ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If they contest Streatham which is next door to Vauxhall there will probably be a joint hustings for these two constituencies and a third, Dulwich & West Norwood, as there was last time (for some reason the centre of Brixton is divided between these three constituencies, all solid Labour). They would also be up against Labour shadow business secretary Chucky Obama who recently told the Financial Times:
Quote:The big difference between 1979 and 2013 is that we are all capitalists now. The question is what sort of capitalism do we want? We endorse free markets but we want competitive and free markets and more responsible capitalism.We're not and we don't endorse markets, whether supposedly "free" or not, and we don't want any kind of capitalism.
Latest: they have now withdrawn their candidate to give us a free run ….http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/three-more-class-war-candidates/#comments
Going beyond a joke if they really are going to stand against us in Vauxhall:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/three-more-class-war-candidates/This would be a contest between their reformism (merely "Bash the Rich" within existing capitalist society) and the revolutionary position put forward by us of a classless society, with neither rich nor poor, based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, with production for use not profit and distribution in accordance with the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
Note that Geldof is only endorsing the idea of a "revolution" in politics, not in the economy. In fact he takes the view that private capitalism is the only game in town and that the best that can be hoped for is some sort of "responsible" or "caring" capitalism. Last November he expressed this view when he addressed the assembled businesspeople at the National Business Awards ceremony. Here is what he was reported as saying:
Quote:National Business Awards 2013 at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London – Sir Bob Geldof delivered a riveting and passionate speech which reinforced the needs for private companies to take responsibility for future growth in the UK.And:
Quote:Bob Geldof, former Boomtown Rats singer and anti-poverty campaigner, spoke about the role of business in society at the National Business Awards in London last night.Geldof did not appear to feel pressured to play to the audience, saying that the leadership of the business community was vital, "when it was not at its filthiest self, as we've watched in the last four years."Yet more here.He is of course a successful businessman himself.
Quote:“The big difference between 1979 and 2013 is that we are all capitalists now,” says Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary and a former corporate lawyer “The question is what sort of capitalism do we want? We embrace free markets but we want competitive and free markets and more responsible capitalism.”This is a killer quote we're going to be able to use time and again. Already it will be in a local leaflet we are preparing in the run up in the local elections in Lambeth in May (he's the MP for Streatham which is part of Lambeth).
Interesting report here from the Independent Socialist Network site of discussion of Left Unity's electoral strategy at the first meeting of LU's "transitional national council" on 11 January. Note the undisguished hostility to TUSC. Not much "left unity" there (not that I blame them).
Quote:ELECTORAL STRATEGYThe Crouch End motion, deferred from the Founding Conference, was motivated. It called for Left Unity to contest all elections where a political base existed within the community and where sufficient human and financial resources existed. A new proposal from Southwark was taken with it, asking for a decision as to whether or not Left Unity should contest this year’s Euro Elections.The following were amongst points made in a quite lengthy discussion:§ Electoral work must be part of campaigning§ We must not be like TUSC and stand everywhere. TUSC is even opposing Caroline Lucas§ There was a need for a party that doesn’t just get 50 votes as TUSC does.§ It is up to local groups to decide whether to stand locally, and the (T)NC to decide on Parliamentary by-elections§ There’s no deposits for Council elections; they should be utilised by Left Unity to get its name knownThe Crouch End motion was agreed with one abstention. Southwark agreed to remit its motion on the European elections to the next TNC to see if any regions wanted to standPete McLaren moved the Rugby motion calling for unity of the left. The motion began by noting that the agreed aims of Left Unity included uniting the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in Britain including workers’ organisations – the Rugby motion suggested ways of achieving that by:§ Discussing affiliation§ Opening discussions with other major players on the left including TUSC to avoid electoral clashes§ Aiming for the largest possible left challenge to austerity in the 2015 General Election§ Prioritising initiating a debate about building One Party of the Left.He stressed all of this was exploratory – moves towards uniting the left and the labour movement – with no final decisions. It was attempting to be inclusive as a Party. At the most basic level, Left Unity must avoid clashes – but that wouldn’t just happen without discussion. The first two speakers supported the motion. Sam Williams explained that in Bristol, TUSC had approached the LU branch suggesting a local pact. Terry Stewart from Hackney spoke of the need for unity across the left, and was not sure whether he should stand as TUSC or LU this May. Hackney LU had organised a launch meeting which included other left parties.The response from Left Unity’s leadership, and supporters, was immediate. Tom Walker felt unity with TUSC was not a priority. Left Unity was not trying to get the left together. TUSC stood mostly paper candidates who got low votes. Kate Hudson continued this theme, arguing we had now founded a new party of the left, and we were not about to try and stick together the different groups on the left. Left Unity was the One party of the Left referred to in the motion. In addition, the CPB, named in the motion as party to hold discussions with, were now virtually non-existent. Andrew Burgin agreed we needed to avoid clashes, but, in terms of those it was being suggested we had discussions with, Respect had virtually folded, the AGS and CPB represented next to nothing. TUSC was not a Party, and its component parts could not even agree on Europe. Simon Hardy from Lambeth described how approaches had been made by TUSC in Lambeth asking LU to stand as TUSC to help towards its target of 625 candidates to get guaranteed media coverage – he felt this was an attempted take over by TUSC. Rob Marsden, Leicester, described how TUSC was trying to persuade community based anti cuts campaigners in Birmingham to stand as TUSC, which they shouldn’t be doing. Pete McLaren briefly replied to the debate to describe TUSC’s actual election results, including the average of over 5% in Council by-elections in 2013, winning one seat and coming second or third in others.The motion was defeated by 23 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions. It was separately agreed to feed back talks with TUSC (?) to the March LU Conference, and to discuss any possible pacts at that stage also.The comments are revealing too.
