ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nigel Farage was interviewed on BBC radio 4 this morning after having obtained the resignation of the chief executive of NatWest Bank. At the end he mentioned that what he saw as the danger of “central bank digital currency”. He has been complaining against this for years. Here’s a recent tweet from him:
Central Bank Digital Currencies will give the state total control over our lives. This must be resisted. https://t.co/3QwqbkkPjD
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) February 7, 2023
This has become a big issue for the “libertarian” fringe in British politics. They see it as a totalitarian attempt by governments to keep an eye on how people spend their money.
For instance, the Reform Party (the successor to the Brexit Party) candidate in the Somerton and Frome by-election said “oppose a cashless society and central bank digital currency” and one of Piers Corbyn’s slogan in his election address in Uxbridge was in bold capitals KEEP CASH.
We’ve got a better idea of course:
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2009/11/smash-cash.html?m=1
How the Ukraine regime deals with opposition MPs who disagree with them:
https://english.nv.ua/nation/sbu-charges-ex-mp-yevgeniy-murayev-with-treason-50341629.html
Thanks. The Party, as publisher, does claim copyright and passed this resolution at 2007 Conference:
“Be it resolved that all material created and published by the Party shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs copyright licence.”
I think this means anybody can reproduce articles without needing to ask permission as long as they acknowledge the source and don’t change the text.
So you should be in the clear.
I can’t see how Labour can be content with the results of the 3 by-elections.
They won in that rural seat in Yorkshire but can expect to lose it at the general election when Tory abstainers return to the fold. They should have won Uxbridge in west London but didn’t. They are pleading that there was a local issue there that sunk them (extension to the area of a charge for using old cars and vans) but, besides being a bread and butter issue, this concerns all the outer London boroughs.
It is clear too that, in seeking to please the international speculators who lend governments money, they are alienating the more radical-minded of their voters sone of whom are deserting to the Greens. In fact, they lost by much less votes in Uxbridge than the Greens got. Starmer may be regretting his outburst about hating tree-huggers.
They weren’t trying in the West Country but what happened to their vote there is also relevant. An “independent socialist” picked up 635 votes compared to their candidate’s 1009. They lost winning the London by-election by less than 635. In other words, Left-of-Labour candidates in other constituencies in a general election could prevent them winning some marginal seats and might even result in a hung Parliament with the LibDems and the Scots Nats holding the balance of power.
Serve them right, some might be inclined to think. That’ll teach them to behave like a government in waiting whereas they might just be a minority government in waiting. On the other hand, that would provide them with the same alibi they used to try to get out of the failure of the 1924 and 1929 Labour governments that “we were in office, not in power”.
Actually, of course, all governments are just in office as no government has the power to overcome the economics laws of capitalism and make the system serve the interest of the majority.
And here is how the Socialist Standard reported the discussion on the issue at the Copenhagen congress in 1910
In the committee on Disarmament and Peace, Vaillant (France) said: “The abolition of war will naturally only be made possible by Socialism, but for that we cannot wait. It is therefore necessary to make a stand against armaments and militarism in the different Parliaments.” Keir Hardie said: “If now the German and English Governments came to an understanding about the limitation of armaments it would not be due to their
LOVE OF PEACE,
but because these two countries can no longer bear the burden of armaments. The workers are strong enough to prevent war. On the day of the declaration of war the workers must cease work. That is not a general strike. It is also necessary to make a stand against the vile action of the capitalist Press.” Bruce Glasier said : “Christianity has been unable to abolish war. There are already Socialists who are prepared to sacrifice their principles of peace. The fighting instinct can unmistakeably be found in some Social-Democrats. That is the animal instinct which one must overcome. Let us unfold the most far-reaching agitation for peace, then the United States of Europe will soon become an accomplished fact.” Radec (Poland) said : “The attitude of Vorwaerts and of the German Social-Democratic Party in Parliament concerning the Anglo German arrangement is nothing short of an alternative to the defence of naval armaments advocated by Hyndman and Co. which has generally been condemned.” Hillquit (U.S.A.) said : “No word has yet been uttered concerning the main point. The debate has until now only been a continuation of the Stuttgart discussion on anti-militarism.” Dessin (England): ”We must
ABOLISH CAPITALISM
to ensure peace. But we can already now contribute towards a diminution of the dangers of war, and that is what the resolution of the British delegation is aiming at.”
(. . . )
The resolution on Disarmament and Peace was, like all the other resolutions put before the Congress,
FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS
and inconsistencies. It started with explaining the necessity of war under capitalism, and finished with a demand for suppression of hostilities by the democracy, and giving directions to the International Bureau how to act in case of a declaration of war. Socialism would stand a poor chance indeed if it were as impossible as this resolution. Vaillant and Keir Hardie moved the following amendment: “The Congress regards the General Strike as a means for the prevention of war, more especially a refusal to assist in the production and transport of arms and amnrunition.” This was rejected by a vast majority and the amendment carried.
During this debate Keir Hardie, replying to an attack by Ledebour on the British delegation, stated that the English Labour Party is against war and militarism. Ledebour had taken the attitude of the I.L.P. to be that of Hyndman and Quelch, but his Party had nothing to do with these. If his Party had supported the Liberal Budget that was
NOT A QUESTION OE PRINCIPLE, BUT TACTICS.
