ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just received a reply from the local SPEW branch:
Quote:Essentially we see the referendum as another move by the Greens to try and find a way to lessen the impact of the cuts locally, in this case by raising taxes. However we don't see that as much of a choice for people, higher taxes – or worse cuts? If they really wanted to stop cuts, then the best way would be to fight the government for more funding.This could be done by setting a "needs budget", working out what money the city needs for its services and jobs and then demanding that from local government by waging a massive campaign.They may be out of line with their key target group here, i.e workers in the public sector. In any event, as we've always said, if people are not prepared to vote for something they won't be prepared to strike or take "direct action" for it. Not that the government is likely to provide more funding given the need to give priority to profits and profit-making by cutting government spending to reduce taxes on capitalist enterprises.
In any event, the gold reserves held by central banks has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking properly so-called nor with backing the currency the government or the central bank issues. That was abandoned a long time ago.The term "fractional reserve banking" was originally coined to describe the policy, pursued by governments in the 1950s and 1960s, of trying to control the amount of bank lending by varying the proportion ("fraction") of their assets that they were required to hold as cash and/or some other liquid asset ("reserves"). This was later abandoned in favour of trying to control bank lending by manipulating interest rates instead. Now they are trying to control it by imposing limits on what banks can lend by only allowing them to borrow money to re-lend up to a proportion of their own capital. Which of course is a recognition of the fact that this is what banks do — borrow money to relend, not create it out of nothing as the currency cranks claim
It looks as if TUSC will be opposed to holding the referendum and to campaigning, if it takes place (which is far from certain), for a No vote. This, from their draft programme for May's local council elections:
Quote:Reject increases in council tax, rent and service charges to compensate for government cuts.The Greens are claiming to have the support of the local GMB and Unison branch secretaries:http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/news/social-care-budget-referendum-proposal-gains-strength-with-support-from-union-leaders.htmlThey've also got the support of this lot (whoever they are).
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.
