MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Socialist Steve of Red Day/Galaxia

Steve Wallis


Last Updated: 11/25/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 43
Sign: Taurus

Country: UK
Signup Date: 11/28/2006

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 

Current mood:  artistic
Category: News and Politics
I include below my latest contribution to a debate in the Weekly Worker (www.cpgb.org.uk) on electoral systems:
 
 
Jacob Richter (Letters, December 3) pointed out that I was "confusing soviets with factory committees and other workplace committees" in my arguments in favour of the single transferable vote (STV) form of proportional representation (Letters, November 26).
 
However, according to Leon Trotsky in The History of the Russian Revolution (volume I, chapter XXII) the first congress of the soviets was made up of "820 delegates with a vote and 268 with a voice", representing "305 local soviets, 53 district and regional organisations at the front, the rear institutions of the army, and a few peasant organisations". He also pointed out that the rule on who could vote or speak - soviets representing at least 25,000 men (in those sexist times) or 10,000 men respectively were "none too strictly observed". Trotsky was perhaps being deliberately vague in pointing out the composition of the congress, recognising that the structures weren't as democratic as they should have been with himself supporting "all power to the soviets" after Lenin had proposed this slogan.
 
It seems that the majority of voters at that first congress, and perhaps later congresses, did not represent local soviets as Jacob argued. I think my arguments about representatives of workplaces, not being particularly proportional, applied at the level of individual soviets rather than the overall soviet congresses. The soviets arose as ad hoc structures during periods of struggle and the rules were presumably different in different localities.
 
I am not convinced that Jacob's suggestion of "a revolutionary industry union that from the outset caters to employed workers, unemployed workers, disabled workers, retired workers, and so on" establishing workers' councils alleviates my concerns. What sort of democratic structures would it have? And why should middle class people be disenfranchised?
 
In my view, it is particularly important that the system to elect the government of a socialist country is roughly proportional. If this is not the case, there would be massive opposition from ordinary working and middle class people who are disenfranchised or sympathise with those who are - and if Marxists are to the fore in creating the new government, it is likely that the structures would be skewed in favour of workers.
 
I note Moshé Machover's point (Letters, December 3) that STV is not entirely proportional, but, as I pointed out in my previous letter, neither is the regional list system used for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. I have since been alerted by a member of the Democratic Labour Party of its proposal for a national 'top-up' system with (say) 250 constituencies and 250 top-up seats allocated to make it proportional, with a requirement for a party standing in a constituency having a full top-up list (rather than needing to raise a financial deposit as at present). There would be no lower limit on proportion of the vote required to get a candidate elected from the top-up list. This would be more proportional than STV but would give massive power to party machines - and although some parties could have very democratic structures, it'll be a fact of life that others won't.
 
Moshé made a very interesting suggestion of lottery-based elections in his essay 'Collective decisionmaking and supervision in a communist society', for which he provided a link in his letter. However, he admitted in the essay that it would only really be suitable under communism rather than in the early turbulent days of socialism after a revolution. In my opinion, the problem with this suggestion in such turbulent periods is that we need excellent representatives in parliament who are able to out-think our opponents and it would not be desirable for such potential MPs to be kept out by pure chance.
 
I now call myself "a socialist champion of free will" and I am more concerned that a free and open debate on how socialism would work takes place than that a particular electoral system is adopted.
7:16 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, December 01, 2009 

Current mood:  determined
Category: News and Politics
The following is a letter I submitted earlier today to the Weekly Worker newspaper (www.cpgb.org.uk):
 
 
I agree with James Turley ('Political response needed', November 26) that, at the next general election, "a hung parliament or a narrow Labour victory are - barring yet another cosmic blunder from the Brown camp - as likely outcomes at this point as an outright Tory victory." As the general election approaches, the parties are being forced to come clean on their politics, and the dividing lines between the Labour Party favouring poor and moderately well-off people and the Tories favouring the rich are bound to increase the chances of Labour being re-elected.
 
Additionally, there has been a shift to the left in recent times, with hatred of bankers, the capitalist economic system generally, and politicians lining their own pockets. As well as helping Labour's chances, this provides a big opportunity for the far left - and the left urgently needs to form an anti-capitalist party, preferably as a broad party of revolutionaries opposed to capitalism with a minimal programme.
 
I partly disagree with Peter Manson ('Rival CNWP launched', November 19) that Workers Power's call for a new anti-capitalist party is aimed at forming "a halfway-house working class party". If anything, the problem is the opposite: that they want to argue within the new party for it to adopt WP's particular brand of Trotskyist politics, as can be seen by postings on the Facebook group "Call for a New Anticapitalist Party in Britain" (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=155333145487). Peter is correct in identifying the fact that Workers Power does not specifically argue for the new party to be revolutionary (a big problem in these times where capitalism is failing where the reformist idea of gradual changes to capitalism bringing about socialism clearly ridiculous), and I disagree with Richard Brenner's point at the rally during Workers Power's weekend school that the new party should be specifically working class - what about middle class revolutionary anti-capitalists or those revolutionaries like myself who want a society controlled by everyone (with proportional representation) rather than just the working class in power? [This working class aspect is, I guess, inevitable coming from an organisation whose name specifies they want "workers' power".]
 
My main criticism of Workers Power's approach is that they do not seem serious about launching such a party - indeed Richard Brenner at the rally ridiculously suggested collecting signatures for such a party (like the Socialist Party's Campaign for a New Workers' Party) rather than going ahead at organising a democratic conference in this vital time. If Workers Power does not reverse this ridiculous position, then I will argue at the next Democratic Socialist Alliance meeting for us to call such a conference instead.
 
James said that "the word on every politician’s lips is ‘cuts’ - cuts in public expenditure in order to bring public debt ‘under control’." This presents the left with a great opportunity to call for the alternative - nationalising all the banks with compensation only to pension schemes (as opposed to those with "proven need", which would presumably entail a huge number of court cases, as called for by the Socialist Party and Socialist Appeal - the two remnants of the Militant Tendency which had an identical call when I joined in 1990) and democratically controlled from below, mainly by borrowers and savers. Thus whatever is left of the huge amount of bailout money could be used for the benefit of all, avoiding cuts.
 
James' point about cuts is only partially correct, however. The desperate Tories have to offer something to their core voters, and the Daily Mirror revealed ('David Cameron plots marriage tax break to line pockets of the most wealthy', November 27, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/27/david-cameron-plots-marriage-tax-break-to-line-pockets-of-the-most-wealthy-115875-21853996/), they are now arguing for the tax system to benefit marriage, saying "the £4.9billion scheme would leave poorly paid households just £30 a year better off while the richest would benefit by £380."
 
