[ALB]

As the only Party candidate to have been in the same position of being one of only two candidates (in the event you versus Labour), you would be well placed to debate with this TUSC candidate. I'm not sure though that calling him a "piece of filth" to this face would prove very fruitful ! After all, he might prove amenable to the socialist argument despite his current views.

[ALB]

Mention of "dandelion" prompted me to check what Daniel De Leon and the De Leonists said and say about Lincoln. Not surprisingly in view of their "Americanism",  it is very favourable as in chapter 2 of the SLP pamphlet Reviling of the Great by Arnold Petersen.They also reproduce an interesting quote from Lincoln in 1861 about labour and capital here:

Quote:

It is not needed, not fitting here, that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connexions, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention.It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above labor, in the structure of government.It is assumed that labor is available only in connexion with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it, induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers, or what we call slaves. And further it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fixed in that condition for life.Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation.A few men own capital, and with that avoid labor themselves, and, with their capital, hire or buy another few to labor for them.A large majority belong to neither class — neither work for others, nor have others working for them. In most of the southern states, a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters; while in the northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men with their families — wives, sons and daughters — work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other.

I didn't know that "in most of the southern states, a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters". I can believe that most "white" people there were not slaveholders, but is it true that in most of the southern states most "black" people were not slaves? Anyone know?

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The current melt-down of the SWP has over-shadowed the collapse of the United Left Alliance in the Irish Republic.

This should probably be a separate thread, but here's more on this history repeating itself for the umpteenth time as a farce as rival Trotskyist vanguards vie for the control of a "united front" body:http://links.org.au/node/3203Can anyone believe that these organisations are ever sincere?

[ALB]

Alaric wrote:

I left the SPGB a long time ago.

But now you're being more SPGB than the SPGB ! I mean that you accept the common caricature of our position that we are out to convince a majority of the world's population one by one by rational argument of the desirability and feasibility of socialism.This is not the case. OK, at the moment we are trying to convince more people of this with a view to their joining the Party and thus help to speed up the coming of socialism, but we are relying on people's experience of capitalism's failure to meet their needs properly to convince them of the need for socialism, independently of our own activity. The activity of a socialist party is aimed at speeding this up, not creating it from nothing as you seem to be assuming.

[ALB]

The article on "Bitcoin" is interesting (for those interested in funny money).

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

The Prof asks Is Leninism finished http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12210

Here's what the same Callinicos wrote in an article in the same magazine in January 1993 when answering questions on "What will socialism be like?":

Quote:

But what would this socialist democracy be like? How would it differ from liberal democracy as it exists today under capitalism?The most important difference is that democratic decision making would spread throughout the whole of the social body. Prevailing capitalist democracy separates political power, which is formally subjected to democratic rules (even though they're often ignored or twisted in practice), and economic power, which is exercised by a small number of unelected bosses. This separation would go. The workplace would provide the basic unit of the new socialist democracy, electing delegates to local, regional, national and (as the revolution spread) international congresses.Representative democracy, first developed by the emerging capitalist class when it was still revolutionary, would thus be extended beyond the sphere of politics narrowly understood, as decisions about what and how to produce passed into the hands of elected delegates. It would also be strengthened, since these representatives would be subject to regular re-election and liable to instant recall, thus making them accountable in a way that MPs never are.Democracy also requires open discussion and choices between genuine alternatives. Both are limited by the power of capital in contemporary society. Here again socialism would represent an extension of democracy. Access to the media would not be restricted to those with the wealth to buy newspapers and television networks.Freedom of debate, however, isn't effective without the ability to choose between political parties offering different programmes. A workers' state would, like any other state, have the right to defend itself against counter-revolutionary forces seeking its overthrow. But any party willing to work peacefully within the framework of the new state would be free to compete for influence in the workers' councils and would be guaranteed access to the media.

Electing delegates subject to regular re-election and liable to instant recall, open discussion and choices between genuine alternatives, these are essential features of democracy  — though not of the SWP's top-down decision-making process.

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

This went on until 1996.

And started in 1922 when the south of Ireland got "independence". What was that about "Home Rule" = "Rome Rule"?

[ALB]

They're not criticising the SWP for its lack of democracy, but for not being properly "democratic centralist". What else would you expect from people calling themselves "Bolsheviks" !

[ALB]

There was an article in the July/August issue of the Skeptical Inquirer on this entitled "Besieging the Last Bastions of Race" by Kenneth W. Krause. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available without paying, but here's an extract:

Quote:

In his introduction to Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture (Columbia University Press, 2011), Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University community health specialist and coeditor (along with human rights advocate Kathleen Sloan), confirms that race amounts to nothing more than a "scientific myth"—a "vestigial cultural artifact" persisting only in our "minds and public policies."Race and the Genetic Revolution emerged from two projects launched by the Council for Responsible Genetics. The first examined the effects of expanded DNA databases on racial disparities in criminal justice. The second, more interesting to me, explored how modern scientific—especially medical—practices have actually revived a dangerous concept that should have been tagged and bagged years ago.In a concise historical essay, contributor and Drexel University public health expert Michael Yudell considers the recent "upsurge" in race-based medicine and its possible drivers. The genetic revolution, he finds, combined with our noble desire to resolve certain health disparities—especially in heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, for example—has scientists rummaging for solutions in every possible direction.Unfortunately, many well-intentioned researchers have reverted to race. According to Yudell, this reckless trend suggests that "an analysis of the complex relationship between individuals, populations, and health will be surrendered to a simplistic, racialized world-view."

