[ALB]

Is this what you are on about:http://www.worldkarmaproject.com/about/karma-bank/Or is it something else with a similar name?

[ALB]

In recent days capitalists in Scotland have been coming out in favour of YES or NO. The split is revealing. It's more or less the same as in the UK over the EU, with smaller capitalist concerns catering for the home market favouring breaking away and bigger concerns producing for export favouring staying. From today's Times:

Quote:

Sir Brian Souter, chairman of Stagecoach, Ralph Topping, the former chief executive of William Hill, and Paddy Crerar, the founder of Crerar Hotels, were among those prepared to swing their entrepreneurial weight behind a "yes" vote on September 18.Their push came just a day after 130 influential businessmen, including Douglas Flint, the chairman of HSBC, and Andrew Mackenzie, who runs BHP Billiton, signed a similarly firm No missive to The Scotsman, warning that the case for independence had still not been made.

As someone from Edinburgh University's School of Business explained:

Quote:

Professor MacKay said that his research suggested that business attitudes towards independence tended to be dictated by where their customers were primarily located.

So it's buses, hotels and betting shops versus international banks and mining companies. Consumer goods industries v producer goods industries. Big capitalists v smaller capitalists. Marx's Dept I v Dept II. Some choice.Best for workers to abstain and leave the capitalists to settle the matter amongst themselves. 

[ALB]

Can anyone see why the answer to this clue in Tuesday's Times is Trotsky:

Quote:

Solicitor's wrong about island mainly used for political exile.

We appeared to feature in the clues on the previous Thursday:

Quote:

Game of Socialist Party completely upset Conservative PM (7)

But why is the answer Balfour? I thought the days of referring to Labour as "the Socialist Party" were long gone.

[ALB]

 

Quote:

undermine cross-border trade union unity

I was thinking that a separate capitalist state in Scotland would make it more likely that a situation would arise as in Ireland after "independence", as described in The Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Ireland (later the World Socialist Party of Ireland) published in 1949:

Quote:

Today the Irish Trade Union movement is in a crisis. Two rival Congresses seek to dominate the position. Yet the workers of Ireland are no less solid to-day than they were forty years ago. It is not they  who are divided but the “leaders” ─ men who have allowed personal ambition and private feuds to over-ride all consideration for the working class in general and members of their own Unions in particular.Here is an extract from the Minutes of the Conference of Irish Unions, held at the O'Connell Hall. Dublin, on March 21st, 1945:—"The issue they were there to consider was a simple one; it was whether they would continue to operate under an executive that was dominated by the British Unions. The British Unions would have to go. We know how to talk to one another in Ireland, but we don't know how to talk to British Unions. They are SLIMY."It is not a little difficult to believe that the man who made that statement claims to be a member of the working class. This man forgets (?) that it was the united action of the Irish and British Labour movements which was responsible for the release of the Irish political prisoners on hunger strike in 1920—this man forgets (?) that the Irish workers had the support and backing of British Trade Unionists, as exemplified by the following: A Special Trade Union Congress, held,in London on July 13th, 1920, carried this resolution by a large majority:—"That this Congress protests against the British military domination of Ireland and demands the cessation of the production of munitions destined to be used against Ireland . . . and in case the Government refuses these demands we recommend a general down tools policy, and call on all Trade Unions here represented to carry out this policy, each according to its own constitution by taking a ballot vote of its members or otherwise."In this present clash of personalities and ambitions in the Irish Trade Union movement, however, the Socialist Party of Ireland favours neither side. That is to say, we do not urge the acceptance of either set of Trade Union leaders contending for the dominance of the Trade Union movement. We support and favour all steps taken to unite the workers of Ireland—north and south—in one industrial organisation, in one Trade Union Congress; but that support and favour is not to be understood as support and favour for Trade Union officials who shout loudest for "unity." They may desire unity now—but because their motives are other than the interests of the Irish working class, to-morrow they may commit worse anti-working-class crimes than the one of sundering the Trade Union movement. Unity, yes . . . But unity in the interests of the working class and its struggle against the employing class and capitalism.

In fact, what happened to the working class in Ireland after a separate capitalist state was set up there surely has lessons for workers in Scotland tempted to support setting up one there too.Incidentally, a facsimile of the whole pamphlet can be found here. 

[ALB]

Yes, the case against voting YES is so overwhelming that I'd almost be tempted to vote NO ! After all, there are some valid reasons for doing so: a YES vote would encourage a nasty petty nationalism, undermine cross-border trade union unity and threaten even more established living standards. It looks as though we are going to have to rely on the common sense of a majority of Scottish workers to avoid this. I'm prepared to stick my neck out and say that I'm confident we can rely on this.