The most remarkable turnaround, however, is Labour's new proposed manifesto commitment for a longstanding Marxist demand - democratic workers' (i.e. that of staff including middle class people like doctors) and users' control of public services, including schools and hospitals (but not banks), if they vote for it an a referendum. The front page Guardian article revealing this ("Labour's plan for 'John Lewis' public services", November 12) says "the government wants to resuscitate some of the ways services were run before 1945 when local communities were far more involved." Why did this change then? Obviously because the National Health Service was about to be launched, and democratic control of that body would threaten the existence of capitalism!
 
An inside page article in the same issue of the Guardian ('It's 'John Lewis' v 'easyCouncil' – battle for social policy starts here', November 12, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/11/gordon-brown-david-cameron-institute-governance-speech) argued that the main dividing line at the next election could be between this Labour plan and the Tories 'easyCouncil' idea, running councils like easyJet with no-frills minimal provision, presumably with residents paying extra for additional services. If this does become the main argument in the general election, then it's hard to see how Labour could possibly lose it!
 
A word of warning, however - even in the staunchly pro-Labour Guardian, the term 'John Lewis' seemed designed to put ordinary people off since it is such an expensive shop (famous for the "John Lewis list" whereby MPs can pay as much for items like TVs as those sold in John Lewis and claim it all back on expenses). There has been little coverage of this revolution in Labour policy in the media generally, and it will probably be up to Labour Party members to ensure that this dividing line appears on election leaflets, with the mass media hardly mentioning it at all during the general election campaign.
 
3:25 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, November 26, 2009 

Current mood:  awake
Category: News and Politics
I sent the following letter to the Weekly Worker (www.cpgb.org.uk) yesterday, hopefully in time for this week's issue (published on-line some time today):
 

Moshé Machover (November 12) exposed some quirks of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) form of proportional representation (PR), showing that it is theoretically possible for changing a vote for a second preference to a first preference to make that candidate less likely to be elected.

He has reminded me of discussions on electoral systems taking place on the newsgroup uk.politics.electoral (now accessible via Google Groups) that I observed many years ago. This flaw of STV had escaped my mind.

However, no electoral system is perfect. In the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2007, with half constituencies and half top-up lists for the regions to make results more proportional, Labour concentrated on constituencies where they stood a chance of election with the SNP making gains across the whole country. Despite gaining a 5.4% higher share of the vote than Labour (as I found out by entering the data in a spreadsheet), the SNP only beat Labour by one seat! [Incidentally, the Wikipedia page on that election had false figures last time I looked.]

Under the Scottish system (and similarly in Wales), you can only vote for one candidate for the proportional top-up list. Last time, this meant voters had to choose between the Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity, the Socialist Labour Party (and of course the Greens). The disadvantage of such a split vote was exacerbated by many voters staying at home unconvinced a vote for any left candidate would make the slightest difference.

Similar splits occurred with the Euro elections, making it difficult to decide where to put a single X on the ballot paper – the British National Party would have been defeated in the North West if enough voters had tactically voted Green to keep them out.

Someone once emailed me to suggest votes should be conducted with the entire country one constituency and no threshold – a party with 0.5% of the vote would get 0.5% of the seats. This, however, would put huge power in party machines, as with all other list systems mentioned above, but to a much greater extent.

The big advantage of STV is that it eliminates the need and motivation for tactical voting. As Moshé argued, tactical voting could theoretically affect results, but there is no way to predict its impact. As is self-evident, tactical voting is an inherent feature of the present "first past the post" electoral system.

So let’s turn to the alternative that I suspect Moshé advocates, as a Marxist. The government could have representatives of workplaces/industries, plus perhaps local communities. Let’s imagine there are industries with 1000, 10,000 and 100,000 workers respectively. Would the latter have 100 times as many MPs as the former? What then about industries with 100 or 1,000,000 workers?!!!

On top of this, the soviet model of government Marxists traditionally argue for would discriminate against unemployed people, disabled/temporarily ill people, students, pensioners and farmers/peasants. Or does someone have a realistic schema to overcome this dilemma – far more democratic than implemented in Soviet Russia in 1917.

10:57 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, November 06, 2009 

Current mood:  breezy
Category: News and Politics
I posted this elsewhere on Mon 26 October:


I've been aware for many years that, since I (as a key revolutionary socialist) am a threat to the powers that be, that they are spying on me and interacting in various ways to try to prevent a socialist revolution from taking place. Of course I've not been sure whether the spies are in the police force, MI5 or conspiratorial infiltrating organisations outside the realm of the state (and perhaps on an international basis - socialists organise internationally and it is only sensible for our enemies to do likewise, especially in these days of the internet).

[Recently I've discovered from website statistics, with many more accesses from the USA than the UK, even after distributing documents in this country, that the main surveillance is actually from the USA - perhaps the CIA. It seems that computers are being used to read most of my material, perhaps because if human capitalists did so, it would be likely that they would be converted into socialists! I've also noticed a lot of accesses of my songs/musical poems from China, suggesting that the Chinese regime is attempting to compete with the CIA in its modelling of society (internet censorship prevents them from accessing my web pages, almost entirely, but for some reason they have much less restricted access to my songs than elsewhere in the world); stats from the Indian mirror of my personal website suggest that most of these accesses are from computers rather than human beings (partly because files in obscure formats get as many hits as those in MP3 or
WMA formats).]

Anyway, today's Guardian contains a number of articles (in the first of a three part series presumably continuing tomorrow and Wednesday) reporting on police surveillance of "domestic extremists" - "far left groups including anti-war campaigns", "environmental protesters such as Climate Camp and Plane Stupid", "animal rights protesters" and "far right groups such as the English Defence League" (a picture below the latter caption shows an EDL skinhead making a fascist salute despite EDL claims they are not Nazis). I've included links to all the articles in today's Guardian below. The second contains photographs of 24 activists on "spotter cards" dropped on an arms fair protest in 2005, including of the comedian Mark Thomas to whom they were sent - perhaps it says something about the balance of forces in society then and now that they have finally appeared on the Guardian front page four years later! I'm not on either card but recognise some people who
are. ID cards haven't been introduced yet but there is a "giant national database of activists labelled 'domestic extremists'" (run by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit).

The articles explain that not having a criminal record (or even being charged) are not reasons for exclusion from this database which reportedly lists thousands of us. I don't have a criminal record but have been arrested on two protests (charged at one) - the first an anti-fascist demo in Oldham where the police used divide-and-rule, using a cordon to sepaeate mainly white protesters on my side of the road from mainly Asian youths who'd been defending their areas under threat from the BNP and NF on the other (I was the first person to attempt to break through the cordon); the second handing out leaflets calling for a boycott of Israeli goods outside Marks & Spencer in Manchester.

