HollyHead
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:Our Wikipedia page declares that the Party's unofficial colours are red and yellow – not sure where that notion came from.
From the colour scheme used in the current plastic facia to No. 52 possibly?I seem to recall that the same colours were at one time used on the party platform at Hyde Park.
His The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East has recently been remaindered.1,300 pages of Summer reading for ₤4.99 from The Works bookshops.
e-petition Thatcher state funeral to be privatisedResponsible department: Cabinet OfficeIn keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders…. Before it closed the petition had gathered nearly 34,000 votes… http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18914
From the SOYMB Blogspot:
Quote:As Marxists we should not support any statutory regulation on the freedom of the press in bourgeois capitalist society."Ah! But would we actively oppose? And if so how?
The similarity did not escape Freddie Engels either. His affectionate nickname for his collaborator "Moor".
Mark Twain wrote a short story in 1893 "The Million Pound Bank Note". The story takes place in Victorian London, where two very rich, eccentric brothers, Oliver and Roderick Montpelier, give an American visitor a one million pound bank note.The catch is he would also not be able to spend it since no ordinary person would be able to change it.One brother believes that the mere possession of this symbol of wealth will enable anyone to have anything he wants, without actually cashing the note. The second brother on the other hand, is sure that this prohibition against exchanging the note for cash will render it totally useless.The story was filmed in the 1950s starring Gregory Peck.
And from the Leadership Quarterly (!) article itself (My emphasis):
Quote:Heritability of leadership role occupancy has been the focus of several studies over the last decade. Many of the studies employed the classical twin design … and find that about a third of the variance in leadership role occupancy can be explained by genetic factors. At the same time, researchers have not yet been able to identify specific genes that are associated with leadershipFood is produced not primarily to be eaten but to be sold — and that is why such plans fail.:
Quote:The new food security law could more than double the government’s outlays to 2 trillion rupees a year, according to some estimates.Much of the extra money would go to buy more grain, even though the government already has a tremendous stockpile of wheat and rice — 71 million tons as of early May, up 20 percent from a year earlier.“India is paying the price of an unexpected success — our production of rice and wheat has surged and procurement has been better than ever,” said Kaushik Basu, the chief economic adviser to India’s Finance Ministry and a professor at Cornell University. “This success is showing up some of the gaps in our policy.”New York Times 7 June 2012Sacks of rice stored in the open and rotting in Ranwan, India.
Prior to the introduction of the National Insurance Bill in 1911 the government of the day issued a White paper entitled Memorandum on Statutory Sickness and Invalidity Insurance in Germany. [HMSO Cd.5678 (1911)].It reflected a general concern among the ruling class that Britain was loosing out to competition from Germany – partly because social conditions there were perceived to be better for the workers and as a result they were more productive and “efficient”. It quoted an unnamed President of one of the largest German Associations of Employers:“The Insurance Laws have influenced the condition of life of the working classes in that they are free from anxiety by reason of sickness, infirmity, and accident….in many cases the workman's feeling of confidence increases his productive power and his efficiency.”Other points in favour of the proposed schemes included the following:German employers willing to bear the cost and would not wish to be without the scheme. Engineering Trades representative quoted: “…there can be no doubt that the standard of life and the efficiency of German workmen have greatly improved in recent decades.”In Electrical Engineering: “It must be admitted that a healthy working class is far more useful to industry than one that is physically enfeebled.”In the Steel Goods industry additional costs were “borne most willingly.”Chemical Industry claimed: “From the standpoint of the employers, these laws are remunerative to the extent that the efficiency fof the workers is increased, and that without the insurance laws…correspondingly higher wages would have to be paid.”Dr Kaufman (President of the German Imperial Department) speaking in 1910 – 25 years after the introduction of the first Accident Insurance Laws: “Unquestionably a contributory cause of our growing industrial pre-eminence may be seen in the successful treatment of social questions, and particularly that of industrial insurance.”Dr. F. Zahn (Director Bavarian State Statistical Office) at an international conference in The Hague, October 1910:National Insurance schemes were designed to “… awaken slumbering powers in the body politic…and by the nurture and increase of our productive efficiency to further the national economy and the welfare of the state….n the keen rivalries of nations victory will lie with …those which have at command the greatest reserves of strength and health, industrial insurance must take a leading place in this policy of social welfare.” A Conservative Case for the Welfare StateBy BRUCE BARTLETTNew York Times December 25, 2012,[Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations] At the root of much of the dispute between Democrats and Republicans over the so-called fiscal cliff is a deep disagreement over the welfare state. Republicans continue to fight a long-running war against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other social-welfare programs that most Americans support overwhelmingly and oppose cutting.Republicans in Congress opposed the New Deal and the Great Society, but Republican presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower through George H.W. Bush accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state and sought to manage it properly and fund it adequately. When Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994 they nevertheless sought to repeal the New Deal and Great Society programs they had always opposed…. Republicans tried to abolish Social Security as well, through partial privatization during the George W. Bush administration….This is foolish and reactionary. Moreover, there are sound reasons why a conservative would support a welfare state. Historically, it has been conservatives like the 19th century chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, who established the welfare state in Europe. They did so because masses of poor people create social instability and become breeding grounds for radical movements.In postwar Europe, conservative parties were the principal supporters of welfare-state policies in order to counter efforts by socialists and communists to abolish capitalism altogether. The welfare state was devised to shave off the rough edges of capitalism and make it sustainable. Indeed, the conservative icon Winston Churchill was among the founders of the British welfare state.[Emphasis added]
Here are some suggested amendments to the “Proposed SPGB statement on SWP 2013” : Sorry comrades but I have had to remove this posting because it contained "strike through" text and footnotes which cannot be reproduced using the forum software. I will send my suggested amendments by off forum email to anyone interested.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…. Pople will stay quiescent to keep jobs, but when they have that taken away, they have nothing to lose but their chains.Or, in the case of the "loss" of HMV, "nothing to lose but their chain stores"?
