[ALB]

gnome wrote:

Bear in mind also that they (TZM) have over 800 members of their Meetup group compared with our 77 and at least 18 of them have RSVP’d for Sunday compared with our miserable 5, three of whom I’ll be bringing!   Fucking pathetic and some members wonder where we’re going wrong………..

I think this will have more to do with the difference in average age of us and them, with them having the lower average age and so being more internet-savvy.

[ALB]

There might well be a queue. I saw the Zeitgeist organiser yesterday and he said they were expecting about 30 of their people to turn up and the room only holds a maximum of 60.  Tea is supplied but you might need to bring your own biscuits.

[ALB]

Interesting aside in the report in yesterday’s London Evening Standard on the handing over of some Lloyds Bank branches to the Co-op Bank:

Quote:

If done well, banking is a dull affair, a bit like central heating. You try to use it as little as possible, but it never fails when you need it. It used to be called 3-6-3 banking (pay interest at 3%, charge interest at 6%, hit the golf course at 3pm)

This contrasts with the currency crank theory that it should be called 0-6-3  banking (create money from thin air, charge interest at 6%).

[ALB]

Quote:

The EC have passed the following resolution: “Motion 8 – Browne and Wicks moved that “as there is no definition in the rule book of a Regional branch, the Conference resolution relating to quorums – “Conference resolves that, for regional branches, the quorum necessary for meetings be 3 for the first 15 branch members, with a further 1 for each further 10 members.”- be applied to all branches.” Branch quorum is therefore reduced to 4.

How many members does North London have? 25 or over, I assume. We had a discussion on this at West London branch. As we have 24 members, we worked out that under this ruling our quorum had been reduced to 3 from 5. Which we think is ridiculous and will be telling the EC.The previous Branch Standing Orders (only adopted by the EC within the last year) laid down the following formula for calculating a quorum:

Quote:

In order for a properly constituted branch meeting to take place the members participating shall have to be 3 for the first 10 or part of ten and 1 for every part of ten

On this formula, the quorum for a branch with 24 members is 5 (3 for the first ten, 1 for the second ten, and 1 for the remaining part of ten).The resolution carried by Conference amended this not only to replace “the first 10” by “the first 15”, but also to replace “and 1 for every part of ten” by  “and 1 for each further 10 members”. Which makes all the difference. This may well have been unintended, but it brings out the point that this resolution was badly drafted and was probably out of order (by drawing a distinction between branches not laid down in the Rulebook) and should never have been passed.It needs to be repealed (or at least amended to restore “1 for every part of ten”) at the earliest opportunity, i.e. Conference next year. 

[ALB]

It’s on Youtube (for the time being?):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQnM-tF4SI

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

BBC 2 tonight at 9pm is broadcasting The Riots In Their Own Words.

They were going to but didn’t. I switched on at 9pm and found myself watching some patriotic trash glorifying war.  So I switched off. Apparently there was a Court order to stop it being showed:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/16/court-order-bbc-film-riots?newsfeed=trueBe interesting to know more about this.

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

is there any more of that peoples century video?  It looked like Harry Young had more to say on the subject.

There will have been but it wasn’t used. I saw the raw material for an earlier interview for TV and what was interesting was how the producers coached him to say what they wanted to broadcast. Harry kept mentioning the famine conditions then prevailing in Russia and how in these conditions socialism wasn’t possible, but all they wanted to hear was that he had heard Lenin speaking at a meeting of the Comintern. In the version I saw he said that Lenin spoke in German with a heavy Russian accent.Incidentally, Harry claimed to have been present in person when both Trotsky and Stalin spoke. Which is quite possible as he lived in Russia for 8 or 9 years in the 1920s when he was an employee of the Communist Youth International.

[ALB]

Just come across a video on Youtube by the Richard Werner who wrote that article with Green MP Caroline Lucas:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDHSUgA29LsIt’s quite a clear statement of the case for saying that banks can create money out of nothing, but since this is so divorced from reality, how did he ever get to be a professor of banking? Typical of the Green Party to give credence to such views.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Am I correct in thinking the limit of central banks creating money after which the currency devalues is the national growth rate of the economy?

More or less, at least in the short run. The currency shouldn’t devalue if the rate at which it is increased is not more than the rate of increase in economic transactions for which it is used.

jondwhite wrote:

As long as the economy is growing, central banks can issue more currency?