The Guardian predictably objects to this massive level of surveillance, but let's be honest - the powers that be would be exrtremely stupid to simply stand by and let us change society without a big struggle! Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems have been developed for speed cameras to catch speeding motorists, so it would be utterly stupid not to use the same cameras for spying on left-wing activists! When we've spotted police with video cameras on demonstrations, we wouldn't expect them to chuck the footage away if no criminal activity took place!

The most disturbing aspect of all this to me, a point not mentioned by the Guardian, is calling us left-wing activists "extremists". Much legislation has been passed supposedly targeting terrorists and potential terrorists - so-called "Islamic extremists". Of course it would have been discriminatory to mention Islam in the legislation, and I have long realised that (if they could get away with it) the state would sooner or later use it against people like myself, even if we don't take up arms to try to take power. This is not just hypothetical - such legislation has already been used against "animal rights extremists". But, unlike an ex-comrade of mine, the late Terry Fields MP who said "a militant is a moderate who has got off his knees", I'm not frightened to admit that us revolutionary socialists are extremists!


Police in £9m scheme to log 'domestic extremists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-domestic-extremists-database

Spotter cards: What they look like and how they work
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/spotter-cards⁠

How police rebranded lawful protest as 'domestic extremism'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-extremism⁠

Campaigner uncovers police files for £10 and a letter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-files-data-protection-act⁠

Activists repeatedly stopped and searched as police officers 'mark' cars
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/surveillance-police-number-plate-recognition

Doth I protest too much? (by Mark Thomas)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/25/doth-i-protest-too-much

There's also a surveillance page on the Guardian website at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/surveillance
4:34 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 

Current mood:  blissful
Category: News and Politics
The following is my latest submission in a debate in the Weekly Worker newspaper (www.cpgb.org.uk), which will hopefully appear in Thursday's issue:
 
 
John Masters (Letters, October 1) admitted he was wrong to exclude former Militant MPs Dave Nellist and the late Terry Fields from his analysis of the 1992 general election, and that including them would have led to an average of 1,370 for left-wing candidates, exceeding the 1,000 mark he said had not been reached since 1966.

However, his analysis is still flawed because, according to Wikipedia, the 20 non-Militant far left candidates in that election were of tiny sects - the Workers Party, Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist Party of Great Britain (PCC). It is frankly ridiculous to equate such electoral forays with that of Militant (which obtained over 5,900 for all three candidates) or the far more important left unity projects which stood in later elections, specifically the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and Respect. These projects largely arose due to the successes of Militant (including Scottish Militant Labour's Tommy Sheridan who he did count) in that election.

Militant did so well in the 1992 general election due to its role in leading the mass non-payment campaign which had by then defeated the poll tax. I joined Militant during that campaign, in 1990, when it was proving itself serious rather than just urging people not to pay. I left the Socialist Party of England and Wales (which it had become) in 1998, due to its shift towards sectarianism and to expose infiltration, which I believed was behind its failure to support the establishment of the SSP. I'd argue that the presence of significant forces within these broad formations and Marxist organisations within them not committed to achieving socialism are a major reason for their problems since.

Masters' pessimism about opportunities in the upcoming general election is not justified either. Mainstream politicians are more unpopular than ever due to the expenses scandal (which is in the headlines again), the credit crunch has exposed the flaws in the capitalist economic system (which would make socialism popular if argued for skillfully) and the main parties promise a future of massive cuts hitting the living standards of ordinary working and middle class people.

Whatever programmes socialists put forward at the next general election, we must say where the money will come from to be seen as credible. And I say, use the money left from the massive bank bailouts - by nationalising all banks, only compensating pension schemes! And more power should be in the hands of borrowers and savers than workers (but the trade unions and government should have representatives on the boards).

But be warned - David Cameron, in his speech at the Tory conference, has prepared the ground for a big attack on welfare, particularly single parents, by highlighting the case of a single mother with two children earning £150 a week who would only receive an extra 4p with a £1 pay rise. Also, elements within the BBC are encouraging fascism by allowing BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP on Question Time and providing biased coverage of the English Defence League (EDL). National BBC TV and radio news said 2,000 EDL supporters protested in Manchester on Saturday without mentioning the protesters opposing them (a local BBC text report said there were 700 EDL supporters and 1,400 on the Unite Against Fascism counter-protest) and Jeremy Paxman cut off an interviewee on the October 12 Newsnight when he started talking about anti-fascists.
 
5:45 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 

Current mood:  confident
Category: News and Politics

[While the message below is about UK politics, there are surely similar lessons to be drawn in other countries, with capitalist governments forced to make big cuts to make up for more generous public spending in the past...]

 

New Labour is now promising public spending cuts, like the Tories and Liberal Democrats. And with £175 billion of predicted borrowing this year, excluding bank bailouts, getting anywhere near balancing the books would require savage cuts and big tax rises, despite Labour and Tory claims that they wouldn't damage frontline services. The leaking of a document dated the day before this year's Budget showing Labour plans for 10% cuts means there's virtually no difference between them and the Tories. I'm a strong supporter of proportional representation, but the left will have a great opportunity at the 2010 general election if we adopt a bold socialist programme (and unite in some sort of federation to avoid standing against each other) with the mainstream parties taking votes off each other.

 

There has been a £1.3 trillion bailout of the banks in the UK alone, with $15 trillion in Europe and North America (according to Newsnight). Moody's credit ratings agency predicts further losses by British banks of at least £130 billion on top of the £110 billion written off in the credit crunch so far, so further bailouts may be necessary to maintain the capitalist system. And this will probably turn into a double dip recession or depression, even if Labour cling onto power and make cuts more slowly than the Tories would.

 

So what demands should socialists put forward? Nationalise all the banks, just compensating pension schemes, and run them democratically from below with most control in the hands of borrowers and savers! That way the bailout money already spent can be used for the benefit of all rather than for bankers' profits and bonuses!

 

With the hatred of mainstream politicians and bankers, such a transitional demand could be a great vote winner. Whereas I particularly advocate a democratic revolutionary socialist party putting forward the idea of socialism with proportional representation as well as partcipatory democracy and online referenda (if nobody advocates a revolution we'll never have one) I want more moderate left parties to do well too and the above is also advice for them.

 

1:13 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, September 03, 2009 

Current mood:  optimistic
Category: News and Politics
Yesterday I finished writing the third version of my New Good Intentions Manifesto, providing my socialist philosophy based on people having predominantly good or bad intentions. This version includes a justification of Marxist class-based analyses as partially correct, explained in terms of such intentions. Thus, it should encourage Marxists to unite with me to a greater extent than has previously been the case when I was (often consciously) undermining Marxism. The manifesto also includes a new section on implications for the environment, which is a particularly important issue in the run-up to the global summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December.
 
