[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  "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both  scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism  is one of class interest not one of morality.'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.

[ALB]

Whatever else can or cannot be said about "primitive communism" it was:1. The original state of our species homo sapiens which lasted for tens of thousands of years..2.  A society based on free access to nature and the sharing of its products.3.  Non-hierarchical, i.e a society without social classes.4.  A society without a State, i.e without any body of armed men to enforce social discipline (i.e, to stay strictly on topic, without a "police force"). In fact an alternative name amongst anthropologists for such societies is "societies without a state".We point to this of course to show that humans can live in a society without classes, a state, private property or money because they once did, not because we want to idealise the hunter-gatherer way of life. What we want is to create the above social conditions of these societies but on a world scale and on the basis of modern technology which has made this possible.There's a relevant article in the December 2006 Socialist Standard here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2006/no-1228-december-2006/driven-eden

[ALB]

I noticed that legal definition of a "weapon of mass destruction" too. Actually, to define any weapon that can kill a "mass" of people in one go as a WMD seems fair enough. It reinforces our traditional definition of armies as killing machines and soldiers as trained killers. All armies, in all countries, possess WMDs. Mass killing is what they are about. Compared to them the Boston bombers are just incompetant amateurs.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

On 16 May 2013 we are discussing the Communist Manifesto.

Don't forget to have a look again at the pamphlet-length preface to the centenary edition we published in 1948:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/communist-manifesto-and-last-100-yearsIn fact, you could draw the other members of the groyup's attention to it perhaps.

[ALB]

Are you conforming to the rules of behaviour because of peer pressure or because of a fear of a formal punishment?

[ALB]

colinskelly wrote:

There is some good stuff in Wolff and Resnick's work on the roots of the current crisis, atlhough the underconsumptionism tends to push it towards Keynesian conclusions (as with David Harvey).

Here's quite the worst speech that David Harvey has ever been recorded as giving in which he in effect urges a return to Keynes:http://experimentalgeographies.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/david-harvey-at-occupy-london/Generally, his writings on economic theory are OK, but this was terrible, especially the bit about the need to "reverse Thatcherism" and return to the pre-1970s situation:

Quote:

Well, since Thatcher, there’s been a systematic assault, to try to turn more of the costs of social reproduction into externalities. Costs that capital will not bear. ‘You bear the cost of your own education, you bear the cost of your own health care. and if you get sick and you die, that’s your own fault. It’s not capital’s fault.’Now in the 1950s and 1960s, the state was forced by political circumstances to bear some of those costs and to tax capital, to bear some of those costs. But what Margaret Thatcher started to do was to say, ‘Look, we are actually not going to pay those costs anymore, they’re up to your wn personal responsibilties, it’s up to your own personal savings, it’s your own personal life and you have to take care of it, and if you don’t take care of it and get into trouble, that’s your problem.’Now that was what Thatcher launched, and actually there’s a pattern that goes on here. Everybody thought when Thatcher was gone—-got rid of Major as well—-that things would change. No! We got Tony Blair. And what did Blair do, he deepened what was going on. Blair started to introduce the top-up fees at universities, Blair is the one who started to push this Thatcherite agenda even further. And right now what we’ve got is a situation where the Thatcherite agenda is with us even though she is long gone.(…)And we have to end what Thatcher started, and reverse it entirely. In other words, what we have to have is a political program to end the whole Thatcher era because it has not ended at all, and what we see with the current conservatives right now is that they want to make it even more Thatcherite than Thatcher.That this, if you like, what the political task is. To force capital to bear all of those costs that it doesn’t want to bear.

No, it's not. It's to get rid of capitalism altogether. The politics of some of the big  names in Marxist theory today is crap.

[Author]

Posts