[ALB]

We should of course be present at this event with leaflets and Standards, but it's going to be Old Labour stuff (with the Trotskyist and Maoist sects battling it out amongst themselves on the sidelines). Here's the "People's Budget" proposed by the Communist Party of Britain (the Mourning Star mob) on a leaflet they handed out at the Mayday rally in London last Wednesday:

Quote:

Invest in health, education, housing, public transport and the environment.Halt all PFI and privatisation schemes to hand over public services to big business.Boost state pension and benefit levels in real terms, restoring the link with the retail price index.Increase the national minimum wage in real terms and retain the Agricultural Wages Board.Extend statutory equal pay audits into the private sector.Freeze gas, electricity and water prices and prepare to take all the utilities back into public ownership.Nationalise the banks and direct funds into manufacturing, small businesses, cooperatives and housing.Take the railways back into public ownership and subsidise fares and investment not shareholder dividends.Launch a massive public sector housebuilding programme. Where would the money come from?Introduce a 2 per cent Wealth Tax on the super-rich, raising £90 billion a year – almost twice this year's public spending cuts.Reverse the recent cuts in corporation tax for the biggest companies.Restore the top rate of income tax (at 60 per cent not 50).Slap a windfall tax on energy, retail and banking monopoly profits.Impose a financial transaction tax on the City bankers and speculators.Divert Bank of England funds from QE and the impotent Funding for Lending Scheme into infrastructure bonds issued by local, devolved and other public authorities.End the tax haven status of all territories under British jurisdiction.

The chance of this being adopted is nil, so they are setting themselves up to fail while at the same time fuelling illusions that capitalism could be made to work in the interest of the wage and salary earning majority and their dependants.Looks as if we're going to have to be the party poopers again.

[ALB]

Here is the result in the two-member Deneside ward in the Durham County Council elections yesterday:

Quote:

BELL, Edward  (Labour) 972BELL, Jennifer (Labour) 920COLBORN, Steven   263Electorate: 5893Turnout: 20.57%

That means that of the 1212 who voted, about 21% cast one of their votes for Steve Colborn.

[ALB]

I just noticed that at yesterday's by-election in South Shields there was a candidate standing for "The Independent Socialist Party" which was only registered on 17 April. It seems to be a one-man show. But, in view of the arguments over registering "The Socialist Party" which resulted in a ruling that nobody could, I wonder whether the Electoral Commission would have agreed to register him as "The Independent Labour Party" or, for that matter, anyone as "The Independent Conservative Party". I doubt it, especially as representatives of the parties with MPs are now on the board of the Commission (which they weren't originally).Incidentally, looking through the list of registered parties, I noticed that freelance Trotskyist, Andrew Burgin, registered, on 26 March this year, a "Left Party". Could this be a precursor of the "United Left" party that Ken Loach has called for?

[ALB]

According to Glasgow members who went there, nobody else turned up. A case of the IWW trying to be a union but not succeeding (because to be an effective union you have to a minimum of members which they haven't got). Which is why I've always joined a proper union. Nice slogan they've got, though.

[ALB]

Interesting, and relevant, news item today about the police using so-called "restorative justice" instead of the law (and getting a bollocking for it from the flog-em-and-hang-em brigade represented by Ed Miliband out vote-catching):http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/300410237-manchester-police-chief-defends-10000-apologies-and-community-resolutions-dished-o

[ALB]

Yes, one of the aims of QE was to avoid a fall in "asset prices", i.e to inflate them but without causing a rise in the prices of ordinary consumer goods and services. In other words, its aim was to cause "inflation" (in the sense of a rising prices) but  in only one part of the economy.It does seem to have achieved the aim of avoiding a fall/ensuring a rise in the "assets" traded on the stock exchange. The government and the Bank of England believed that this would help stimulate the economy or at least prevent it getting worse. They don't seem to have achieved thisOn the other hand, general inflation has more or less been avoided. True, "inflation" has risen above the 2% target, but the problem here is one of definition. Strictly speaking, inflation is a rise in the general price level due to an over-issue of the currency, but prices rise for other reasons which will also be recorded as "inflation". For instance, increases in the price of imports, which does in fact seem to a major explanation for "inflation" rising above 2%. According to this:

Quote:

The Bank of England has consistently said that it believes inflation will fall back to its 2% target. It is pinning its hopes on lower oil prices and import prices.

