ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:But we do the work anyway and leave the results to 'god', as Ghandi put it.
I think Napoleon put it better when he said "You commit yourself and then you see" ( "On s'engage et puis on voit"). Lenin liked it too. But look what happened to them. Anyway, I wonder which particular god Gandhi had in mind.
Professor Mike Savange (one of those behind the new classification) does indeed seem to be saying something similar to us, i. e. that the real division in present-day society is not between a "middle class" and a "working class" but between an "elite" and the rest:
Quote:Previous models of class, with their concern around the boundaries between middle and working class are supplanted by three other dynamics which run through our analysis. We can define these as (a) the role of the outliers and especially those at the ‘top end’ of the class structure, (b) boundaries of age and generation, and (c) the redefinition of expertise and technique. Let me address these in turn.We felt that one of our most striking findings from the GBCS is the clear delineation of an ‘elite’. It is rather bemusing that Marxist critics of our work abound, given that our account of contemporary class relations has far more affinities to Marxist theories of capitalism than any other sociological models available (certainly compared to the NS-Sec). If one has to detect the single most important cleavage in Britain today, it is not between ‘middle’ and ‘working’ class, but between a small corporate elite and everybody else.This distinctive elite has not been recently recognised in previous forms of sociological class analysis – though it is certainly manifest in the public imagination. As I have argued, this is due to the preoccupation with the middle reaches of society, which dramatically weakened the capacity to bring the purview of the ‘extreme’ social classes into the purview of class analysis.Perhaps we've misunderstood him (or rather the publicity surrounding the announcement of the results of the "Great British Class Survey" which downplayed this elite vs the rest aspect) and should be using this point of his to back up our analysis.
You're right Steve. And I used to live in Euroland and got paid in euros. So, also, a 5 Euro note is worth £3.50 not 35p, not the sort of thing to burn.
Sounds like it comes from the same stable as this one by Diamantis and Kotler we reviewed in the May 2012 Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1293-may-2012/book-reviews-intrusion-abundance-future-better-you-th
jondwhite wrote:Almost feel sorry for TUSC, at least they had the word socialist in their name!Surely it's the other way round. It's a bad thing that TUSC has "socialist" in its name and a good thing that the new Left Unity party (hopefully) won't!
Interesting but isn't he more formerly of the parish of Occupy than of us? I see, though, that he still regards himself as a socialist though, unless he's boring from within the embryo new party to put across real socialist ideas, it seems to be Old Labourism.Incidentally, a "Left Party" has already been registered since the end of March with the Electoral Commission with Kate Hudson as Leader and Andrew Burgin as Treasurer. The variants on its name that it has registered give some clue as to what it's going to be like:
Quote:fighting racism and warbuild hospitals and schools for equality and no to discrimination Left UnityIn other words, a left-of-Labour reformist party.
In today's Times their columnist Rachel Sylvester quotes another former but unnamed Labour (Cabinet) Minister as admitting that Labour is merely out to run capitalism:
Quote:"Labour's weak point has always been looking after other people's money," says one former Labour Cabinet minister. "Ed Miliband has to deal with that. It's more fundamental than reassurance. He has to demonstrate that he understands how a modern capitalist economy works and that he's fit to run it."It's not clear if this former Labour Cabinet minister himself understands how capitalism works unless he is saying that Labour must learn to always put profits first (as all previous Labour governments have in fact ended up doing).
Looks as if this should be called Left Disunity:http://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/kate-hudson-has-usurped-the-goodwill-of-8000-anti-sectarians/It seems that the anti-Trotskyists are fighting to exclude at least the big Trot groups (SWP, SPEW) as they realise that admitting them would kill their project.Interesting, though, that TUSC seem to want to negotiate as if the Left Unity did get off the ground it would sink them. The final decision here of course rests with Bob Crow not SPEW.
Ed wrote:10 shilling notes would be an acceptable price to pay for combustable material. But yeah the notes in the video don't look like euros. Perhaps francs? If we wanted to do something like that then it would probably be best to get some funny money printed that looks real from a distance.I think at least one of the notes he burned was a green 100 Euro one (worth less than £9). There are also 50, 20, 10 and 5 Euro notes. As the 5 Euro note is only worth about 35p, he could easily afford that. So we could but then it's probably better to leave burning Euro notes to UKIP.Incidentally, the reason he was doing this was to publicise the fact thst various local radio and TV stations had not invited him to participate in debates between candidates they had organised, a problem we have come across too. Mind you, in this particular case there were 21 candidates.
Oh dear. So much for "ethical banking". I wonder what all those Guardian-readers who "moved their money" (to the Co-op Bank) are thinking now. Another quack remedy hits the dust.
gnome wrote:Is this guy for real? He spends most of this short video setting fire to banknotes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdni9GI-eOQ&list=PLJJCm5PCRM9eiGXwgP7oi_310uSvzhOxe&index=1This is just the sort of Situationist-style stunt that was suggested at the workshop we held. But I think we'd have to call for donations, not use Party funds.
The Nikolai Sukhanov that Laurens Ottter mentions seems to have been a good bloke, though I don't think he would have been a delegate to the 1903 Conference of Russian Social Democrats at which the Bolshevik/Menshevik split took place, if only because at the time he was not a Social Democrat but associated rather with the non-Marxist (Populist) Social Revolutionary party. (And Laurens Otter is notorious for getting his facts wrong). It is true, however, that in 1917 he did become a Menshevik-Internationalist (i.e Menshevik opponent of the First World War) along with Martov. He was one of the victims of Stalin's Show Trials and was executed in 1940.Sukhanov wrote a 7-volume Notes on the Revolution. This was the basis of one of the best, readable accounts in English of the Russian Revolution, Joel Charmichael A Short History of the Russian Revolution that came out in 1964.When Lenin read it he was moved to exclaim:
Quote:You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?Gotcha, you anti-Marxist!. Since the answer of course is: everywhere in Marx and Engels.
Just discovered that in last June's French general election there was a candidate in Lyon standing on an "abolish money" platform. His party name was "Voter Après-Monnaie" (Vote After-Money). His (Marc Chinal) election blog can be found here It makes interesting reading (for those who can read French) as it shows how similar campaigns by minor parties in France are to here: trying to get press and radio interviews and ensure "equal publicity" for all the candidates (the law on this in France is stricter), distributing leaflets door-to-door (he had 40,000 printed). He doesn't seem to have done too badly in this respect. He got 81 votes or 0.21%. Par for the course at the moment but a sign that the idea of a world without money is spreading spontaneously (i.e nothing to do with us).Also for those who understand French here's his 20-minute vidéo on "What Would An After-Money Civilisation Look Like?". It's mainly devoted to such questions as "what will be the incentive to work?", "who will do the dirty work" and "won't people take too much?" He seems to have come from the ecology movement.
The minor Trot groups are loving this — the prospect of bigger party to entry and fish for recruits in. Here's the point of view of "Socialist Resistance" (the Uk arm of the official official 4th International, I think):http://links.org.au/node/3333It's all going to end in tears of course
It has just been revealed that Government adviser Lord Young has written the following in a report to Cameron:
Quote:It has always been the case that a recession can be a good time to grow a business. This is true for a number of reasons. Competitors who fall by the wayside enable well-run firms to expand and increase market share. Factors of production such as premises and labour can be cheaper and higher quality, meaning that return on investment can be greater.Labour politicians and the TUC are up in arms about this, but Young is merely describing the way capitalism works.Marx made the same point himself when he pointed out that the fall in a slump in wages and the price of other "factors of production" would help restore the rate of profit and so pave the way for a slow recovery.Lord Young is indeed "telling it like it is".
