[ALB]

He's wrong. The Treaty of Rome envisages the free movement of of job-seeking workers as well as of profit-seeking capital. Otherwise there wouldn't be a genuine single common market. And he's a fool too for jumping on the anti-immigrant bandwagon set rolling by UKIP as there's no telling where it will end or as to who "immigrant" as a term of abuse will be applied.

[ALB]

Of course, but it's still getting the idea into circulation.

[ALB]

Support would best come from someone living in the area rather than parachuting someone in from London or Manchester and we've got a number of people on this forum from the NE.Talking about interesting discussions I just came across when looking for something else this one on the TED site about a moneyless society started by the Zeitgeist people a couple of years ago:http://www.ted.com/conversations/1890/do_we_need_money_at_all_ca.htmlThis confirms that online discussions can be a useful way of putting across our ideas.

[ALB]

To give him his due, Jack Conrad (or whatever he's called) did say at the founding conference of LU that the ultimate aim should be

Quote:

a moneyless, classless, stateless society.

This of course is the precise description, word for word, of socialism we came up with years ago and have popularised. Who says we have had no impact?.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The rule doesn't cover additional titles on the facia by saying these are forbidden so "SPGB" can be added and used, IMHO

That would be undemocratic and go against the whole spirit of the 1988 resolution one of whose aims was to try to introduce some comsistency into what we call ourselves. To promote one instead of randomly using three (The Socialist Party of Great Britain, SPGB, The Socialist Party). To use two different versions on the front of our office would be silly anyway and, don't forget, that SPGB is the preferred name of our opponents as a way of avoiding calling us "The Socialist Party" which we are in this country.In a subsequent Party Poll in 1991 that

Quote:

members and branches be required to abide strictly by the terms of the 1988 Conference resolution

was carried and that

Quote:

members and branches revert to the previous practice of using the full or shortened version of the Party's name at their own discretion.

was rejected. For defying it in this sort of way most of the members of two branches were expelled by another Party Poll. So, beware of re-igniting the Party name controversy. After all, we are only talking about our image in one street in south London. Nobody in most of London, let alone rest of the country, is affected. It's not that important and not worth falling out over.  Let sleeping dogs lie.

[ALB]

Whatever their merits these new designs are out of order as they contravene a 1988 Conference Resolution on the matter:

Quote:

This Conference resolves that the Party's full name 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain', be used in the following cases:(a) Legal documents, Forms A to G, membership cards.(b) The World Socialist Movement listing box, The World Socialist Movement publications box, the 'Address of the Party box on the inside page of the Socialist Standard giving details of EC Meetings, etc.'The Socialist Party' to be used in the following cases:(1) On the covers of the Socialist Standard, pamphlets and leaflets.(2) Generally in the texts of articles and pamphlets.(3) On all occasions where the address of Head Office is given, e.g. headed notepaper, adverts for socialist material, etc., except in (b) above.(4) All advertising and publicity material, posters, media adverts, etc.(5) In the titles of meetings and debates, and as the organiser of them.(6) Generally by speakers at indoor and outdoor meetings.(7) Manifestoes, election addresses, etc.( On the Head Office shop front fascia.

It is why the present fascia says "THE SOCIALIST PARTY" and has done since then.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

If I was a LU member I know who I'd expel first and which group to proscribe first: Jack Conrad and the "CPGB". His brazen declaration that he won't accept the constitution's requirement that faction meetings have to be open to all LU members can be found 6minutes 50 seconds into the video clip Handala links to.

It appears that they are going to appear to conform to the ban on factional meetings not open to all LU members, according to a recent circular:

Quote:

Comrades will be aware that we judged the founding conference of Left Unity as a partial success in that some anti-democratic proposals were pushed back and as a consequence – we wrote with tongue in cheek – LU was now a “safe space for left ideas”. (See our critique of the ludicrous ‘safe spaces’ proposals of a group of LU comrades from last September). The LU policy conference is happening this spring and the CPGB is looking to step up its work with other comrades in the Communist Platform to make an impact on the debates.We plan to organise the first meeting of the platform either in late January or early February (see above for Xmas disruption moans …). We are proposing to comrades that this meeting:1. Is advertised openly – including on the LU site – but it is made clear that participation is on the basis of acceptance of the text of the initial Communist Platform that went to the founding conference. We don’t want to be diverted on the day by silly arguments with people who have turned up precisely because they don’t agree with our general approach. (This may actually run counter to some of the policy agreed at the founding conference – so be it, frankly).2. Takes amendments to the existing platform – or comprehensive alternatives – from platform comrades.3. Elects a five person provisional steering committee at the meeting – comrades should be able to suggest people before or on the day, we think.