If all the extra "base money" created by QE had been created as notes and coins (rather than as banks's "reserve balances") inflation would have been many times higher than the 3-4% you mention. In fact, it would have been like in Zimbabwe.

[ALB]

Here's the view of an actual Professor of Anthropology:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/marx-anthropologistGood stuff.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Quote:

  "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both  scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism  is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No"

Anyone else noticed that the two resolutions ask different questions. The second is a carefully worded piece of political manipulation. How likely would it be that the SPGB  membership would vote against the case being one of class interests, in favour of morality? Whoever worded that one knew what they were doing.

You shouldn't be so suspicious! The 2010 Conference resolution changed what up till then had been the Party's policy (which in fact is why a Party Poll was called on the matter, as one usually is when this happens). The wording of the Party Poll question aimed to restore the pre-2010 Conference position, as expressed in a Resolution carried by Conference in 1964, which stated:

Quote:

That this Conference re-affirms that Socialism is a class issue, not a moral issue.

That socialism is a class issue was not contested by either side. The issue at stake was whether or not it was, in addition to this, also an "ethical" or "moral" issue. As you can see, the membership split two-thirds/one third on the issue. But this hasn't stopped the one-third's position from continuing to be argued (as this thread shows). Maybe, when the matter comes up again, they will have convinced enough of the rest of the membership to become the majority. That's how democracy works..Incidentally, on your logic of trying to interpret double negations, you could argue that the SPGB membership voted that the case for socialism wasn't a scientific one! But this wasn't at issue either.

[ALB]

Forgot to add that I've got A Level Ancient History.

[ALB]

steve colborn wrote:

I will draw your attention to the prior post, re the 1991 conference resolution on "law" etc

This and other Party Conference resolutions on the same subject can be found here:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/51135

[ALB]

The European Court of Human Rights has just upheld the UK ban on paid political advertisements on TV and radio:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22238582Their argument was that this helped democracy by not giving the wealthy an unfair advantage and, anyway, political parties and campaigning groups were still allowed to advertise in the press. Not very convincing.The hypocritical reaction of the government was expressed by Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary:

Quote:

The government welcomed the verdict, saying the ban helped sustain a "balance of views" on British TV.

Nothing about the imbalance resulting from the major political parties being able to use TV and radio to get their message across via party political broadcasts denied to smaller parties. And now the ban on smaller parties paying to advertise on TV and radio stays. So the monopoly of the major parties on presenting their views, as they wish to present them, on TV and radio continues. We remain denied this.If we go ahead with the suggestion to contest Wales and/or Scotland in next year's European elections we might get our first — three minute– political broadcast ever. Not that that will restore the imbalance.

[ALB]

This of course is a discussion that has been going on in the Party for years, with the majority opinion swinging from one side to the other. In 2010 Conference passed the following resolution by 64 votes to 52:

Quote:

Socialism is both scientific and ethical.

Six branches then called a Party Poll to rescind this resolution. The result of this vote was:

Quote:

Results of the Party Poll on the following motion :  "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both  scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism  is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No"  No of votes cast : Yes      –  81 No         – 39 Abstain –   3 Spoilt    –   2  Therefore the 2010 Conference resolution – Socialism is both scientific and  ethical – is rescinded.  There were 9 invalid returns.

So, this is the current "Party position" though the discussion is still ongoing. Nothing wrong with that of course. In fact that's one of the purposes of this forum to give minorities the chance to become the majority.

[ALB]

Surely the issue here is not whether the values of hunter-gatherer societies exist or are desirable (as some are), but how did they arise? In other words, does "(social) being determine consciousness" or is it the other way round, ie that "values" determine social being, as philosophical idealists would claim?

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Given the authors support for parecon, then IOPS hosting would make sense.

Not all the authors support Parecon. In fact, as the review mentioned, two of them specifically take up our position on the necessary nature of a post-capitalist society to be one without money or remuneration. Pity they're not the ones coming.

[ALB]

This book was reviewed in the Socialist Standard in June last year:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1294-june-2012/book-reviews-accumulation-freedom-writings-anarchistChris Spanos was not one of those given a commendation. In fact he's a supporter of that nutty idea, Parecon. See:http://www.zcommunications.org/paths-toward-an-anti-capitalist-liberation-by-chris-spannosStill, might be worth attending if only to confront him. It could also  be embarrassing for those anarchists who, unlike him, are also communists.

[Author]

Posts