 
The New Good Intentions Manifesto
 
Version 3, 2nd September 2009
This document can be downloaded for printing/distribution from either of the above websites.
 
 
Purpose of the New Good Intentions Manifesto
 
This manifesto contains an overview of my analysis of society, particularly highlighting the roles played by those who have predominantly good intentions (and are caring towards others) and those who have predominantly bad intentions (and are selfish). People with good intentions tend to want a more harmonious world with the problems of capitalist society (such as war, poverty, discrimination and environmental destruction) solved; while those with bad intentions tend to prefer conflict and the continuation of such problems. The more foresighted of those with bad intentions, including at least some of Barack Obama's advisors (and perhaps Obama himself who I am unsure about as I explain towards the end of this document) want to avoid problems like global warming becoming so severe that they threaten the end of humanity, because it is selfish to want yourself and your descendents to live! Implications of this manifesto for the environment are so important that I have added a section on that topic.
 
This manifesto presents an alternative worldview to Marxism with the aim of influencing political activists and politicians, and others yet to become politically active or influencing society outside politics. I regard genuine Marxists as allies in the struggle for socialism (most of the time anyway) even though their analysis is flawed as I will demonstrate. Apologies if I over-generalise; the analyses of Marxists vary and some now support proportional representation (PR), including the Socialist Party of England and Wales and the Socialist Workers Party's Alex Callinicos.  Let me start by explaining what sort of world I am fighting for.
 
I have argued for some time for a form of socialism with a government elected by PR, and set up the Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism (www.PRsocialism.org). I would support some degree of workers' control, plus representatives of local communities, in addition to PR - this is sometimes called "participatory democracy" - preferable to nationalised industries completely controlled by government appointees, or indeed bosses dating back from when they were private entities as with the newly nationalised banks in the UK (which should be mainly controlled by borrowers and savers). I would also welcome discussions and referenda taking part on-line, to encourage greater participation of ordinary people in the decision-making process (although I would be wary of such developments under capitalism with the possibility of fraud as happened in the US presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry). To guard against politicians selling out (failing to honour manifesto commitments or defecting to other parties), I would also advocate annual elections and the ability for some proportion of the electorate to force a new general election via a petition.
 
More important to me than the issue of whether we have socialism or capitalism, or indeed anarchy or communism, is the ability to choose between different forms of society via elections. Undemocratic forces such as fascists should also be allowed to stand and put out their propaganda, although I would strongly oppose them coming to power and support the right of postal workers to refuse to distribute their leaflets. I would strongly advocate PR irrespective of the form of society.
 
There is an ongoing debate on the left about what form of political party or network the left should form in order to achieve our goals. I advocate democratic revolutionary socialist parties (particularly in Britain) calling for both PR and participatory democracy - more wishy-washy (broader) parties were arguably better before the current economic crisis, under which massive cuts in public spending and/or tax rises are inevitable under the capitalist economic system, so we now need to point out the need for a sudden thorough change of society (a "revolution" whether or not we use that word but I am encouraging its explicit use in the name of such a party in Britain). I recognise however that many people are playing a good role in massively varying organisations and in society generally, and see all our endeavours as part of the solution rather than one particular organisation as key, unlike most Marxists.
 
Many Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, argue that world socialism is vital for it to work, because capitalist countries that remain in the world would otherwise invade socialist countries or perhaps drop nuclear bombs on them. It is my contention that such nightmare scenarios could be avoided if most people in power have (mainly) good intentions. However, I have recently realised that when the choice between capitalism and a very democratic form of socialism is clearly on the agenda, most people with good intentions will be in favour of socialism, and similarly for bad intentions and capitalism, so my position is closer to Marxism than I previously thought.
 
Whereas I believe it is vital for some Western countries to become socialist in order to ease world poverty, and I think the United Kingdom could well be first in that regard, renamed of course to reflect the abolition of the monarchy, I would prefer a more varied interesting world to a communist utopia as envisaged by Marxists in which there is nothing left to struggle for. I am highly dubious about the possibility of eliminating all prejudices and crime (as Marx and Engels envisaged after years of socialism with the state "withering away") due to tensions over religion, love and homosexuality, plus environmental shortages. But I am prepared to be surprised, and if the world gets too boring, some could set up a different form of society elsewhere in the galaxy!
 
 
Problems and advantages of a class analysis
 
The role a particular person plays in political struggles within society is affected by many different factors, including his or her genes, upbringing, education and occupation, the other people he or she has known and interacted with and the organisations (including political parties, single issue campaigns, trade unions and conspiratorial organisations like MI5 and the CIA) he or she is a member of.
 
Marxists believe that the main determining factor about a person's role in such struggles is his or her class and that the most important struggles to win are those for the domination of one class over others. They believe that the current ruling class is big business (the bourgeoisie) and want to overthrow it so that the working class (proletariat) is in control of society via hierarchies of committees based on workplaces (sometimes called "the dictatorship of the proletariat" although they rarely use this term nowadays for obvious reasons). Some Marxists keep quiet about this part of their programme, but the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) mentions their desire for such "councils of workers' delegates" in the "What the SWP stands for" column in every issue of their newspaper Socialist Worker.
 
Part of the problem of winning people to the ideas of socialism with a class-based analysis is one of perception, with fewer people regarding themselves as working class than in the past. This is a particularly big problem in the USA, undoubtedly deliberately fostered by the big business-controlled media, resulting in politicians concentrating their rhetoric on what they will do for the middle class. Marxists are not particularly consistent in their interpretation of the middle class; they often call it "the petty bourgeoisie" which literally means owners of small businesses, but the term was also used in the Socialist Party (SP) of England and Wales, when I was a member in the 1990s, for middle management, poor peasants and large landowners (in Russia in 1917 for example), and more privileged students. The above-mentioned Socialist Worker column bizarrely claims "The working class create all the wealth under capitalism", implying that even self-employed people and owners of small businesses are working class! My own class is a bit of an enigma, with both my parents having gone to Cambridge University and obtained PhDs (doctorates), and with me having lived in quite middle class areas and attended good comprehensive schools (state schools for children of all abilities), having made a fair amount of money from royalties through writing computer games, but with my parents being poor enough for me to get a full university grant. Working as a university researcher was not the most working class job in the world, but I regarded myself as identifying with the working class when I was in the SP.
 