Central banks can of course issue more currency whenever they want, but if the economy is growing they can (and probably should) safely issue more (within limits).But the official government policy in most countries these days is not to maintain a stable price level and currency value (the same thing from a different angle) but to achieve a slowly increasing price level by means of a slowly depreciating currency of about 2 percent a year.

[ALB]

Found another article accepting the myth that banks can create money out of nothing. This time endorsed by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. The incriminating passage reads:

Quote:

central banks only create 3% of the money supply. Normally, 97% is created by banks through their extension of bank credit. If you wonder how this works: banks simply pretend that borrowers have deposited the money that they lend them, and thus create it out of nothing when they credit their deposit accounts, adding to the money supply.

This is to misinterpret double-entry book-keeping. Under this the “liability” (the loan) has to be matched by a corresponding “asset” (the borrower’s debt to the bank). No extra money (purchasing power) is created. It’s just a book entry and of course the bank has to already have the money to make the loan.Note that the article contradicts itself by talking about the Bank of England creating £275bn extra money apart from the 3% mentioned (which are notes and coins).Two points. First, central banks can create more money (additional nominal purchasing power) out of nothing (though if they create too much this will devalue previously existing money). But individual banks can’t (they have to have the money first before they can make a loan, even if they get it from the central bank as in the recently announced scheme to get banks to relend money to small businesses). Second, if you define “bank loans” as “money” then by definition banks create money (but not out of nothing).The Green Party obviously doesn’t mind making a laughing stock of itself. Their way out of the crisis? The Bank of England financing cycle paths in every city ….

[ALB]

HollyHead wrote:

I’m tempted to say “Told you so” … but  apart from propagating socialist ideas and analysis not very much.

Glad you resisted the temptation (though it would be appropriate for those workers who voted for the new government in the recent general election) !I’d say the only thing that workers can do is to try to apply the brake, through collective action,  to things getting worse without the illusion that they can stop this. Maybe it’s better to go down fighting like the miners and the P&O workers did in Britain rather than just passively accept the unavoidable.In any case, it strengthens the case for Revolution when the alternative is not even Reform but slowing down Regression.PS Just noticed this from our blog today.

[ALB]

steve colborn wrote:

It’s true ! He stood for election in the 1999 European elections, I looked it up.

Our numpty missed these results:http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/results/2007/188/ {scroll down to Deneside)That’s how it will be in the last days of capitalism. No Tories. A straight fight between us and the Labour Party!

[ALB]

You’re right. Steve Ross has in his hands the September and October 1986 issues of the Standard. If the person who filmed them wants to suppress this fact he’s not just a cheeky sod but a dishonest one. Still, it’s a good video.

[ALB]

It’s from Part VII of “Fictitious Splits in the International” drafted by Marx and Engels in 1872 which
can be found here.

Here’s the quote:

Quote:

All socialists see anarchy as the following program:

Once the aim of the proletarian movement — i.e., abolition of classes — is
attained, the power of the state, which serves to keep the great majority
of producers in bondage to a very small exploiter minority, disappears,
and the functions of government become simple administrative functions.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxismWho Ranciere is and why he deserves special mention by the author, i have no idea. I may investigate him later.

I wouldn’t bother if I were you. Jacques Rancière is an ex-maoist and ex-devotee of Althusser and so never did know anything about Marxism. In the 1970s he did write some interesting stuff on mid-19th French auto-didact workers, but later became a “philosopher”, which in France means someone who can speculate without having to base their conclusions on any empirical research.If true, this Guardian report would be rather disturbing as it suggests that Leninism as well as Marxism is enjoying a revival. That would be terrible.Ironically since I don’t think he claims to be a Marxist, the only person interviewed to talk some sense was Owen Jones when he said:

Quote:

“There isn’t going to be a bloody revolution in Britain, but there is hope for a society by working people and for working people,” he counsels. Indeed, he says, in the 1860s the later Marx imagined such a post-capitalist society as being won by means other than violent revolution. “He did look at expanding the suffrage and other peaceful means of achieving socialist society. Today not even the Trotskyist left call for armed revolution. The radical left would say that the break with capitalism could only be achieved by democracy and organisation of working people to establish and hold on to that just society against forces that would destroy it.”

The trouble is that he’s a leftwing Labourite and, while it’s true that the Trotskyists don’t actually call for an armed revolution (or engage in weapon training), they are still committed to it in theory and do argue against Marx and us on the possibility of an essentially peaceful capture of political power for socialism via mass democratic organisation and the ballot box.

[Author]

Posts