ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I second that motion. It seems a fair and objective assessment.
More on the vote of Russians outside Russia. Apparently, Davankov beat Putin in Israel and Serbia:
Russian Elections: In Israel, UAE, Expats’ Loyalties Divided Between Putin and Opposition
Of course most Russians voted for Putin and are just as oblivious of their class interest as workers in the West (as in fact were those who didn’t vote for him).
The trouble with biological explanations as to which this is so (and Freud, Reich and Marcuse are offering biological explanations based on posited sexual energy) is that they prove too much — if workers have been biological manipulated to support capitalism how could they be changed to reject it? And how did we manage to escape this?
A more plausible explanation of nationalism would be that humans are social animals who seek and need a sense of community and that nationalism currently meets this. In other words, it provides a false community. Its antidote being the real community that socialism will be.
The nomination papers for our candidate in Barnet & Camden were handed in this afternoon at Barnet Council Offices in Colindale and were accepted.
So we’re off. The full list of our opponents will be published on 2 April.
We have contested elections, national and local, many times in parts of Camden but the only previous chance that voters in Barnet in North-West London bordering on Hertfordshire had to vote Socialist was in 2009 when we contested all-London in the European Parliament elections that year (and got 4,050 votes).
In another of her speeches, yesterday, to reassure big business that it had nothing to fear from a Labour government, among the names dropped by Rachel Reeves was Joan Robinson:
“As Joan Robinson understood when she wrote sixty years ago, economics is not just about quantitative models and abstract theory – it is about values, rooted in political, philosophical and moral questions, about human nature and the good society.”
Robinson (1903-1983) probably did vote Labour in her time but here’s what her Wikipedia entry says of her:
“Robinson also made several trips to China, reporting her observations and analyses in China: An Economic Perspective (1958), The Cultural Revolution in China (1969), and Economic Management in China (1975; 3rd edn, 1976), in which she praised the Cultural Revolution. In October 1964, Robinson also visited North Korea, which was effectively a single-party Communist state, and wrote in her report “Korean Miracle” that the country’s success was due to “the intense concentration of the Koreans on national pride” under Kim Il Sung, “a messiah rather than a dictator.” She also stated in reference to the division of Korea that “[o]bviously, sooner or later the country must be reunited by absorbing the South into socialism.”
Reeves needs to be careful whose names he drops. Otherwise, there is going to be a headline in the Daily Mail: REEVES INFLUENCED BY ECONOMIST WHO SAID NORTH KOREA WAS SOCIALIST.
Incidentally, Robinson is credited with getting academic economists to take Marx seriously with her 1942 book An Essay on Marxian Economics, reviewed in the January 1944 Socialist Standard. It is very critical but mentions at the end:
“In spite of her academic outlook it must be conceded that Joan Robinson admits the exploitation of the workers, and here and there hints at expropriation of the capitalists as the remedy ….”
I don’t know whether this — the result of the vote of Russians living outside Russia in the presidential elections there — is of interest:
https://tass.com/politics/1762879
According to my calculations, this means that 6.86% of those who voted cast a blank or spoiled ballot paper. Which is quite high for any election and presumably mainly reflects the response of the “non-system” opposition in Russia to do so. In Russia the number of such ballots was declared to be 1.37%.
They also called for a vote for “anyone but Putin”. Which might explain the relatively good score — 16.65% — of the candidate who came second (inside Russia he got only 3.9% and finished third, behind the Communist Party’s candidate.) This suggests that perhaps up to 18% of overseas Russians voted against Putin and his policies.
The nomination papers of our candidate in Lambeth & Southwark were handed yesterday and were accepted.
Those for our candidate in Barnet & Camden will be handed in tomorrow.
Nominations close on 27 March so we won’t know who are opponents are till after then.
