Copley to provide answers about the disastrous PFIs and embedding of the market (not to mention Alan PwC Milburn's and Patricia BUPA Hewitt's contribution to Labour party health policy), by all means come back to us. If, as I strongly suspect, the other PPCs are reluctant to defend their parties' record on the NHS beside a working GP, I suggest both Helen and Mike take every opportunity to challenge them rather than arrange a meeting where we all agree on getting the market out and reversing HSCA. Helen is already being backed publicly by large swathes of the most eminent medics and academics in Oxford – including Iain Chalmers, Profs Danny Dorling and David Stuckler ("Why Austerity Kills") as well as authors Mark Haddon and Philip Pullman. If Mike and his supporters are sincere in wanting to replace our Tory MP and call for a publicly owned, publicly accountable NHS in this highly marginal seat, the most effective action would be to come behind the NHA party campaign and vote for Dr Helen Salisbury. Best wishes, Penny Ormerod, Scretary Oxford NHA party(Nicola Blackwood and Layla Moran are respectively the Tory and LibDem candidates while Sally Copley is the Labour one.) We are of course sincere in wanting to replace the current Tory MP but equally sincere in not wanting her to be replaced by someone from some other party that supports capitalism, the real cause of why people's needs are neglected in the field of health care but in all other fields too. Because capitalism is a profit-driven system in which profits have to come first, an economic law which in the end all governments, whatever party or parties form them, have to comply with and apply.
The appendix at the end of this long, essentially factual article on Syriza from an ultraleft group has another killer quote from one of Syriza's leading economic advisers, the John Milios mentioned earlier in this thread:http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-texts/text_on_syriza.pdf
Quote:The transition from capitalism to communism is necessarily related to the abolition of value form, i.e. money and commodity, and the form of enterprise. (John Milios, The critique of political economy as a critique of the Left, Thesseis #101, 2007)Today's news about Rotherham shows what is likely to happen to a local council, whether socialist or not, if it refused to respect the law or follow what the central government has laid downhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31130750
Quote:Mr Pickles said he planned to give control of the council to a team of five commissioners, including an overall lead and one tasked specifically with looking at children's services.They would "provide new leadership" and take over the roles of the "wholly dysfunctional cabinet," he said.The council has 14 days to respond to his "wholly exceptional" proposals, Mr Pickles said.He also plans to impose early elections in 2016.The elections would give people a chance to "renew the membership of their council and elect those they have confidence in", he explained.He said he hoped control would be returned to Rotherham Council as "rapidly as possible".A statement announcing the resignation of Rotherham's cabinet was released shortly before Mr Pickles outlined his plansIt's what would happent today if, for instance, some local council refused to implement the cuts in spending the central government wants by adopting an illegal budget. as some are standing for election on a pledge to do so.
The full interview can be found here:http://truth-out.org/news/item/28879-looking-toward-a-moneyless-economy-and-sleeping-well-at-nightThe title of the interview ("Looking Toward a Moneyless Economy … ) itself is indicative of how the idea has spread but, as you say, he spoils it by what follows. We've discussed here before his "funny money" proposal (that what is needed is an "oxidisable" money, by which he means money that cannot be accumulated but can only circulate). There's also a criticism of his views on this (and other matters) by the London Wine & Cheese Appreciation Society here:http://truth-out.org/news/item/28879-looking-toward-a-moneyless-economy-and-sleeping-well-at-nightThe give a source for his funny money theory (which he hints at at the end of the interview):
Quote:But if you had a money form that dissolved, that is oxidisable, we would end up with a very different kind of society. You would have a money form that would aid circulation but that would not facilitate accumulation.David Harvey on Platypus panel Radical Interpretations of the Present Crisis (1'55"19), 14 November 2012Still, just be raising the possibility of a moneyless society he is lending credibility to the idea.
It has happened. In fact, when we can, the editorial committee send the layout team more articles than they need so they can have some leeway in fitting things in from a design point of view. We do indicate which articles to give priority to, but this is not always followed. For instance, a short piece on the recent elections in New Zealand got left out. Perfection is only an ideal especially when working to a tight deadline.