[ALB]

No, Vin, that's not how it works (or is supposed to work) though I agree that that's probably what many people would do if this system was introduced.If you only plump for one option then you are saying that you couldn't care less and are completely indifferent as to what is chosen if yours is not. If that's is what you really think then that is what you should do. It means leaving the choice to the other voters. If you really hate "World Socialist Party of Great Britain" then you should place it last after expressing all your other dislikes in descending order. Otherwise you are increasing the chances of WSPGB being adopted.It's complicated, I know, with the outcome depending on tactical voting which many voters won't realise but I'm not an afvocate of the system myself.  I'd prefer such multi-option decisions to be left to an elected committee where all the options can be fully discussed — though not, I hasten to add, so controversial an issue as a party's name.

[ALB]

OK, to enter into the spirit of the thing, I vote:B>C>D>A>E>Fthough actually if we were going to have to make the mistake of changing our full formal name I would vote for World Socialist Party (Britain)

[ALB]

Before I vote let me see if I have understood the tactics well: if you really don't want something you place them last giving a preference over them to other things you don't want either? In other words, after voting for what you do want you vote for what you don't want in order of least objectionable — even if that's going to mean getting something you don't want?In other words, it's a vote for want you don't want the least? I still can't see how that will not result in the least objectionable option to most people, i.e the most boring or bland one,  or lowest common denominator, getting chosen.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Just good, old fashioned, 'theory and practice produces knowledge'.I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.

LBird wrote:

Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between having an unproven 'theory', prior to practice, and 'knowledge' produced by 'theory and practice'?

Is that all you are saying: that when a researcher or an observer ( researches or observes something (A) they are testing "an unproven 'theory'", i.e a hypothesis? And that the outcome of this will be "knowledge" as a confirmed ("true"?) theory? If that's all you are saying then you're not saying anything controversial. But if that is what you are saying I think you need to make the distinction in your formula, eg.Knowledge (C) is produced by a subject ( with a hypothesis (D) observing what happens (A). Or maybe D should be C1 and C C2But isn't this is what is generally accepted (as far as scientific research is concerned, if not epistemology)

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

A is preferred to B by a majority of voters and B is preferred to C by a majority. However, it is also the case that C is preferred to A by a majority.

This sort of thing seems to be also being discussed on the Philosophy for Communists thread:

LBird wrote:

A+B=C (or, B+A=C)This disagreement needs to be sorted out, or we'll continue to misunderstand what each other is saying.

[ALB]

Maybe I'm not getting it, but I still say that the person, project or motion getting the most preferences compared with the others will be the one that the least number object to, i.e the lowest common denominator. I haven't done the maths so I'm prepared to be shown that I'm wrong. Better to have "artistic" matters settled by some other method, eg a committee chosen by lot (as in the case of the fascia decision) or by some artists or group of artists on a take it or leave it basis.

[ALB]

Maybe it would, but I wouldn't want to be on the ballot committee:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Concordet+methodBut I nominate you.

[ALB]

slothjabber wrote:

But good on you for applying. If you want to say that you were banned from having a stall this year, then I shall be offering no objection.

Fair enough, but do we have to apply every year and be refused to be able to say that we have been banned? Personally, I was opposed to applying this year as we knew from past experience what the answer would be. It's clear they don't want us and we should not demean ourselves by begging to be allowed in.i agree that they are being inconsistent in letting the CWO in but not the ICC especially since the CWO is more into the ideology and practice of the vanguard party than the ICC.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Materialists insist A=C, or C=A.Idealists insist B=C, or C=BRealists insist that C=A+B, or C=B+A.For those interested, A=object, B=subject, C=knowledge,and the plus sign is 'practice'.

Is part of the point that you are trying to make that what is observed (whatever it is) is A and that statements about it are C requiring the intervention of B to observe and make statements? If so, what's the problem? Except of course the status of C, but now you seem to be saying that B is not simply the observing subject but is "theory":

LBird wrote:

Theory must exist. (

Not quite the same. It sounds a bit like B=C or that B inevitably has a C before observing A. Hence the need to clarify what C is, e.g any statement about A or one that is "true" or "useful" or "possible" or what?

[ALB]

The membership were consulted about a having a new design and what it should look like in general. The reason why conference voted for a three-person committee to come up with a detailed design was that they realised it was not practical to leave this to a vote of the whole membership. We know that the result of any such vote is likely to be won by the least objectionable, i.e probably the most boring, design.  A committee is a better way of deciding such matters rather than a referendum. In fact, the reason why the party has been discussing a logo for twenty years or more and has not been able to reach a decision is that members have insisted on the decision being made by the whole membership and nobody being able to agree on what designs to submit to such an ill-advised vote.I write as someone who thought that the present fascia of HO was ok (after all, it's only seen by passers-by in a street in one London suburb) and who doesn't like the decision finally reached, but I can't see any other way of reaching a decision on a matter like this.

[Author]

Posts