Advertising their faction meeting must be a new experience for them which their infiltrators into the Labour Party, SWP, SPEW, etc don't have to go through.

[ALB]

I texted John to let him know about this and he says he'll resume letter-writing when his present problems are over. This confirms the impact of letters to the press in the North East. For instance:http://www.sunderlandecho.com/opinion/columnists/tuesday-january-9-2007-1-1128859http://www.shieldsgazette.com/opinion/your-letters/what-s-the-difference-1-1255064http://www.shieldsgazette.com/opinion/your-letters/rottenness-of-capitalism-1-1298259

[ALB]

Never heard of him either but from the voting record you give I guessed he was a member of the Pope's Brass Band.

[ALB]

Yes, there is a whole school of leftwing economic writers who argue that it is possible to explain how capitalism works without having recourse to the concept of "value". This is because they see "value" as "socially necessary labour time" and nothing more and so don't see it as a social relationship. (Others make the same mistake and end up arguing that value will continue to exist in socialism).But the social relationship that value represents is capitalism. Capitalist production is value-production, commodity production (the same thing), i.e the production of use-values for sale on a market by separate producers whose production is regulated by the market.I don't think this is a difficult concept to understand. Where you have private ownership (= ownership by sections of society, whether individuals, corporations, states or co-operatives) of means of production then what links these "private" producers is the market and articles are produced as commodities, as value.Where you have the common ownership by society as a whole of the means of production then there is production directly for use and distribution. There is no commodity-production, no value-production, no value, no money.Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp? Maybe it's the unusual language (value, commodity) but surely everybody can immediately understand the idea of a society without money (even if they don't think it could work)? I know that talking of "the abolition of money" gets us stick as "utopian", so some others prefer to talk of "the abolition of value" (which means the same) but at the risk of not being understood.Here's a group of activists making heavy weather of this simple idea:http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/marx-and-wertkritik/

[ALB]

Quote:

Heinrich Scrotwengler von Grossteschattenburg

This guy can't be real. Even his pseudonym doesn't conform to German spelling conventions. Sounds like the name of a Troll. Don't they come from near that part of the world?I agree of course that since's he's mentioned socialism, marxism, etc this gives us an opening to give our views on these.

[ALB]

You've forgotten the Euroelections and the London borough elections in May. And there's also the Scottish referendum in September.

[ALB]

There are two ISN's. The Independent Socialist Network (Potts) and the International Socialist Network (ex-SWPers). I think the libcom thread is about the second lot.

[ALB]

I haven't followed David Harvey's apparently very popular lectures on Marx's Capital but I have read a couple of his books and some of his articles. In one of them (an introduction to a new edition of the Communist Manifesto, I think) he suggests that at one time Russia wasn't capitalist (even if it wasn't socialist either).I can't see how anybody who denies that  post-1917 Russia has always been capitalist can claim to understand Marx's concept of "value" since the production and exchange of commodities never ceased to exist in Russia.Marx saw "value" as emerging wherever there were separate(d) producers producing for the market. Under these conditions products assumed the form of commodites having a "value" which was a reflection of them being produced by separate producers who exchanged them with each other. So "value" is an expression of this particular social relation between producersI'm not sure why Harvey thought that at one time Russia's wasn't capitalist. Either because he thinkst that "value" didn't exist there or because he thinks that "value" could exist in a non-capitalist context. Both of which are mistaken and would show that he hadn't understood Marx's concept of "value".

[ALB]

He's done it again. Playing to the gallery, that is. This time over the First World Slaughter in an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph headed "Germany started the Great War, but the Left can't bear to say so". In it he supports Education Secretary Gove's view that it is "unpatriotic" not to take this position and criticises Labour MP and historian Tristram Hunt for taking a more nuanced view. However, he scores an own goal when he writes:

Quote:

The driving force behind the carnage was the desire of the German regime to express Germany’s destiny as a great European power, and to acquire the prestige and international clout that went with having an empire.

Yes, but German capitalism had to appear as the aggressor because the world was already carved up and dominated by British and French capitalism with their empires and the "clout" this gave them and so could not expand without coming up against them. Being in this position, Britain and France were satisfied with the status quo and so could cast Germany as the aggressor. So Boris is here in effect conceding that the "Great War" was an inter-imperialist conflict or rather a conflict between a would-be imperialist power and two established ones. Nothing justifying the shredding of single drop of working class blood.In other words, Capitalism caused the Great War but the Jingoists can't bear to say so.

[Author]

Posts