[ALB]

Yes, the term "hard working families", introduced by Labour (Gordon Brown used it a lot), is part of the rhetoric aimed at demonising those on benefits, i.e who don't work. Unfortunately, it does seem to have worked to large extent to split the working class by getting one section to blame the other instead of capitalism for their problems,

[ALB]

Very disturbing. It reflects worse on the censoring perpetrators. Let's hope this sort of thing doesn't spread  It's got to be condemned out of hand.

[ALB]

Père Duchêne wrote:

Section by section seems a rational thing to do.Chapter 1 'Bourgeois and Proletarians' – Week commencing Monday 14 April ?

I'd suggest rather the week after, i.e after Easter, to give some who have expressed an interest but who are not on this forum the time to do so.Anyway, I'll creating a separate thread for each section, so that they are ready for whenever we want to use them.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Perhaps it could be argued to play devils advocate, that rather than censors falling out, this seems like a supportable 'ban', as 'banning' not free speech but something visible and liable to cause needless understandable trauma, distress and upset?

That's precisely the excuse that theperson who posted the justification for banning SWP "paraphernalia"  invoked. Frankly, I don't believe that the presence of SWP placards or whatever on a demonstration causes anyone "trauma, distress and upset" and I don't believe the person who claims that they cause them this. And even if it did this would not be a justifiable reason for banning placards, papers, etc. After all, where would it end? All sorts of things cause different people offence. I find the flag of St George's and christian icons of someone being crucified offensive, but I am not in favour of banning them.Banning things because they "offend" someone is the new intolerance which unfortunately seems to have embedded itself in certain would-be radical circles.

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

The classical Marxist position is that the communist party, or the working class organised politically, should first of all settle matters with its own national bourgeoisie, by seizing state power and establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat", ie, rule by the majority class, democratically organised. Marx and Engels, at least, were clear that a necessary step in this process would be the immediate nationalisation and centralisation of the means of credit, the banks, and the establishment of currency and capital controls.

I presume you are referring to the 10 measures, outlined at the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto, that the Communist League of Germany proposed should be implemented if the working class won control of political power in 1848-9 or soon after.By coincidence we've just started a Communist Manifesto reading group on this forum where these 10 immediate measures and what they meant and were meant to mean will no doubt be discussed and dissected. Why not join the reading group? Might be better to begin at the beginning rather than leap straighaway into Capital as many do. Here's the link:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/reading-groups/marx-and-engels-manifesto-communist-party

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

the Labour party is watching us nervously.

Why should they be? They are only concerned with vote-catching not ideas, so as long as LU doesn't contest elections they have nothing to be worried about. And the chances are that when and if LU does put up candidates this will be in safe Labour seats for fear of being accused of splitting the vote and letting the Tories in (and in fact from a genuine belief that Labour is better than the Tories). So nothing for them to fear there either. Most LU members will probably be in favour of voting Labour where there is no LU candidate, won't they? Moving more in LU circles you'd know better than me.

[ALB]

While you're here, Stuart, can I take advantage of your presence to ask what is the LU party's intention with regard to elections. Will there be some standing in next year's general election or will you be giving TUSC and/or the Green Party a free run?

[ALB]

They're giving Ralfy a real run for his money on libcom. See from here on:http://libcom.org/forums/thought/peak-oil#comment-535849

[ALB]

This seems like a return to the election promises of yesteryear. Up until the 1970s unemployment in Britain was about 2%, as this article from the November 1971 Socialist Standard pointed out:http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/fullemployment.htmEconomists had preached that it could be kept at around 3%, but when it rose to 4% in the 1970s this was regarded as a disaster.  To explain this economists developed the concept of the "natural rate of unemployment" as the rate above which the general price level would rise (what they called "inflation").  Apparently this is not incompatible with a rate of unemployment of as high as 4%, which can even be regarded as "full employment":

Quote:

Sometimes the natural rate is known as the full employment level of unemployment

At one time economists were saying that it was 6%. Some still do:http://www.clevelandfed.org/about_us/annual_report/2011/unemployment.cfmMost people will probably understand "full employment" to exist when the unemployment rate is at 2-3% as it was in the 20 or so years after 1945.So it would be interesting to know what level Osborne considers to be the "full employment level of unemployment". 2%? 3%? 4%? 6%. In Britain the level of unemployment is currently 7%.Or is he just being a demagogue? Don't all answer at once.

