[ALB]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Did they ever get one through the eye of a needle?

That's a myth too. See how they wriggle here to explain that it didn't mean that a rich person couldn't get to heaven (the conclusion in the last line):http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm.

[ALB]

One big difference between England and Scotland is the different percentage of people dependent on the State, whether for employment, housing or benefits. According to this, it is 57.7% in Scotland compared with 47.9% in England as a whole and only 40% in London and in the South East. (In Wales and Northern Ireland it's nearly 70%).This suggests that an independent Scotland would have difficulty sustaining this on its own, i.e there is a risk that it will result in the worsening of conditions for most workers there. Personally, I think this would happen and is a case for voting "No" on trade-union grounds. (Of course we abstain on socialist grounds).The SWP have brought out a pamphlet with the ridiculous title of "YES TO INDEPENDENCE, NO TO NATIONALISM". How do you that?Perhaps we could start a competition for the best such silly slogans, eg. YES TO WAR. NO TO KILLING or YES TO LABOUR, NO TO CAPITALISM

[ALB]

There seems to be some sort of justice in the world after all. Harper, the minister for (i.e.against) immigration, who was forced to resign when he was exposed as employing an "illegal immigrant" as a cleaner, was the person who thought up and authorised the "Immigrants — Go Home" vans.

[ALB]

That's not bad at all. Ok it's a bit of an underconsimption theory of crisis ("He argued that the relentless drive for profits would lead companies to mechanize their workplaces, producing more and more goods while squeezing workers' wages until they could no longer purchase the products they created.") but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth or nit-pick (too much).Has this magazine got a circulation in Britain? If so, it might be worth placing an appropriate ad in it to follow this up.

[ALB]

Here's his draft list of election promises:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-most-radical-programme-ever-put-before-the-electorate/The most radical programme of reforms, perhaps. This is Screaming Lord Sutch stuff, but I suppose they are making a point through mockery.

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

I read some of this TZM book. Pretentious wordy jargonese? 

You're right. It is filled with too much scientific-sounding jargon which must be counter-productive as it only re-inforces their technocratic image. What they are trying to say can be explained in much simpler language. As we do.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Apologies for the lack of paragraphs – you all know now the reason is with the website not my lack of concern or consideration.

I'm sure it's not your lack of concern or consideration, but it's not the fault of the website ! How to start a paragraph is not all that hard to master. How to do it has been explained here a number of times, I think.

[ALB]

Quote:

The wording used will be 'The Socialist Party SPGB' and will not include 'Of Great Britain' (subject to standing orders).The case of the wording of 'The Socialist Party' will be mixed upper and lower case as indicated, and the wording of 'SPGB' will be all capitals.The wording will be on one line (not on two lines or more) and overlap as designed on design 'E' submitted.

To have "The Socialist Party SPGB" on the fascia would be worse than having "The Socialist Party of Great Britain." While a case can be made out for the latter there is no resolution that can justify the former which is just plain silly. Either we use one name or the other, not two at the same time.A compromise (for those who want to surrender the name "Socialist Party" to the Trots and  distinguish us from them instead of contesting their right to usurp a name we've used for decades)  would be have to THE SOCIALIST PARTY on one line in big letters with "of Great Britain" in (much) smaller size on a line beneath it. Or you could put our email or website address which includes the acronym "spgb".But I don't think we are ever going to agree on this. But we don't need to. We could simply leave things as they are. 

[ALB]

Something on this Alan missed from the Truthout site:http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21605-rethinking-economics-from-the-uk-a-global-student-movement-takes-shape

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Is a 370 wait for a big project unreasonable? 

I don't know. What is a "370 wait"?

[ALB]

Someone has posted a link to this "libertarian socialist" critique of the Zeitgeist Movement on our facebook page:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZT7MZop44It's not bad but is direct democracy the complete answer of the technocratic tendency Zeitgeist is criticised for? Is there nothing in between, e.g. delegate democracy with majority decision-making (as well as leaving some qualified technicians to get on with the job)?

[ALB]

This from last night. Apparently Russell Brand is an "anarcho-populist":http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03srj6m/Analysis_The_Philosophy_of_Russell_Brand/

[ALB]

The review of the book by CLR James has been translated into French and is on the internet here:http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/la-repudiation-de-clr-james/

[ALB]

Yes, interesting as you say. I noted this part in particular:

Quote:

Q: Right-wing parties and fascist groups play a role in the protests. How important are they actually? Do they get much support? How do other protesters relate to them?A: Far right party Svoboda is the most organized of the three large political forces trying to control the protest. They are the only party which has real active cells in various regions, actual activist base. So, as the most organized and the most ideological of the three, they are gaining the most. Apart from Svoboda, there is an umbrella coalition of neo-nazi militant groups. It is called Right Sector. They were formed in the beginning of the protests, and by now they've succeeded to gain enormous prominence and conquer sympathies from apolitical and liberal people. They are mostly famous by their demonstrative militancy and aggression, and the public doesn't see anything wrong with these cute young patriots. Lately, the same pattern repeats in other regions, where neo-nazi football hooligans turned out to be the main assault force fighting the police and pro-government thugs.The fascist hegemony was indisputable until January 19th, when the protests were joined by lots of other people – random apolitical citizens, liberals and even the left. That happened because the agenda of the protests shifted to repealing the "dictatorship laws" passed on January 16. Since then they had to step back a bit but nevertheless it's obvious that in the long run these protests will enormously benefit the far right, whoever wins. In the case of the victory of the opposition, they will surely get themselves the police forces, special services etc. If Yanukovych wins, this means that half of the country will become firm supporters of the far-right as supposedly the only patriotic radical force able to confront the dictator.

It seems that, just as in Syria, the Western Powers are using movements to which they claim to be ideologically opposed to further their ends. That it's not about "democracy" but realpolitik as to which sphere of influence the Ukraine is to fall into: the West's (Germany's in particular) or Russia's.

[ALB]

Here's the case Peter Tatchell will presumably be putting:http://www.petertatchell.net/social_justice/imagining-economic-democracy.htm

[Author]

Posts