Contrast this judgment with one that's just been handed down:http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2014/01/17/belief-in-democratic-socialism-could-be-protected-by-equality-laws.aspxSo, if you are Labour Party you're protected but not if you're a Trotskyist. I hold no brief for the trots (obviously not) but these decisions are more political than judicial.
Bought a copy of the SPEW paper "The Socialist" (so-called) when I was in Brixton this morning. The back page has a banner headline "No to Fracking". Apparently a company wants to drill for shale gas in Salford. One passage quotes one of their members.:
Quote:Speaking from the platform at the rally Steve North, branch secretary of Salford City Unison, linked the struggle against fracking with the struggle against council cuts and austerity.Eh? Come again. How?No explanation of why they're opposed to it. They are just employing the Leninist tactic of trying to win the leadership of any discontented group, including as in this case nimbys. And of course it's much easier to attract support by being against something rather than for anything.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Coincidental, the current issue of Libertarian Communism has as its theme co-ops.Just got round to reading this and, actually, apart from one rather long-winded facing-both-ways article, the section on co-operatives and their limitations within capitalism is not bad.Very revealing is the article reprinted from the Economist in 2009 showing how workers in the much-touted Mondragon co-op in Spain not only exploited themselves but other workers (twice as many) too who are not members of the co-operative, as the Israeli kibbutzim also ended doing:http://www.economist.com/node/13381546I see that the group's managers used the same pretext for paying themselves more as the emerging nomenklatura did in the early days of the old USSR: that non-party experts were getting paid more than them.
Not a word that we use these days. That's why we changed the name of the "Propaganda Committee" to the "Campaigns Committee" !
The petrochemical industry is not all that insignificant nor are its products:http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1053386/analyzing_the_global_petrochemical_industryLet's not be too sweeping in our statements about oil.
This is a very clever move by a local council opposed to the cuts. It has already removed the Labour Party's excuse that the councils they control are merely implementing Tory-LibDem decided cuts and exposed them as being in favour of implementing them fully. In fact they're even talking about a Labour-Tory adminstration to push them through. As to the Tories bleating about the cost of the referendum, what hypocrisy when they are committed to a much more expensive and quite irrelevant national referendum on the EU. The Brighton referendum if it takes place will be a revealing test of public opinion on the cuts..I wonder how TUSC will react. They can no longer denounce the Greens as "Tories on bikes". In fact I wonder how a Socialist in Brighton would vote.
steve colborn wrote:would leave the need, in my personal opinion, for the use of hydrocarbons, irrelevant.Ah, but plastics are hydrocarbons and oil is their raw material. So we won't be able to do without oil altogether. Otherwise there'd be nothing to put into the 3-D printers some say are going to come into widespread use, quite apart from all the other things that are made from plastics. Using oil to make plastics is a much more intelligent than burning it to generate energy.
jondwhite wrote:There couldn't be safe fracking for use not profit no matter how regulated because the technology does not exist to make fracking safe. No technology exists to stop oil well shearing which contaminates the water table.This is the claim made on the Grasland site but they are not neutral in this matter, if only because they want to sell their film. Their FAQ answers:
Quote:Nope, no technology currently exists to make fracking safe. Here are some of the numbers released by drilling giants Schlumberger, Archer Oil & Gas, Southwestern Energy, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers:- Around 5% of oil and gas wells leak immediately and up to 60% of them fail over a 30-year time period.- According to multiple studies, about 35% of all oil and gas wells are leaking now.In other words, not all oil and gas wells leak and contaminate the water table. Why don't those that don't? I concede that this will probably be due to geology rather than technology, but it shows that not all fracking is harmful in this sense.Note also that this applies to oil as well as gas and would be an argument against drilling for oil too. Maybe it is, but why single out fracking for shale gas for attack in emotive terms? Why not call also for a ban on oil wells? Under capitalism the nuclear industry would love that.To tell the truth I'm not convinced that the technology does not exist to stop leaks. It will exist, but is not being applied because it is too expensive. If fracking were to be needed in socialism, then cost would not be a consideration and it could only be done in suitable geological conditions.I'm not defending fracking under capitalism, just making the point that there is nothing wrong with the technique in itself. It could be useable in socialism if need be as long the proper precautions were taken. We shouldn't attack the technologies themselves, only their likely misuse under the profit system, i.e. not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