[ALB]

The EC decided on Saturday to "Go for a Million" by upping the number of areas (Westminster parliamentary constituencies) where we take advantage of the free postal distribution from an earlier 14 to 20.The constituencies to be covered (from North to South and from West to East) are: Milton Keynes North, Oxford East, Oxford West & Abingdon, Reading East, Slough, Southampton Itchen, Southampton Test, Portsmouth North, Brighton Kemptown, Brighton Pavilion, Crawley, Dartford, Gravesham, Chatham & Aylesford, Maidstone & the Weald, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Hastings & Rye, Canterbury, Follestone & Hythe, Dover. There are about 980,000 electors in these areas, the remaining 20,000 (maybe more) will be distributed in other areas door-to-door or at literature stalls by members and sympathisers.As there are just over 4 million electors in the South East Region, this means that some 25 percent of electors in the area will receive our election leaflet. We will be doing our best to get our message across to as many others as possible through media publicity

[ALB]

In case people wonder what happened to this after it was rejected by the founding conference of Left Unity last November, it has now been adopted by the "Independent Socialist Network" (one of the constituents of TUSC) as its Statement of Aims and Principles:http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/2014/04/whats-happened-to-the-socialist-platform/

[ALB]

Detailed analysis by a socialist here:http://www.stephenshenfield.net/themes/international-relations/164-ukraine-popular-uprising-or-fascist-coup

[ALB]

I think it is unfair to dismiss the Citizens Income idea because it is similar to Social Credit's "social dividend". That's as unfair as dismissing the Zeitgeist Movement as anti-semitic for (at one time) blaming economic woes on international bankers just as fascists do.The other argument (which I hadn't come across before) that, within capitalism, it is no substitute for the Welfare State is more reasonable. In effect, it's giving people a wad of notes and saying "survive", which is a reflection of US libertarianism but also of the anarchistic individualism released by May 1968.The best argument against it is one put by the LU speaker:

Quote:

one which simply wouldn’t WORK in pure economic terms

Which is the argument we have developed in more detail in our articles on the subject. For instance this one and  this one.This looks like being one difference between them and the Green Party.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Weekly Worker has a report on the LU conferencehttp://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/left-unity-moderate-party-takes-shape

Here's a couple of other reports to balance it:http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/2014/04/left-unity-policy-conference-a-further-small-step-forward-but-pete-mclaren-reports/I think we have to concede that they are at least trying to proceed on the basis of democratic decision-making, but of course, the members being reformists, the result will be (and was) a democratically-decided reformist strategy and demands with disagreements only over which reforms of capitalism to pursue.It is interesting that a majority did not support a "yes" vote for Scottish separation nor a "no" vote for withdrawal from the EU (even if this means in practice giving their members a free hand to vote either way). This at least puts them ahead of the likes of the SWP and Tariq Ali on Scotland and of Bob Crow, the CPB and Arthur Scargill on Europe.I see ex-comrade SW's motion for a basic citizens income fell, a bit surprising as I would have thought that was the sort of reform they would go for as the Green Party has done.It is still not clear whether or not they will ever contest an election or under what name. This from the leftunity.org document:

Quote:

Left Unity is not standing in this year’s European elections, as it is generally considered too early in the party’s life to do so. A motion saying the party should not support any other candidates fell, though it was pointed out that there are currently no plans to do so apart from supporting the anti-fascist campaign in north west England.Electoral strategyA motion from West London set out Left Unity’s electoral strategy, saying that “Electoral support for a new left party will only advance to the extent that it is genuinely representative of working class communities, has no interests separate from theirs, and is an organic part of the campaigns and movements which they generate and support.” It calls for only fielding candidates where the political support and resources exist for a real campaign.Rugby’s motion saying we should move towards bringing in smaller left groups into ‘One Party of the Left’ narrowly fell. Pete McLaren, moving the motion, said, “The clue is in our name… we are about uniting the left.” However Joseph Kisolo from Manchester, speaking against, said we “shouldn’t be looking to unite the already existing left”, which is too white and male. Bianca Todd added that we should look to “the wider movement” while still working alongside other groups. An amendment from Rugby saying Left Unity candidates should be able to stand in elections under other electoral names also fell, but a further motion calling for the party to “avoid electoral clashes” with other left candidates passed.

And this from the ISN (who, incidentally, have adopted the old "Socialist Platform" as theirs but who are still affiliated to TUSC):

Quote:

There were two more motions on electoral strategy. Bristol moved Motion 26 calling for LU to campaign with prospective Green and Labour candidates on a number of issues including a ban on bank bonuses and above-national average pay hikes, a statutory right to work and a 7 hour working day. There was little debate and the motion was defeated. Pete McLaren moved Motion 27 on electoral clash avoidance and moves towards electoral pacts, with the initial aim of creating the largest ever challenge in the 2015 General Election. One speech was taken against, which John Penny used to suggest LU should go forward on its own, and that what was being suggested would lead to endless internal debate. Nick Wrack, speaking in favour, disagreed with that conclusion and argued that the working class wanted unity in campaigns, industrial disputes and elections. Motion 27 on clash avoidance was agreed overwhelmingly.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

I don't think they are into funny money schemes.

I might have to take this back as I've just remembered that their candidate for Richmond at the last election, Peter Dul, once wrote to my local paper attacking "fractional reserve banking" and calling for "debt-free money". See:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spgbmedia/conversations/messages/192But I don't think this is official UKIP policy and won't be supported by Farage and his newly-acquired team of spin doctors.Since the main thing UKIP is advocating, ie. UK withdrawal from the EU, is against the interests of the dominant section of the capitalist class in Britain it will be interesting to see what dirty tricks they get up to to discredit Farage and UKIP if they turn out to be a real threat to their interests.

[Author]

Posts