Yes, we do have guest speakers and that talk can even be described as a classic on the subject. But Ed Griffiths knows us well enough to realise that there is no chance of us supporting, campaigning or voting for a united left-of-Labour candidate anywhere. For the reason Imposs1994 mentions.
We are opposed to the Left if only because they don’t stand for socialism as “society where wealth belongs to everybody and wages no longer exist” and if they do have it as a theoretical long-term aim they don’t advocate it but only “fairly modest left-Keynesian” reforms. TUSC, Galloway and Corbyn being prime examples.
Anyway, it’s not going to happen except that most of them might agree to flood Islington North in London to campaign to get Corbyn re-elected. To get above 5 percent of the votes cast (and so save the election deposit of £500) will only be possible in constituencies where Galloway’s party can pull in sufficient Muslim votes. In fact, I would guess that this will happen in some constituencies but of course won’t be votes for the Left, let alone for socialism.
Ed Griffiths himself does not think much of Galloway, even questioning whether he is part of the Left:
“Quite a few on the left have recently been saluting his indefatigability in connection with the Rochdale by-election. That may be wise, or it may not; but any suggestion that patriotic Keynesian social conservatism, fronted by a climate change sceptic who voted Tory only three years ago, represents the future (or even, let’s be honest, a part) of the British far left is for the birds.”
Another contribution to this debate, from Ed Griffiths who we know:
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1481/how-we-should-contest/
He points out correctly that
“When left groups stand candidates, they usually – and quite correctly – issue a manifesto. In many cases that manifesto turns out to consist mostly of policies (often fairly modest left-Keynesian ones)”
But also says:
“The actual goal of the far left is not a wealth tax and a higher minimum wage: it is a society where wealth belongs to everybody and wages no longer exist.”
That’s rather dubious. When it comes down to it they really do stand for a wealth tax, a higher minimum wage and others “fairly modest left-Keynesian” reforms — and don’t get many more votes than us when we stand on straight socialist ticket.
Something to reassure (hopefully not disappoint) TM
https://news.yahoo.com/no-direct-threat-russia-nato-153230479.html
I think there used to be a port in Gaza or a bigger one was being built but that it was destroyed by Israel last time. Of course.
Due to two of the regular leafletters being unavailable, only about 300 leaflets were distributed today around the national demonstration in London.
Despite the extremist claim of the extremism tsar that London was today a no go area for Jews no SA or Black Hundreds or for that matter Ukrainian Banderites were observed roaming the streets. Where did the government find this ignoramus?
https://apnews.com/article/indiana-defining-antisemitism-bill-d2b2b38427df713c355fbeb2f9afe2df
If the bill excludes the 11 examples that the IHRA gave as contemporary examples of antisemitism, then it would seem to be a victory for free speech, at least in Indiana (population 6.8 million).
Most of the examples are not controversial just reflecting what is ordinarily seen as antisemitism but a few were tendentious:
“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
“Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.“
“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
So, in theory, someone in Indiana can now say that the establishment of Israel was “a racist endeavour” and that the state of Israel is currently pursuing a policy of “genocide” without risking losing their job for doing so.
The full list of “illustrations” can be found at the end of this document:
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Submissions/JBI-Annex1.pdf
The result of yesterday’s election for mayor of Lewisham can be found here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Lewisham
Hamilton got 5.7 percent of the vote, coming 5th behind the usual suspects (Labour, Green, Liberals, Tories). This is not a bad score for a minor party but will mostly be a personal vote for him as (as can be seen) someone who has stood for mayor 4 times before and getting the same percentage. It can’t really be regarded as a vote for the Workers Party of Britain’s programme but since the Labour share of the vote went down by 6.5 percent he may well have taken some voters from Labour.
The Transform Party seem rather a wishy-washy lot:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transform_(political_party)
It is easy to see how they and the WPB would be incompatible.
I always wondered what happened to Left Unity.
Another report on the meeting yesterday evening:
Clashes between pro-and anti-Galloway protestors at mayoral election rally
