[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

There is even a Humanist political party.Humanist Party – United Kingdom

There is a certain irony here (a lot in fact). This “party” has nothing to do with  the main Humanist movement but is/was the front for a cult based on the spiritual teachings of someone who called himself “Silo” which tried to pass itself off as bona fide Humanists. I remember meeting some one of them in Ealing in the 1990s when they contested a local election. At that time they were trying to pass themselves off as the Greens. I must still have their leaflets somewhere.

[ALB]

This could of course equally have appeared in the joking sharing section since calling François Hollande a socialist, as all the media are doing (after describing North  Korea as socialist), is a joke. But there is a serious side to this as it shows how capitalism is incompatible with democracy.A majority of voters in France, and even more in Greece, have voted to reject austerity. But you think they’ll get it? Of course not. It won’t happen in either country, despite being the expressed political will of the people, because this is impossible with capitalism under present slump conditions. What other proof is needed that capitalism is not a system geared to meeting what people want?

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Couldn’t we leaflet their conference in Cardiff National Museum from 8 – 10 June – detailed below?http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/172?page=1

Good idea. Maybe Robin could pester them too to admit people with religious hang-ups.

[ALB]

As the EC Meeting finished early, 6 of us went from Claph High St to hear  the talk at the bandstand in the middle of Clapham Common. There were a dozen or so others there in the mid-teen temperature (but, thoughtfully, the organisers supplied rugs). Professor John Hutnyk of Goldsmiths spoke for nearly 2 hours but he was very good. His approach was that of the postmodernists who analyse the non-literary texts as literature and he did succeed in bringing out Marx’s analysis of money, the market and the exploitation of the worker as a drama with an underlying plot. He gives free lectures on the subject. See his website.We gave out copies of a back issue of the Socialist Standard on Marx and went for a drink with him and others at the Bread & Roses. Not sure of his political position, but he did emphasise that Marx stood not (just) for higher wages but for the abolition of the wages system. There was however a passing favourable reference to Lenin …

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

My favourite is Chattopadhyay who seems to be a real scourge of the Leninist Left and has made some devastingly powerful and impressive critiques of the whole Bolshevik scene – another is Simon Pirani – and I wonder if the Party has made any contact with Chattopadhyay.  He could prove a very useful ally.

Here’s another good article on The Myth of Twentieth-Century Socialism and the Continuing Relevance of Karl Marx by Paresh Chattopadhyay, as can be judged from its opening pages:

Quote:

First, a word on the confusion about the term “socialism.” There is a widespread idea that socialism and communism are two successive societies, that socialism is the transition to communism and hence precedes communism. Later in this essay we will say more about the origin of this thesis and the consequences of its acceptance. For Marx this distinction is non-existent. For Marx, socialism is neither the transition to communism, nor the lower phase of communism. It is communism tout court. In fact Marx calls capitalism itself the “transitional point” or “transitional phase” to communism (Marx 1953: 438; 1962a: 425–26; in Most 1989: 783). For him socialism and communism are simply equivalent and alternative terms for the same society that he envisages for the post-capitalist epoch which he calls, indifferent texts, equivalently: communism, socialism, Republic of Labour, society of free and associated producers or simply Association, Cooperative Society, (re)union of free individuals. Hence what Marxsays in one of his famous texts – Critique of the Gotha Programme (Marx 1964c; hereafter Gothacritique) – about the two stages of communism 2 could as well apply to socialism having the same two stages.

He goes on to show how the “socialism” of Lenin, Stalin and Mao had nothing at all in common with what Marx and Engels understood by the word but was a form of state capitalist dictatorship over the working class. Brilliant stuff!He also digs out a couple of quotes which I didn’t know about before where Marx refers to post-capitalist society as “socialism” rather his more usual “communism”.Yes, we have been in touch with him and he knows about us.

[ALB]

I don’t believe it. They’ve now announced how many votes were cast in the two areas for the London-wide lists and in both we got more votes than TUSC (the list support by both Militant and the SWP) did in the list vote (whereas I’d have expected it to be the other way round).In Lambeth & Southwark they got 1891 or 1.2% and in Merton & Wandsworth 904 or 0.6%. So quite a few of those who voted for us for the constituency did not vote for TUSC for the London-wide list (1047 in the first and 439 in the second). I don’t know what this means — except that offering attractive reforms doesn’t necessarily get you more votes than standing just for socialism.

[ALB]

Lambeth & Southwark result just announced here. We (Danny) got 2938 or 1.9%. Which is more we got last time (1588) and more than the Left List did too (1956)

[ALB]

Actual result for Merton & Wandsworth is here on our election blog. 1343 or 0.9% is about we expected. This compares with 1714 or 1.0% for the Left List (as the SWP called themselves for the election) at the last GLA election there 4 years ago. Counting is complete in Lambeth & Southwark and should be announced soon.

[ALB]

I should have know where Robin would derail this discussion to. He does it every time he gets the chance on the WSM Forum.

[ALB]

The first Contact has just emailed to say that he did vote for us in the end, joking that he was guided to do so by God.

[ALB]

Here is a video interview the on-line London magazine, the Big Smoke,  did with Daniel Lambert, our candidate in Lambeth & Southwark. Technical difficulties prevented them putting it up earlier, but better late than never.http://www.bigsmoke.org.uk/?p=77382

[ALB]

hannieB wrote:

I think the letter needs to be revised.

Not sure which letter you are referring to, but there’s another exchange with Bernard Bortnick in the May Socialist Standard here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1293-may-2012/letters

[ALB]

I don’t think they’re anti-SPGB. Jim North never had a problem doing this.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Comments by Lyonwiss describes what you say.”When you wrote banks can create money from nothing, the more technical statement is commercial banks can create deposits from nothing if there is no reserve requirement.”

This depends on what you mean by “deposits” ! There are two types: (1) real deposits, as when someone deposits money in their account and (2) notional “deposits”, as when a bank opens a credit line for someone they are lending money to. Obviously, banks can do (2). That’s their main line of activity, but the question is can they create these (ie make loans) “from nothing”?There seem to be three points of view on this:(1) That they can’t: they have to have the funds available before they can make a loan (the position of Paul Krugman and us).(2) That they can, but they then have to find the funds, either by borrowing from the money market or by expected new deposits resulting from the loan (the position of those Krugman is arguing with).(3) That they can, and that’s that (the position of Paul Grignon and other currency cranks).

[ALB]

We can make good use of this quote from a UKIP councillor suggesting that the unemployed shouldn’t be allowed to vote at the hustings in Putney this evening where our candidate for Merton & Wandsworth in the London Assembly elections, Bill Martin, will be speaking. The organisers have told us that the event will be filmed by the BBC for a programme they are making about the Putney Debates.The big question at these debates, between Cromwell and the soldiers in the Parliamentary army which had just defeated the Royalists, was precisely who should be entitled to vote. One contributor to the debate, called appropriately Colonel Rich, put the case against giving the vote to everyone as follows:

Quote:

You have five to one in this kingdom that have no permanent interest. Some men have ten, some twenty servants — some more, some less. If the master and servant shall be equal electors, then clearly those that have no interest in the kingdom will make it their interest to choose those that have no interest. It may happen that the majority may, by law — not in a confusion — destroy property; there may be a law enacted that there shall be an equality of goods and estate.

It looks as if some in UKIP want to go back to this. It will be interesting to see if their candidate turns up to explain.The trouble is, the majority could realise Colonel Rich’s nightmare but haven’t — yet.

[Author]

Posts