Here is what we said in 1907 on militarism and anti-militarism:
Breaking News Selby and Ainsty by-election: fiscal conservative gain from fiscal Conservative. Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election: fiscal Conservative beat off fiscal conservative challenge. Somerton and Frome by-election: fiscal conservative vote collapses from 12.9% to 2.6%. Overall result: No Change.
It seems that Farage’s bank account was cancelled because of his political views. So, yes, a disturbing development, especially as imposed by “progressives” not reactionaries. Supposed do-gooders who are really do-badders.
The Labour Party is doubling down on its fiscal conservatism anti-reform position. Under the headline “Labour leadership preparing to adopt more welfare cuts” today’s Times reports:
“Labour will have to adopt more Conservative welfare cuts to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, senior party figures have said.”
This includes the notorious “bedroom tax”.
Rachel Reeves, Labour Shadow Chancellor, told the Today programme on bbc radio 4:
“I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been through the division lobbies and voted against what the government have done. Does that mean we are going to be able to reverse all those things? The sad truth is that we are not going to be able to do that, because of the dire economic inheritance that an incoming Labour government will face.”
We’ve heard this before — we can’t do what we would like to do because the previous government left the economy in a mess. But this won’t do. The state of the capitalist economy is not the result of government incompetence (though it could be if it hasn’t been respecting the logic and priorities of capitalism) but of the normal workings of capitalism which no government can control. The present economic situation has not been caused by “Tory incompetence” but by capitalism.
So what Reeves is in effect saying is that capitalism does not allow a future Labour government to restore previous social reforms. A Labour government would be (and would have been) in the same position as the Tory government of having to deal with what the vagaries of capitalism throw at them. They will be forced to be “fiscally responsible” throughout their whole period in office.
As we keep on saying, the problem is not the Tories of Labour, it’s capitalism.
This seems to be the season for international conferences. We are on the mailing list of one of those invited to this one last weekend in Milan:
JRCL Tankyu-ha; Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA; Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori; JRCL (RMF); League for the Fifth International; Noviy Prometey; Partido Obrero (PO); CoReP; Lotta Comunista; League for the Fourth International (LFI-NIdI); Rivoluzione Comunista; Controcorrente; Internationalist Standpoint; Occhio di Classe; NPA; Committee for a Workers International (CWI); AMR ControVento. Majdoor Samachar-Kamunist Kranti.
We are on the mailing of the last named (from India). It is not clear why they were invited, since the others all seem to be Trotskyists or other vanguardists whereas they are workerists who hold that revolutionaries have nothing to tell workers but should just record what factory workers tell them.
Anyway, here is their contribution on “Lenin’s imperialism thesis”:
“Lenin’s imperialism thesis:
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is moribund capitalism. In the imperialism stage, production relations become fetters on the productive forces…
Some bizarre expressions of this:
In 1938, as per a Trotsky, the productive forces had stopped growing!
And in the 1970s, as per a fringe left group, 1914 onwards the number of wage workers in the world had stopped increasing!
If nothing else, the incomparable leaps in productive forces post-1970 should have sufficed for a decent burial of Lenin’s imperialism thesis. ”I bet that went down well with the others.
We were invited to a meeting by the CWO a few years ago to discuss setting up a No War But the Class War group. Also present was the Anarchist Communist Group. Here’s the thread about this:
Only two days later Starmer has doubled down on being a fiscal conservative. Labour used to seek working class support on the basis that they would spend money on social reforms that benefited workers.
Not any more. This is what he is reported as saying yesterday:
“It was ‘a big mistake’ for the left to equate spending money with radicalism as he insisted that fiscal discipline was fundamental to winning power” (today’s Times)
I suppose it could be said that Labour has learnt that you can’t reform capitalism in the interest of the workers and so is no longer promising to do so; admitting that reformism has failed and embracing capitalism as it is.
Socialists draw a different conclusion. Yes, Reformism has failed (as we knew it would), so the only alternative is to get rid of capitalism and replace it by socialism, common instead of class ownership of productive resources and production for use not profit.
In the end we relented and decided to leaflet South Ruislip after all. Managed to pick up the LibDem leaflet and, of more interest, Piers Corbyn’s.
The LibDem leaflet was the usual vague stuff except it didn’t include a bar graph claiming to show “it’s a two horse race”. They’ll be lucky if they save their deposit.
I hadn’t realised what a conspiraloon Jeremy’s brother is. Here’s some extracts from his election communication.
“When Boris Johnson — who sought my advice in earlier times on climate matters — imposed the lockdown in 2020, he and the other parties joined a global coup d’etat using Fake Science against our rights & freedoms, orchestrated by sinister global elites behind the World Economic Forum (WEF) & World Health Organisation (WHO):- Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Oil and the Big Banks.”
“Man-Made climate doesn’t Exist. Support #ZEXIT = Zero Carbon exit!”
“End all ‘Virus’ Injection programs NOW!”
“Men are men and Women are women! STOP Transgender grooming propaganda of children and mis-identity madness in schools!”
“KEEP CASH!”Everything except for free tinfoil hats.
Didn’t find Lawrence Fox’s election address but it can’t have been as bad as Piers Corbyn’s.
The Labour Mayor of North Tyneside has resigned from the Labour Party as he was deselected from standing again apparently because he appeared on a stage with Ken Loach who had been expelled as a leftwinger.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66225028.amp
I heard him on the radio saying that in the video Starmer had done for his bid to become Labour Leader he had a clip from Loach. What a brazen hypocrite that man Starmer is.
Bijou, do you know anything more about this?