 

[ALB]

At the risk of being done for flaming or whatever, but I'm banking on the sense of humour of comrades in the North East, here's a news item in today's Times that hopefully will provide some light relief:

Quote:

Town councillors are to be given a lesson in civility after complaints about their conduct. Members of Ferryhill town council, in Co Durham, have been the subject of seven complaints, four of which related to a meeting in October. Now Durham County Council is to organise a meeting to establish "why differences of opinion between members cannot be entertained and debated in a civilised manner".

[ALB]

The Socialist Standard is in fact planning an issue on catastrophism so this will help.PS. I wish contributors would not put quotes in italics (which is hard read) rather than using the Quote facility.  Oh, just realised there isn't one here.  So, use [/quote] to end and

Quote:

to begin.

[ALB]

They're discussing it here too:http://www.facebook.com/groups/147039565328926/

[ALB]

Here's what the Socialist Standard said at the time about the 1919 police strike:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1919/no-178-june-1919/bobbys-discretionandhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1919/no-180-august-1919/police-v-police

[ALB]

It's not as if we've not been here before as this extract from the Proceedings of Annual Conference 2008 shows. What did Marx say about when history repeats itself?

Quote:

MOTION 9 [Vote 13]: (EARB) "This conference rules that Spintcom and Spopen should not be moderated".Stevens (EARB) on opening referred the meeting to their statement. She had been impressed by democracy in the Party. Moderation appears to go against this. There is a culture in the Party which ignores disputes.Donnelly (Glasgow) Non moderation a disaster, it is not like a letter. I've been moderated, essential, too easy to press SEND button, ends up like school kids bickering. The idea is that we can communicate with workers throughout the world. We have lost speaking opportunities, outdoor meetings. We lack a real activity; we are turning in on ourselves. If we could get together there would be no time to bicker. The moderators are doing a difficult job, though we don't go in for praising members in the Party these two should be.Foster (WMRB) he agreed with moderation but suggested a trial period of non-moderation, to see if it works.Morris (Manchester) is appalled at the abuse, especially over petty things, if she had been a new member she would have resigned. If in dispute ring up and talk privately. On the Internet we look stupid.Shannon (Lancaster) his branch astounded at this view, patently not true that we have grown up, that's why we have Chairs, not amazing that it's happening on e-mail. This is passive/aggressive behaviour, blood crazed imbeciles. This is not about openness, this is about licence. Democracy doesn't mean no rules. Maybe we should have a late night breathalyser test.Chesham (Central London) On e-mail there is no comparison between a Chair and moderation, they offend first. Moderation is inconsistent, outrageous things said but not moderated, other mild ones get moderated. We are looking for a future society without moderation. Abused members have no redress, its still happening. Doesn'tsubscribe to moderation as present set up, they should be accountable.Carr (SWRB) if it's not working properly, then tighten up.Hart (South London) branch also opposed. The Charter should be adhered to.Johnson (Swansea) Swansea are also opposed. There should be more strictness. Since the EC reminded the Moderators, things have been better. The more we fight among ourselves the less we are focussing on outside activity. If not moderated we will be said to be a crowd of undisciplined hooligans.Stair (Non Delegate) There are two reasons for this on the agenda. One, personal abuse and two lets listen to what people have to say,. The attitude lets sweep everything under the carpet, lets not get to the route of the problem and deal with it. Sees personal abuse as being action detrimental.Buick (West London) This idea is bonkers, a recipe for Anarchism. If we experiment into non moderation, public face would make us look stupid, one member has unsubscribed another is in limbo. We could see other ways to moderate, e.g. anyone who sends a message could get an answer "Do you really want to send this?" Quoted Conference Standing Orders 15 and 14.Stevens (EARB) winding up asked what does Comrade Buick have to hide.VOTE:  FOR 21. AGAINST 81. NOT CARRIED.

 

[ALB]

For the record here's the challenge to us issued on 18 January by someone on the Militant Southwark Facebook page:

Quote:

The second largest party after labour gets 344 votes. We get 72 votes beating all the small parties. SPGB get  34. They must aknowledge our superior electoral machine now & see if they have the stomach for 2014. Lol. SPGB, if  u want to play big boys games u face big boys consequences. lol

We will be contesting Brixton Hill ward again in the Council elections next May. We'll see. After all, it is not as if 72 votes is all that much. Lol.

[Author]

Posts