Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Send him an invite to a debate or an interview. We have nothing to lose either way. But a lot to gain if we make the invite public and he either accepts or declines.
ALB wrote:Just looked at this. I think you're exaggerating a bit, Brian, but he says one thing that's very true:Quote:The biggest obstacle to Revolution is your belief that it's impossible.http://russellbrand.com/revolution/youtube/Anyway, we shouldn't put down someone who's playing a role in re-introducing the word "revolution" into political discussion, especially as he's taking it away from the view that it's an armed insurrection led by an elite vanguard.I've signed up to his mailing list to see what sort of other stuff he'll be putting out. Maybe just publicity for his coming book (which should also be interesting).
The word "revolution" never needed "re-introducing". What this guy is trying to do is to make out its all about evolution and confusing the issue. Granted he seems to be using terms which support our case but all gradualists do that for they have no alternative when they are confused themselves.And also he's introduced a talking point but in the long run it'll be down to us to unravel the distortion.Time to send him an invite to a debate whilst he's on a roller. I'm sure he'll jump at the chance for publicity.
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian wrote:He's cherry picking and going down the reformist route.Hi Brian, could you expand on that?
"Our initial targets are corporate tax evaders, environmental desecraters and perpetrators of the drug war against the sick and poor."
ALB wrote:From today's Times:Quote:Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at City University's Cass Business School, said that Mr Sutherland's resignation was the result of a stand-off between "democracy and managerialism". He said: "Mr Sutherland wanted to introduce typical managerial reforms such as restructuring, selling off parts of the firm's businesses and streamlining governance procedures. Traditionalists in the group want to preserve the values of democratic decision-making and the slow and unwieldy processes this entails. It is difficult to see how you can reconcile these two very different visions."In other words, can a capitalist enterprise succeed in making profits while being run democratically? I wonder what lessons Peter Tatchell will draw from this as one of the "baby step" reforms he advocated in his recent debate against us was to introduce democracy into the boadroom.
It depends on whether the enterprise is in the social not for profit sector, or in the commercial for profit sector. For instance a housing association is mainly concerned with ensuring all its costs are covered by the returns on rent – which is another term for profit – and is not directly driven by commercial considerations of the market – other than the usual risks of welfare reform or higher interest rates. You'll find that all registered housing associations have tenants represented on their boards with periodical elections to these positions and they are accountable to the tenants.However, that said all social and afforable housing is a liability and not an asset. So eventually when depreciation catches up housing associations will be confronted with making decisions which are driven by the commercial considerations of the market that will put them in conflict with their structure of governance.This is exactly what has occurred with the Cooperative Society when they invested in enterprises which were clearly liabilities and also depreciating in value. They came unstuck when they failed to turn this investment around and are now faced with their democratic aspirations going down the plughole.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I imagien such a reform would be very cheap. For those in work, it turns into a tax rebate, up to the value of the citizen's income. Anyone paid enough to pay more tax than the income would then subsidise the unemployed. The state then abolishes all otehr welfare benefits, since the citizens income gets declared to be enough to live on (and it would be cheaper to administer without having to manage the entitlement gateway). It then becomes a constant struggle to hold the basic income at just below subsistence, so people are forced into low wage work (which will now come relatively cheap for employers). Of course, there will be, as with the minimum wage, an increase just before elections.It appears you are missing the point. 1. It wont be cheap with the capitalists having to dib into their profits to pay a subsistence at a level which the unemployed can live on. 2. Its a bribe, albeit of a temporary nature, which will only come into effect when the workers are contemplating abolishing the wages system.
This is one reform which will only see light of day when the capitalists have to take desperate measures to distract the workers from abolishing the wages system.
We get a mention in SPEW's review of his book: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17458
DJP wrote:It was quite long so I'm guessing it will be in next months…I'm not on about the book review but the promised interview with Kliman.
ALB wrote:I'm not sure Kliman or the MHI would describe themselves as "disequilibium theorists" (except insofar as every crisis is a reflection of a disequilibium; we ourselves have preferred "disproportionality"). They are more into the falling rate of profit. But all will be revealed when our long-discussed interview with Kliman appears in the March Socialist Standard, though there will be a taster in the February issue out on Friday on this debate in New York.What happened to the interview Kliman?
Nice one Rob. I'll have the event itemised for our next meeting on the 11th of March. Unfortunately, unable to attend myself I've pre-booked for coordinating some training classes with the PTA.Will order the book shortly.
SocialistPunk wrote:I agree Brian.There are so many groups out there, on what would be considered the "left" of politics (some very close to our position) that total agreement on how to achieve a workers global socialist revolution, is impossible. The basic similarities are the key. Lets face it, the WSM is made up of socialists that disagree on many levels and points of view. Some compromise is inevitable to achieve a society of common ownership and true democratic control. In the end it boils down to the nitty gritty of what compromises people are willing to make.Yep that's about it in a nutshell. However, lets not run away with the idea that such compromise involves an end to the battle of ideas, it wont for there will be no stopping that from continuing. What such compromise will bring to an end is the disunity of purpose in the technical and scientific field of socialist research.I imagine that if such compromise does come about this wont stop the feedback to the individual political organisations so they are encouraged to run with the information. Presently the different groups, who admittedly are small in number, are pursuing research which is possibly overlapping in regards to computer technology.
I think 10 would be plenty. Please send them to Geoff Williams the Swansea contact with the invoice.Thanks