Jonathan Chambers wrote:I'm in! Got to be a better use of time than squabbling over moderation!Hear! hear!Pencil me in. Just a thought – should this discussion be hived off this thread — say from post #15.And be given a new (catchier) title?
Young Master Smeet wrote:…. language is social, and meaning does not reside internally to the anunciator but in the relations between speaker and hearer: peopel react to our words, and we in turn react to their (or are affected by their choices based on our statements).Language, thus, takes the form of a struggle for meaning and inetrpretation, to define our words and to struggle for understanding of others'.Does this mean that our (the Party) objections to what we see as the misuses of the word "socialism" are a waste of time? After all for the vast majority "socialism" is what we call "state capitalism".
Tom Rogers wrote:FULL TEXTThis is an unattributed statement consisting of various assertions. It is not a scientific. Who wrote this statement (i.e, who are the individual authors)? What is the connection between 'Ed Hagen' and the statement and what are Ed Hagen's political affiliations, if any? What peer-reviewed sources are cited in support of the assertions in the statement? What are the authors' own academic reputations within anthropology? Did the statement have the sanction of the executive organ of the AAPA? Is there any evidence that the statement broadly reflects the views and opinions of the membership of the AAPA? If no such evidence was collated, or if the evidence is not peer-reviewable, and if the membership has not raitified the statement, then what is the legal and scientific status of the statement itself? Why has the statement been 'modified' and what were the modifications and what is the editorial history of the article?Well?…Would you care to comment? Would you also like me to dissect the above statement while I'm at it? I will, literally, take it to pieces. I will be very glad to, it's just that I do have other things to do, but you do seem to think – bless you – that if a statement has a scientist as author and broadly supports your own prejudices, then it should be taken as gospel.TomPerhaps your response to my posting of the AAPA statement might have been more useful had you in fact "taken it to pieces" rather than indulge in an obvious bit of smoke screening.In an efort to keep down the temperature of this debate I shall ignore the ad hominem nature of some of your comments.How can you say that it is "unattributed"? It is clearly an "official" statement by the AAPA which claims to be the world's leading professional organization for physical anthropologists. Formed by 83 charter members in 1930, the AAPA now has an international membership of over 1,700.Their Journal (American Journal of Physical Anthropology) is published by John Wiley (an academic publishing house) and is peer reviewed:The AAPA statement is a contribution to an ongoing debate. It appeared originally in their official journal. Ed Hagan is the journal editor.Hagan is Associate Professor at Washinton State University, Vancouver, and has published many (refereed) articles and contributions to collections of academic essays. Not being a qualified anthropologist I can only make a guess at his reputation. His position suggests to me that his views are at least worthy of consideration.His Home Page is here: http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/faculty/hagen/ Are you suggesting that because the statement was posted on the internet it has no significance?I think as the editor his political views are irrelevant. Have you any evidence that they do in fact colour the findings in this case?The original statement (The Race Question) was drafted by UNESCO in 1950 by the following experts:Professor Ernest Beaglehole (New Zealand); Professor Juan Comas (Mexico); Professor L. A. Costa Pinto (Brazil); Professor Franklin Frazier (United States of America); Professor Morris Ginsberg (United Kingdom); Dr Humayun Kabir (India); Professor Claude Levi-Strauss (France); Professor Ashley Montagu (United States of America) .It was subsequently revised by Professor Ashley Montagu, after criticism submitted by Professors Hadley Cantril, E. G. Conklin, Gunnar Dahlberg, Theodosius Dobzhansky, L. C. Dunn, Donald Hager, Julian S. Huxley, Otto Klineberg, Wilbert Moore, H. J. Muller, Gunnar Myrdal, Joseph Needham, and Curt Stern.The revisions were made in order to emphasise the tentative, provisional, nature of the statement.
Tom Rogers wrote:HollyHead wrote:Are we not all of "African origin"?Are we? And if we are, does it follow that race does not exist and is a mere social construct?
TomYes, and yes.Here is a statement of current scientific thinking on the subject of race from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. (The passages in bold type have been emphasised by me):Statement on Biological Aspects of Race Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1996 vol. 101, pp 569-570:As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general public our current understanding of the structure of human variation from a biological perspective.Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with non-biological attributes, based on social constructions of race.These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. …1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth's geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time.Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations….3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. … Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors…. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.7. …Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. …8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes. FULL TEXT