Marxist arguments can weaken the struggle for socialism by perpetuating the selfish "I'm alright, Jack" attitude put forward by right-wing politicians. They argue for workers uniting together, going on strike, generating solidarity for each other on the basis that such acts are in their interests - that acting collectively benefits a working class person more than acting individualistically. This is true in some cases but in many it is not, except in the long term if their efforts uniting together help bring about a socialist revolution, and socialists should help the efforts of idealistic people who really care about others. It is no wonder that many former Marxists sell out, and act in their own selfish interests rather than those of other working class people or society as a whole, when they get into positions of power and/or acquire wealth.
 
A further problem with a class analysis is that fascists as well as socialists consist of both working and middle class people, yet fascists are bigger enemies than big business (in situations where they stand a chance of coming to power at least).
 
To balance the above problems of a class analysis, it should be noted that working class people tend to be less selfish than those in other classes, particularly if they have chosen to work in a profession that encourages helping others (such as nursing or teaching). Some choose to work in the public sector in their desire to help society rather than maximise the profit of a boss, but workers banding together to carry out a strike in the private sector too tends to help their camaraderie and therefore good intentions towards fellow workers. Conversely, owning a successful business often requires being ruthless towards your competitors and staff (although a good workplace atmosphere can help motivate workers be more effective). Middle managers tend to be careerists, primarily motivated by their wage packet and achieving promotion within the company. Therefore, Marxists' class-based analysis is correct to a large extent.
 
 
The Good Intentions Hypothesis
 
I argue in this manifesto that whether somebody genuinely cares about other people and wants to help make the world a better place is a more important determining factor in what that person does than his or her class - which I call "The Good Intentions Hypothesis". Such people (with good intentions) tend to be better allies in the struggle for a better world than those (with bad intentions) who are predominantly selfish and want to make the world a worse place or deliberately hamper attempts to improve it.
 
There are, of course, a lot of grey areas between good and bad intentions. Some people only care about a subset of the world's population, such as their friends and family or people of the same race, nationality, religion, gender or sexuality - I would tend to regard such people as having bad intentions; even if they are allies for a while, the use of divide-and-rule by the powers that be would tend to make them enemies or at best unreliable allies, and people of various bigotries tend to align themselves with each other or pretend to hate each other while really being allies. Even if they really do hate each other, it suits their purposes to use other bad people as "bogeymen" (supposed opponents) in their struggle against well-intentioned people who are the real threat to the continued control of the world by bad people.
 
We have the free will to choose to be caring or selfish, and our brains can be wired to prioritise one or the other of these possibilities. Our mind can also change from being predominantly selfish to caring (having bad intentions to good ones) or vice versa, either by a variable that may take one of two values in the mind changing or by the mind reconfiguring itself. I think that such changes take place for most people as a result of significant events in their lives, although for some people they take place frequently. Minds can be configured in an infinite number of different ways and many people have a mixture of good and bad intentions. Although I think there are some entirely selfish people, who pretend to care about others (particularly friends and family) as a means to an end, I don't think that anybody is entirely well-intentioned, because it is necessary to care about yourself to a certain extent in order to play a good role. I tried to be as good as possible (but couldn't always succeed, sometimes exasperating me) until early in 2008 when I adopted the philosophy that it is good to be a bit bad, welcoming a varied interesting world and the dominance of individuals' free will together with the collective will of organisations.
 
Amongst people with both good and bad intentions, there are those who think entirely individualistically (having no concept of a future state of the world they are aiming for) and those who think entirely collectively (having a single-minded approach to achieving a certain kind of society). For the latter group of people, the effect on individuals is merely part of the means to a desired end; they may think they care about people but deep down in their minds they are driven solely by a desire to influence society in a particular way (and getting others to care about them may make that task easier). There are also people who think partly collectively and partly individually; such people may have some sort of preferred society but no clear idea of how to achieve it, but I am one such person who does have a clear idea but chooses to sometimes put individuals first (which I think is generally a female trait with women better at multi-tasking).
 
A point frequently made about people who have entered a life of crime is that they have "got in with the wrong crowd". Associating with people with bad intentions tends to make you bad as well. Conversely, associating with people with good intentions can make somebody who was previously bad into a good person. However, a big group of people with good intentions, particularly if they act together in a political way, could pose a significant threat to the powers that be, and bad conspirators deliberately infiltrate such groups to try to reduce their threat. Similarly, a strong union of two well-intentioned people who are having a relationship can be effective and bad people sometimes attach themselves to good people for such cynical reasons. Women can be particularly vulnerable to this because many regard being bad (or perhaps a bit bad) as an attractive quality in a man. If conspirators use evil people (who cannot be converted no matter what), this strategy is particularly likely to be effective at undermining well-intentioned people. The best defence against this is to recognise bad behaviour and body language which suggests that someone is not genuine and ostracise such people.
 
An important caveat is that loyalty to a party or organisation the person is a member of often overrides the wishes of that individual, particularly if he or she sees it as the main instrument to changing the world. Those who are disloyal tend to be members of a faction or infiltrators from a secret conspiratorial organisation rather than acting alone. Some organisations, including mainstream political parties, have a leader with considerable power to influence policy and appoint members to important positions. Such leaders often affect its policies and strategy, partly according to their intentions. In more democratic organisations, other members, particularly in their leadership bodies, often do likewise.
 
 
Scientific basis of free will and good or bad intentions
 
Marxist and other atheist theories don't explain free will, and I believe this is the main reason why physicists have still not devised a "theory of everything" unifying quantum mechanics (describing the very small) with general relativity (describing the very large). My short document "Towards a Theory of Everything" (which you can read at www.socialiststeve.me.uk/theory-of-everything.htm) suggests how this dilemma can be resolved by incorporating free will of humans and animals (somewhere between the very small and very large). The document also suggests how the bizarre property of quantum mechanics that measuring something can affect it makes more sense if everybody's free will collectively comprises a super-organism like in James Lovelock's Gaia theory.
 
The field of quantum mechanics was actually devised after the time of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, the latter of whom was responsible for the theory of "dialectical materialism" (where "materialism" means everything is a result of material conditions), so Marxists' confidence that their theories are sound is misplaced. Indeed, Rosa Lichtenstein, who has perhaps studied it most, has used the term "alien-class" on her anti-dialectics website (with a hyphen to be less ambiguous than other Marxists who have used the same term including Engels himself) strongly implying that there is a class of aliens who do not adhere to materialism!
 
Marxists argue that class society, and the consequent struggle between classes, originated when there was a surplus due to the cultivation of crops and domestication of animals to struggle over. They suggest that life was harmonious before this surplus arose, and therefore use the term "primitive communism" to describe the earliest human societies (for which the term "hunter-gatherer" is often used). Those who have visited or studied primitive tribes that still exist today recognise that some are peaceful and some are violent towards members of other tribes. Animals exhibit such properties too. It is my contention, therefore, that the struggle between those with good and bad intentions originated before the class struggle. [I will leave it to readers of this manifesto to come to their own conclusions whether such a struggle was devised by God, and perhaps the Devil (if there is one) who may always have existed or was created by God to make life interesting, or by evolutionary processes responsible for life.]
 
 
Recognising good and bad intentions
 
I find someone's demeanour a useful guide as to whether he or she has good or bad intentions. Somebody who comes across as pleasant is more likely to actually be good than somebody who comes across as unpleasant and unfriendly. This is self-reinforcing - if you come across as a pleasant person, you will be more likely to attract friends who are also pleasant and form genuine relationships in which both people really care about each other, which encourages you to be good. On the other hand, it is harder to genuinely care about people who come across as unpleasant and bad people tend to form false relationships where they have an ulterior selfish motive.
 
People sometimes comment that there are two types of men: "rough-and-ready" and "sensitive". Rough-and-ready men tend to look tough and actually be bad whereas sensitive men tend to look considerate and be good. Your choice of hairstyle can massively influence which of these two types you come across as - men with shaven heads or short cropped hair tend to look tougher than those with longer hair (unless they appear to be gay). A man with particularly long hair may look like a hippie and appear to be good. The impression you give off is influenced by the society in which you live - shaven heads are particularly common among black men, and in some countries (including Russia and the UK still to some extent), having one is associated with fascism. Certain kinds of moustache may make you appear like a dictator (Stalin, Hitler or Saddam Hussein) and I found when I had a big beard that I gave off a different impression to different people (I was compared with Jesus, Karl Marx and Osama bin Laden!)
 
Some women can come across as tough too, particularly those with short hair, but in Western society nowadays, women most frequently affect their appearance by dying their hair, putting on make-up or wearing particular kinds of clothes. All these factors can give off a certain impression that may make them appear genuine or false, depending on the person who sees them and the context. Wearing fancy clothes and make-up may be appropriate on a night out, but may have a negative effect at a political meeting. There is quite a big correlation between women who dye their hair and them thinking individualistically (and sometimes but not generally having bad intentions) - being more concerned about others finding them attractive than whether they come across as false. If they are false as far as their hair colour is concerned, people may suspect that they are false in other ways too. Some women have very badly dyed hair with roots that look terrible; this may be a temporary situation while letting the hair return to its natural colour, but not taking care of your appearance in this or other ways may indicate bad intentions.
 
Showing your real emotions (rather than making a conscious effort to act in a particular way which people may see through and may be difficult to keep up) is a good way of appearing genuine. In many situations, smiling can give off a good impression, and somebody who never smiles (or appears to be faking a smile when he or she attempts it) is very likely to be bad. This is because having a good conscience, about what you have done in the past and plan to do in the future, is one thing that makes you happy; other factors include confidence in what you are trying to do and optimism about the future. Perhaps the correspondence between being good and smiling is more pronounced around me than in other contexts, when things are going well in my struggle to make the world a better place, because people's confidence depends considerably on how effective my allies and myself are at outwitting our enemies. Of course people can be happy or depressed for irrational reasons, based on the balance of chemicals in their brains, and this balance can be affected by legal and illegal drugs. In some contexts such as at funerals, or when being forced to testify at court against somebody who is supposed to be an ally, smiling can be a very bad idea. Also, smiling at someone tends to give off the impression that you get on with him or her, to that person and others, so it may be better to refrain from smiling if you think he or she is bad.
 
 
Implications for the environment
 
People generally assume that the weather is the one thing on earth that cannot be controlled. The TV programme The Science of Superstorms (reporting on seeding of clouds by the regime in the USSR to affect where radioactive rain from Chernobyl fell) and reports of the Chinese authorities taking measures to prevent rain during the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics have countered this myth somewhat, but there is evidence of far more dramatic manipulation as I explain below.
 
I have a highly conspiratorial viewpoint in which various conspiratorial organisations build computer models of many aspects of the world, including people's minds, organisations and natural forces including the weather, in order to predict the future and interact in various ways (using mind control and/or infiltrators within other organisations in society). Such conspirators are competing with each other for control of the world with the free will of individual people (and animals) in the middle; some of them are temporary allies but they do use unethical methods (controlling the weather inevitably costs lives leaving aside the effects of mind control).
 
I strongly believe that the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean was planned, to try to engender moods of national unity in the two parts of the region with the greatest pro-independence movements, which suspiciously were those closest to the centre of the tsunami - Aceh in Indonesia and Sri Lanka (where the Tamil Tigers have been waging a long guerilla war). An earthquake soon afterwards, also nearest Aceh, was suspicious too.
 
However, weather forecasts have tended to be much less reliable recently, and more recent cases of extreme weather have not been noticeably in the interest of big business, suggesting that such forces no longer exert such a strong influence over it (and also that big business is losing control in the world generally with the credit crunch exposing weaknesses in the capitalist system that the left can take advantage of if we get our act together). There have been two incidents recently which strongly suggest that allies of mine are exerting some control over the weather to help my analysis. Firstly, on one occasion when I was discussing control of the weather, there was a clap of thunder (the only one I noticed that day). Secondly, on a day I was planning to finish writing this manifesto and put it on the internet, accepting the consensus viewpoint on global warming and change my home page to reflect my abandonment of scepticism about it being primarily caused by mankind, there was a hailstorm - very unusual for the first of September! Control of the weather can literally cost lives, so it seems very unethical to me and those prompting me in that way can only be temporary allies.
 
Irrespective of who is correct about global warming, this issue is blatantly being used for the purpose of divide-and-rule - making ordinary people blame each other for the possible future catastrophe, in their own countries with many using aeroplanes and some being more wasteful than others at home (not switching TVs or lights off or not using low-energy lightbulbs for example), and in underdeveloped countries where the masses want to catch up with the West. Control of the weather can clearly be used to exacerbate such tensions - there has recently been the coldest winter for 50 years in China, which must be a big boost for scepticism there letting the regime off the hook for not taking the environment seriously.
 
World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen from 6-18 December 2009 for a summit on climate change. It is highly doubtful that they will come up with a solution that is acceptable to both rich and poor countries, and that is adequate for the scale of the problem (if the sceptics are wrong). Those environmentalists who say that this is the last chance to save the world (or the human race) are wrong, on two grounds. Firstly, whereas conspirators on the side of big business relish problems such as global warming as a means to staying in control, they do not want the problems to get out of hand and lead to the end of humanity, for selfish reasons - although the odd megalomaniac may relish this possibility, such people are not influential enough. Secondly, I confidently predict that there will be a worldwide revolution leading to a mainly or entirely socialist world in the fairly near future (I suggest within 10 years at most) and we can hold a new summit, this time with world leaders who really care, and good societies involving the participation of the masses ensuring that the environment is a big priority. By then, conflicting evidence for global warming or not can be assessed fairly without the big vested interests skewing the debate. In the meantime, I strongly encourage research, development and use on large scales of renewable sources of energy, particularly concentrating solar power (an ideal use of deserts) and tidal power, to weaken the divide-and-rule agenda, lessen the amount of pollution and ease global warming problems in case the sceptics are wrong.
 
 
Strategic implications
 
In earlier versions of the Good Intentions Manifesto, I tried to build a Good Intentions Network with a list of eight principles to guide other well-intentioned people in helping me change the world. You can find those principles at www.goodintentionsnetwork.org/principles.html, and follow a link from that page to read an old version of the manifesto in which they are justified. I now think it is better for different strategies to be adopted by different people (and perhaps by the same people at different times as I have done); this makes us less predictable and therefore harder to outwit by bad individuals and organisations. Someone once commented to me that the Network could start off with good intentions but we would end up like all the others, which I now recognise to be the key reason why setting up a network to link well-intentioned people together would be a very bad idea. Additionally, setting up a network on the internet where we can't see what our collaborators look and sound like (unless webcams are used for our communications of course) makes it very difficult to detect whether people really have good intentions. I compromised by setting up a board on a different forum, but nobody expressed any interest in building a network on that board and it has now been overrun by spam.
 
There are many different strategies good people can use to try to make the world a better place, one of which is loving our enemies, as encouraged by Jesus and followed by many religious people today. At times, I have adopted that approach, recognising that the views of an individual are a result of his or her experiences, as well as their free will decisions. At other times, I have been more choosy about who I am friendly towards, which tends to polarise the situation more - it may be worth alienating some people to help others recognise who is on their side. I generally find now that it is better to give people the benefit of the doubt until they do something to warrant exposing them. Most people can be won over to become good given a bit of encouragement, even if they are initially bad, and few people have good enough models of the world to know what to do to act effectively against me even if they want to.
 
On numerous occasions, I have tried to analyse politicians as to whether they are predominantly good or bad. This has sometimes been a useful strategy for analysing the world and deciding who to support but ultimately all politicians reflect compromises within their party, arising from their membership, and particularly their leadership. A party entirely composed of (or led by) well-intentioned people could ultimately be very powerful so hostile conspiratorial organisations would be particularly keen to infiltrate it, or interact with some of its key members, in order to try to lessen their effectiveness and possibly win them over to their side of the struggle whether or not they recruit them to a conspiratorial infiltrating organisation. Similarly, parties entirely composed of poorly-intentioned people could also be strong and a bit of deliberate sabotage or spying could be very useful, but infiltrating some parties (particularly fascist ones) may obviously be very dangerous.
 
I have supported one politician who is particularly important: Barack Obama. Supporting his election to the US presidency was definitely worthwhile in my opinion - ordinary people around the world are much happier about political developments than would have been in the case if he had lost, which would probably have led to a big upsurge in racism and terrorism. Additionally, Obama is taking the issue of the environment much more seriously than McCain would have done, including pledging $61.3 billion towards energy projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, largely towards renewable forms of energy and infrastructure to support such energy (see the Wikipedia page for that Act for details and the previous section of this manifesto for my analysis of the importance of action on global warming). The arguments some atheists use that God wouldn't let so many bad things happen can be countered by arguing that Obama's victory shows things are working out for mankind after all, which they may see as part of God's plan (but is really due to the efforts of mainly well-intentioned individuals, and organisations uniting such people, although I believe God has set up the conditions in which people can make such decisions). Sometimes Obama has let himself be influenced by ordinary people, helping him be a better person than would otherwise be the case - notably passing orders to close secret CIA prisons around the world (in which torture allegedly takes place) as well as Guantánamo Bay, straight after his inauguration which drew a massive crowd. He spoke to a huge crowd in Berlin before the election and to large numbers of people in France and Germany at the NATO anniversary too. However, he has appointed advisors wholly from the banking sector of US capitalism ("finance capital" as Marxists would say although the SP argued that finance capital already was in control of the world when previous presidents had a more varied set of advisors) who are largely members of three conspiratorial groups according to "The Obama Deception" - the Bilderberg Group linking capitalist leaders around the world, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations. I'm not particularly convinced about that video's claim they are plotting to create a world government, but I encourage readers to view it on YouTube and decide for yourselves. Irrespective of whether Obama is playing a positive or negative role overall or perhaps switches between the two, and socialists in the USA are more able to judge this than myself, he is committed to the continuation of capitalism one way or another! Whether he still will be in a pre-revolutionary situation (when democratic socialism is on the agenda) remains to be seen.
 
Some final advice: Think for yourselves and come to your own conclusions about what to do to help make the world a better place. I am very confident things will work out one way or another, but we can all help shape the interesting future for the human race with our free will. As mentioned in the previous section, I hold conspiratorial views about organisations like the CIA using supercomputers with artificial intelligence (AI) software modelling the world and humans on it, which can in my view effectively turn people into robots. After all, I developed and was the main designer of an AI/simulation language called SDML in which such modelling could have been possible (but some scaling up problems and a complex bug in a backtracking routine could have prevented this language from being too powerful). I also think some organisations with better intentions than the CIA have access to such software and computer models, but I wouldn't trust any organisation using unethical methods like mind control to hand over control of society to the masses if they do win the struggle for the world. Conspirators are sometimes worth cooperating with, and I recognise that existing organisations result from millennia of struggle and have a vital role to play in influencing what happens, but let our own free will decisions, in conjunction with collective action by such organisations, determine the future of the world!
 
 
To download the manifesto in PDF format for printing out using Adobe Acrobat and distribution, go to www.socialiststeve.me.uk/good-intentions-manifesto.pdf or www.socialiststeve.in/good-intentions-manifesto.pdf. You may prefer the latter since there are no publicly viewable statistics at that site. If one download fails, it may be due to internet censorship so please try the other.

10:03 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, August 20, 2009 

Current mood:  warm
Category: Music
I have produced a creative and amusing but low-tech video of myself performing my new song "Mandy" and uploaded it to YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCbl2Ib2-ho (and I have put it on my MySpace profile) giving it the description below:


I (Steve Wallis) was inspired to write this song by UK Business Secretary (Lord) Peter Mandelson aka Mandy suggesting he would end university fees for students staying at home - who tend to come from poorer families. This tack to the left perhaps means that Mandy, one of the architects of New Labour under Tony Blair, has become a good person. I have seen him looking happy and with what appears a genuine smile contrasting massively with how he appeared in the past. I used such a picture of Mandy in this video.

Mandy himself has commented on the change in his personality, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/14/peter-mandelson-in-charge-country - "I think 10 years ago, and also 15 years ago, I was a very hard-nosed, uncompromising figure who was manning the barricades of change in the party, and prepared to take down anything or anyone who stood in the way. I don't feel in that mode now. And secondly, I've learned from experience that you can defeat people without killing them."

A word of warning: people are influenced by others they communicate with, whether ordinary members of the public, Labour Party members, politicians or journalists. He could easily become bad again, and he is (of course) loyal to his own party which necessitates compromises.

My analysis of society as a struggle between good and bad forces in soicety and people's minds is provided in http://socialiststeve.in/good-intentions-manifesto.html

Perhaps the most important point in the song is the prediction of a double dip recession, as forecast by Gordon Brown, which will provide socialists with a big opportunity to change society. My analysis of this - how it is inevitable due to big tax rises and public spending cuts after the next general election - is provided at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PRsocialism/message/170

You can read the lyrics of this song by going to http:://galaxiamusic.org/lyrics/mandy.html

For more of my songs, visit http://socialiststeve.in/poetry.htm, or the websites of my bands Red Day, at http://red-day.net, or Galaxia at http://galaxiamusic.org - also check out my MySpace page at http://myspace.com/galaxiasteve
2:31 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, August 14, 2009 

Current mood:  blustery
Category: News and Politics
UK prime minister Gordon Brown warned about a double dip recession (another dip just after slight recovery) - see Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/06/gordon-brown-g8-leaders-recession.
 
A double dip recession is inevitable due to massive spending cuts and tax rises, whoever wins next UK general election, unless there is a socialist revolution! With £175 billion of borrowing predicted this year, excluding subsidies to the banks, a massive amount of money needs to be found from somewhere to come remotely close to balancing the books! There's probably a similar situation in many other countries, particularly the USA.
 
Trying to tax/cut heavily would face massive opposition from ordinary working and middle class people. A chance to change society!
 
Seen article in Guardian on Monday: Tories planning to raise VAT to 20%. Would only bring in £5 billion and hit poor hard. They now deny even discussing this internally (probably a lie)...
 
Big profits from some banks. Robert Peston (BBC) said £1.3 trillion of subsidies to banks (in UK alone)! £3 billion Barclays profit small in comparison!
 
Those banks that did well did investing in markets not just high street activities, and profits from overseas operations. Big losses due to companies going under and people not being able to pay mortgages - despite high interest rates.
 
I got it wrong about Barclays going under it seems, but I could not predict £1.3 trillion subsidy from taxpayer!
 
Quantitative easing: another £50 billion on top of £125 billion already spent "printign money" - it seems that Bank of England/Labour worried about what will happen when this policy ends! Bonds won't sell?! Hyperinflation?! Who knows? [Nobody actually - free will is becoming dominant in the world, so economic forecasts and even things like the weather are becoming extremely inaccurate!!!]
2:44 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 

Current mood:  awake
Category: News and Politics
I include below a short review that I've included in a Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism newsletter (number 6), for distribution at Marxism 2009 (starting tomorrow, organised by the SWP). I've put a letter on reconciling PR with Marxism, as sent recently in a separate blog entry, on the back. The newsletter can be downloaded in Micro$oft Word or PDF format from http://www.PRsocialism.org.




An extended version of this review of "Socialism and left unity: a critique of the Socialist Workers Party" by Peter Taaffe (the general secretary of the Socialist Party of England and Wales), reviewed by Steve Wallis, will appear in the first edition of DSA Voice, the bulletin of the Democratic Socialist Alliance (www.sademocracy.org.uk). The extended review will take into account views expressed at the SWP's Marxism 2009 event, at which this newsletter will be distributed.

The most striking thing about this critique is the mutual loathing between the Socialist Party (SP) and the SWP. The book is filled with snippets of ammunition against the SWP on this issue and that, which are presumably designed to be used by SP members to try to win over or demoralise members of the SWP.  In the preface (page v), Taaffe quotes Leon Trotsky as saying in a letter "Without the smallest exaggeration one can confirm that from 1923 (for Britain especially from 1925) had the Comintern not existed, we would have today in Britain an incomparably more important revolutionary party" and adds "Unfortunately, on a smaller scale, the same conclusion can be drawn from the role of the SWP in the 1990s and since."

Taaffe alleges (page 2): "In every collaboration they have been involved in, it is a question of 'rule or ruin' - they must exercise a dominating influence, not through political argument but organisationally, or they would seek to undermine or bypass those organisations if they do not get their way." The book contains a number of examples where this has been the case, including the demise of the Socialist Alliance and the Respect split, but it is rather an exaggeration.

I have found in Manchester that SWP members tend to be committed and non-sectarian, while the SP nowadays avoids getting involved in joint campaigns and only sends along its most committed members (cadres) on demonstrations, presumably because its newer members and contacts would instantly notice how much bigger the SWP is and quite possibly defect. This is a big problem for the SP, and a major motivation for setting up a large number of front organisations, some with more democratic legitimacy than others, with the main aim being recruitment to their own party rather than furthering the struggle and trying to achieve victories. I was a member of the SP from 1990-98 (through its transition from the Militant Tendency and Militant Labour) and I noticed a shift of emphasis from winning struggles to recruitment, aping the approach of the SWP. Perhaps Taaffe was hoping that this book would inoculate members against the SWP and lessen this problem. He cheekily starts the introduction (page 1) by saying the SP and SWP "are the two largest organisations on the 'Marxist left' in Britain", implying that the SP is bigger!

The biggest weakness of the book is that it concentrates so much on ways in which the SWP has allegedly been sectarian towards the SP that it fails to point out the biggest 'mistakes' of the SWP (which are in my view sometimes  deliberate ones by infiltrators on the side of big business). For example, (on page 23) Taaffe criticises the organisers of the two million-strong anti-war demo in London for denying the SP's Youth Against the War front a speaker, ignoring the main reason it failed to stop the war in my opinion - that the SWP and Stop the War Coalition mainly argued on grounds of pacifism and no weapons of mass destruction, not mentioning oil (as the SP and I did at the time independently). [I now think that the divide-and-rule strategy of US imperialism, perhaps changing under Obama, was more to blame.]

It is clear that uniting the SWP and the SP in a new formation won't be easy, never mind the two Respect splinters, unless it is a loose federation (at first anyway). The SP ridiculously left the Socialist Alliance due to not having a veto (and never built it seriously so the SWP didn't stay dominant) and refused to join Respect for the same reason. A democratic revolutionary socialist party, calling for both proportional representation (PR) and "participatory democracy", should be part of the federation. Adding PR to Marxist forms of democracy would make it popular!

8:19 PM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate