Sunday, June 4, 2017

The UK General Election Choice: Terrorism or Co-operative Socialism

 The UK General Election Choice: Terrorism or Co-operative Socialism

Terrorism:  a first attempt at commentary.

This may not be good enough, but . . .

We know from social epidemiology (eg The Spirit Level book and www.equalitytrust.org.uk) that the amount of violence in a society increases as economic/income inequality increases.

And that inequality has increased/been increased since 1979.

Put simply: happy people are, generally, not violent.

And, as inequality increases, happiness decreases.

So violence increases.

We've been here before.

Before the First World War was declared in 1914, 'The Politics of The Act' was a feature of political life: bombs were thrown, 'elite' individuals were shot and assassinated.

Barbara Tuchman's book, 'The Leaning Tower', if I recall right, describes those events.

As a result, inequality was decreased from the end of that war: from about 1920 onwards. Danny Dorling's books display a U-shaped curve from 1900 to 2000: increased equality until 1979 then 'the counter revolution' of, first, neo-liberal capitalism and, now, neo-conservative capitalism.

Both designed ' to make the 'rich' richer and the 'poor' poorer'.

Which they did.

Now, just as the earlier era of  'The Politics of The Act', political acts of violence ('War as Regime Change' and 'Terrorism' as kick-back) are an *inevitable* consequence.

The bombing in Manchester, the events, yesterday evening in London, and so on, were not a matter of 'if': more a matter of 'when'.

The responses of the frightened 'elites' will be/ are predictable.

First Militarised Martial law. And the suspension of democracy.

Second, an (even greater) restriction on free speech (including public democratic politics: such as the suspension of General Election campaigning, as has happened, today and last Tuesday) and so on.

For now I leave the question open as to whether the acts of Terrorism in the UK were coordinated.

But, rather, turn to a positive response.

So, as outlined in the first few sentences above:

    If you wish for peace, you have to work for economic- and income-equality.

    2. Capitalism cannot do that:

   - as the history of the last hundred years has shown, managed capitalism (fascism/ Nazism on the political 'right' and 'Social Democracy' on the 'left'), both created more and more inequality.

And thus more and more violence.

So, what of 'not-caplitalism' . . . ?

Or, rather, what of other 'Not-capitalism*s*'?

Well, first of all, the hierarchical, usually Marxism-inspired, Not-capitaisms have ended in tears (in the cases of Cuba, Noth Korea and China, time will tell).

Which leaves us with Co-operative Socialism: a plan *specifically designed* to create (greater) equality and equity.

And thus peace.

Along with ecological responsibility and sustainability.


Therefore:

All that's now needed, is the implementation of the plan for Co-operative Socialism . . .

A Labour and Co-operative government at Westminster could do that.

Hence the importance of the UK General Election.

This coming Thursday 8th June 2017.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Progress on Co-operative Socialism: Synopsis and Overview April 2017

My friend, Rajula Singh asks how I am.

I reply, on this atonishing dawn morning in Beckenham.









Terrible, really. I'm a Doctor. I'm good at healing patients. But none of the patients want too be healed. So, I'm miserable.

People are miserable when their needs are not met.

Con-versely, people are happy when their needs *are* met.

And they *can* be met . . . if people want to have their needs met.

But, it seems, they don't want their needs met.

So, I'm unhappy; miserable: since my need is to have my needs met.

Which is to have my love for all accepted. Which it's not. So I'm unhappy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq0XJCJ1Srw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAuoNa5g6i8

Ps Needs essay in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org

The key need to is equality (see www.equalitytrust.org.uk) and the plan for equality is called Co-operative Socialism (eg, with You Tube videos, at:

http://occupylondon.org.uk/co-operative-socialism-by-john-courtneidge/

The next steps towards implementation, audit and celebration of a world of Co-operative Socialism is for individuals to ask if their MP supports the plan for Co-operative Socialism.

And, if yes, are they promoting it?

And, if no, they don't support it, why not?

A model Constituent's letter template for this is as above or in the essays at www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com

As is a model Motion that Organisations could adopt.

Which, put simply says:

We adopt, and will promote, the plan for Co-operative Socialism, as an alternative to capitalism.

Which is what Labour Action for Peace, LAP (in 2013), The Bromley Co-operative Party (in 2014) and Occupy London (in 2015) have already done.

LAP is active in supporting and promoting the plannfor Co-operative Socialism by, for example, correlating the replies from MPs to the Constituents' letters described above. 

Progress is, however, slow. So! I'm miserable!

But:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kafVkPxjLYg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fip6uNJeLl0

Meanwhile, in the world:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fCP2-Bfhy04

Or, better, perhaps:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDh_gHDvkk

Chttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zUQiUFZ5RDw

But:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQ

And:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bsYp9q3QNaQ

So, not so much:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NSkboTTTmpg

Which is lovely, but:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsxtImDVMig

Which as an exercise in Co-operative Socialism:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cT_fKY34Hx0

All we/I! Need is love, equality, Co-operative Socialism!

(And, of course, my heart beloved . . . )

So, I wonder how many people will write *their* letter tom*their* MP (www.theyworkforyou.com), today, this week, ever?

Terrible, really. I'm a Doctor. I'm good at healing patients. But none of the patients want too be healed. So, I'm miserable.

People are miserable when their needs are not met.

Con-versely, people are happy when their needs *are* met.

And they *can* be met . . . if people want to have their needs met.

But, it seems, they don't want their needs met.

So, I'm unhappy; miserable: since my need is to have my needs met.

Which is to have my love for all accepted. Which it's not. So I'm unhappy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq0XJCJ1Srw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAuoNa5g6i8

Ps Needs essay in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org

The key need to is equality (see www.equalitytrust.org.uk) and the plan for equality is called Co-operative Socialism (eg, with You Tube videos, at:

http://occupylondon.org.uk/co-operative-socialism-by-john-courtneidge/

The next steps towards implementation, audit and celebration of a world of Co-operative Socialism is for individuals to ask if their MP supports the plan for Co-operative Socialism.

And, if yes, are they promoting it?

And, if no, they don't support it, why not?

A model Constituent's letter template for this is as above or in the essays at www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com

As is a model Motion that Organisations could adopt.

Which, put simply says:

We adopt, and will promote, the plan for Co-operative Socialism, as an alternative to capitalism.

Which is what Labour Action for Peace, LAP (in 2013), The Bromley Co-operative Party (in 2014) and Occupy London (in 2015) have already done.

LAP is active in supporting and promoting the plannfor Co-operative Socialism by, for example, correlating the replies from MPs to the Constituents' letters described above. 

Progress is, however, slow. So! I'm miserable!

But:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kafVkPxjLYg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fip6uNJeLl0

Meanwhile, in the world:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fCP2-Bfhy04

Or, better, perhaps:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDh_gHDvkk

Chttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zUQiUFZ5RDw

But:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQ

And:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bsYp9q3QNaQ

So, not so much:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NSkboTTTmpg

Which is lovely, but:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsxtImDVMig

Which as an exercise in Co-operative Socialism:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cT_fKY34Hx0

All we/I! Need is love, equality, Co-operative Socialism!

(And, of course, my heart beloved . . .

But, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WyWzrKjeeAQ . . . )

So, I wonder how many people will write *their* letter to *their* MP (www.theyworkforyou.com), today, this week, ever?

Friday, April 7, 2017

Neo-Mathusianism: Euthanise The Poor . . . Or The 'Rich'?

In ecological impact terms, the group that should be euthanised first - if one were crazy enough to proceed with this neo-Malthusian nonsense  - is the most wealthy* . . . Not, of course, the Malthusian eugenisists' target group for annhilation . . .

*A conclusion drawn from putting together:

 a) the social epidemilogical evidence in, say, The Spirit Level (that the wealthy -really the ill-thy in 'the global North West' are the most 'economically' active (in reality, a-economically active with their levels of consumption), and,

b) the equation that links wealth creation with pollution:

Materials  + Energy  ->  Wealth  +  Pollution

(The arrow symbol is read in such chemical equations as ' Goes to give'.)

Two additional points (well, three):

1) In capitalism, money is used to buy the inputs, 'Materials  +  Energy'.

The wealth is converted into more money than the inputs cost (see the wealth creation diagram in the second or middle article in the CCPA Reader on Co-operative Socialism - which isarchived in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org).

2) Again from the social epidemiological evidence (I'll scan the relevant pages, I hope), the extra a-economic activity brings no additional human benefit (as measured, for example, in health, happiness or multi-faceted well-ness.

3) And it's not 'evil people deliberately (ie with deliberation) trashing the planet', it's an automatic outcome/consequence of the error of permitting usury ('money-making/accumulating-money' by one of the four mechanisms, Rent, Interest, Profit, Higher-then-average-pay-for-work).

I think that there's a good case for identifying usury as the 'forbidden fruit' that's mentioned in the Book of Genesis.

Which would make the tree, itself, the concept that gives rise to those four money-accumulating mechanisms as the concept of Theft from and of The Creation/ The Commonwealth ie the evil concept of 'Private Property':

Thus:

The Theft of Land provides Profit

The Theft of the Law provides Interest

The Theft of Knowledge provides Profit

The Theft of Position provides Higher-than-average-pay-for-work

The latter of which is paid for by Taxing 'uz', the 88%, upon permission of the 2% (they who 'receive' Rent, Interest and Profits as 'Owners'/Theives of The Creation/Commonwealth) and enforced by the 10% (the 2%'s Praetorian Guard: of paid Bullies, Bribers and Brainwashers).

So, for sustainability, support, implement and audit Co-operative Socialism.

By Tuesday!

http://occupylondon.org.uk/co-operative-socialism-by-john-courtneidge/

n


Tuesday, April 4, 2017

The Laws of Chemistry means That Capitalism is non-sustainable

Here is a marvellous chemistry video

From https://m.facebook.com/Wikr-Sunny-1824615421112852/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=1


video




But one: recall the wealth creation equation:

Materials  +  Energy  ->  Wealth  +  Pollution

So, here, a healthy body is a 'well body' . . . well, wealth, weal are all related words.

Now, taking the Second Law of Thermondynamics into account (which says that, in *any* and *every* change, more disorder than order is created (the level of disorder is measured by an increase in entropy), then the amount of disorder that's created as we create weath/wellness/weal is *greater* than the amount of order we create.

Now, that externalised disorder can only be dealth with by 'external' forces (ie by the 'rest of' the planet at the rates of reactions that occur at the temperature of the planet in particular places at particular times.

So, for example, photosynthesis is converted highly disordered (ie gasous) molecules of carbon dioxide and water into highly ordered (solid and dissolved) carbohydrate molecules as I peck this out here in the springtime in sunny Beckenham.




Ie:

Carbon dioxide  +  Water  ->  Carbohydrates  +  Oxygen

That's why William if Normandy and his army invaded England in 1066: England's climate, geology and physical geography are good at accumulating carbohydrates as wood and grain (and, indirectly through grass, meat, wool, leather and other animal products: to say nothing of the-then, feudal, weapons of war, horses, knights, archers, arrows, pike-men, etc).

(And, for anyone following the entropy aspect, two gaseous molecules, CO2 and water are 'fixed' into the carbohydrate molecule as only one gasous molecule, di-atomic oxygen, O2, is released  - to nourish those animals: including worms, bees and us, etc.)

So, if we set up an anti-economic sysyem (called capitalism . . . Or war if you want an accurate term) then the heat and material pollution (which together make up the disorder called increased pollution) result in the disequilibrium called global warming, decadence, 'the break-down of society' and all the forms of no-well-ness, ill-ness that are recorded inThe Spirit Level (and worse such as the, may-be, grossly exagerated reports of Satanic child-abuse as logged earlier on 'my' Facebook page).

So, in synopsis, sustainability is the balance between photosynthetic fixation of CO2:

CO2  +  H2O  +  Energy (sunlight)  ->  Carbohydrates  +  O2

And animal metabolism (eg 'burning fat'):

Carbohydrates +  O2  ->  CO2  +  H2O  + Energy (which always 'slides downhill'to become heat)

That's why 'my' blog is addressed as

www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com

Monday, March 13, 2017

The Most Quakerly Season

Winter, for me, like Spring, Summer and Autumn, is the most Quakerly of Seasons.

Winter is not a saeson of cold and death.

Rather, it is a Season of hope and certainty.

As I peck out these words, the longer days and warmer air brings forth each plant in its turn.  The earliest of red camellias are followed by mid-season varieties; cream, white, bi-colour. At the same time, the star-flowered Magnolias appear in bloom before their tulip-flower siblings appear.

Garria Elliptica, the males at least have shown their tassles long before the willows.

All winter long these appearances have been latent. Now green springs forth from brown.

The winter carols, mid-way through accented with the joy of Christmas Carols, foretell The Kingdon nascent, latent, 'Thy will on eath be done, as it is in Heaven.'

Not life after death, life always present: latent in the seemingly dead. Reality in the waiting.

So, just as in the stillness of a centred, gathered Meeting for Worship in the manner of Friends (Quakers), the presence is in the midst. Life onnearth, as it is in Heaven.

Not 'Pie in the sky, when you die.'  But, latent here, Latent, hear!  Just as in The Kingdom Parables that the infant Jesus was born to tell us. And to be murdered.

Or, the attempt to murder him.

On the insistence of those frightened of change for the better.

Demanding that Jesus be murdered ('I find no fault in him'): murdered in fools attempts to silence truth.

No way!

Truth lives: latent or active.

Just as we are blessed to live in a time, two-hundred years on from the time when Antoine Laurent Lavoisier and John Dalton applied the Principle of Simplicity in order to bring order out of Alchemy; to birth modern, systemstic chemistry.

An order out of confusion that has given experienced meaning to latency: latent heats of fusion, of evaporation, of phase changes generally.

Latent, ' that which is present. but hidden' brought forth.

The Kingdom, here. Hear, emergent! Here in the plan for wholeness called the plan for Co-operative Socialism.

Do you recoil?  Recoil from those worldly words?

Of an end to exploitation of 'the one' by 'the other'?

Thy will be done on earth.

As it is, as described to us, for us, then *by* us, co-operatively in those Kingdom Parables, in that plan for Co-operative Socialism.

Just as the Mustard seed, 'The smallest of all seeds which *when placed* in *prepared ground* brings forth a tree so large that *all* the birds of the air may find shelter there.

To rest, sleeping. Latent. To, tomorrow, do Our Father Creator's work. Tomorrow. Not when we die.

Tomorrow.

Which is 'By Tuesday!'  Not waiting. Latency brought forth to action.

Now, here. Hear!

Aesthetic in-spiration, out-spiration. I hope!

My friend Nina Miller prompts me to offer:

You are looking for new aesthetics.

Here are two thoughts.

First, the future has to be Co-operative.

And thus, Co-operative Socialism.

So, an aesthetic of and for Co-operative Socialism has to be part of that. Probably not emergent from a Co-operative Socialist world but, if not in advance of such emergence, co-emergent with it.








Secondly, Co-operative Socialism is an emergent synthesis of the unity of the individual and the whole. An emergent synthesis of Wholosophy.

Wholosophy is the triple intersection of religion, science and economics on a Venn diagram.





Each the three double intersections (science/religion, economics/religion and religion/science are also regions of liminality: places which are simultaneously both such doubled characteristics.












The future is that place of triple liminality: of wholosophy and wholeness.

Which may be termed, 'You, me, we, us': the liminality of all-ness, of wholeness, of unity.

Occupy foundered because the arts communites didn't become a unity of one diverse art community.  The arts of protest become just a circus of 'what-is' blah protest.

True art re-members (puts back together) and re-presents the wholeness of what we were in 'The Garden', and need to re-become in The Garden.

Not as part of the whole, but a 360°, 24×7 aspect of the whole.

Not stewards of creation (Genesis) but co-operative caregivers to, and care-receivers from, the wholeness.

So the aesthetic of emergence emerges as the aesthetic of celebration.

A Celebration of what is becoming: from what has been, through what is, to what is offered to us: as wholistic noirishment: Co-operative, true, Socialism.

By Tuesday!

Woo-hoo!

Ps, thanks for asking!

http://www.co-operativesocialism.org/money-driven-capitalism-is-rooted-in-our-fears-and-needs/

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Obedience is better


 In regard to the item just below this:

A) capitalism relies on five scams, only:

  1) That land can be owned and then 'lent' upon payment of rent

  2) That money can be owned and lent upon payment of interest

  3) That knowledge can be owned and used to receive profit

  4) That some people's work can be paid more than other people

  5) Above all, that 'ownership' is permitted (rather than seen for what it: theft)

In terms of English history:

   1) above = 1066 (when the new theives stole from the old theives, who . . .)

   2) above = 1545 when Henry VIII legalised usury for the first time in England

   3) above = between those dates 'Kings' (ie Mafia bosses) granted 'Letters Patent' to create Commercial Monopolies (eg in trade to, eg, India)

   4) above = again during the time of feudalism, 'Positions at Court' were created - and much sought after - to secure Pensions (higher-than-normal payments for work done to protect the said Mafiosi: remember Scicily was part of The NormannEmpire, so the term Mafiosi is not unreasonable).

  5) above = 15,000 years' ago when 'Adam and Eve' first took (stole) from the Creation and, thus, 'invented' the sin of 'property'.

Oh, and there is a ps . . .

And the ps is that the claim to 'ownership' of one's 'self' is also theft.

The Creator, through The Creation, lends us a few atoms - often for as short a time a breath* - in order to 'be' in the space that we occupy at no rent for three score years and ten.

The Creator then feeds us, clothes us, warms and nourishes us, houses us in sunshine.

In our sin (initiated by Adam and Eve at the Neolithic catastrophe: when property=ownership=theft was invented and co-invented with ususry) we stumble.

Once we have given up all notions: that property and usury are just. And once we have voluntarily moved backmtomthe Garden, where Co-operative Careship - rather than theft, rape and murder = capitalism - is normal,,shall we thrive.

It's called gellasenheit, yieldedness, obedience.

Ooooh!

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Love loves, hence Co-operative Socialism

Dangerous stuff; me, me, me.

Losing attachment to wanting stuff, yes, unbeing what we are, impossible.

Letting go of our hurts, likewise.

Acting to not produce hurts, yes.

Hence the plan for Co-operative Socialism.

Not the impossible: Personal Salvation.

Impossible, since we are all aspects of one body.

So, healong 'one' is not possible without healing the One that is the unity of all.

Without yieldedness to the Creator/God/Good/The Divine (ie practicing gellasenheit, total yieldedness, true humility), we are not fully connected as an aspect of The All.

We are, in that state of a-lone-ness, just as a free radical in chemistry: broken away; with an unpaired electron,,an un-attached valency, alone.

So, the God/spell of 'Personal' Salvation is as impossible as the God/spell of 'Personal' Prosperity.

Unless 'The All' propers, nothing prospers, every aspect suffers because every aspect is in-extricably a part of the whole.

It's a wholeness thing.

Hence the plan for Co-operative Socialism: as an end to possession/theft and usury (rent, interest, profit, greater income than any 'other').

Gellasenheit rather than pride. Contribution rather than accummulation.

'What can I give?', rather than 'What can I get?'

All our valencies and electrons (re-)connected as a fully-bound aspect of the all: the liberty to be, by discardingbthe liberty to not be: to suffer in the hell of a-lone.

Simple, really.

Possessions possess

Pride becomes proud

Humility humbles

Love loves

God is.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Draft Model Motion on Co-operative Socialism to Labour Party Branches,etc

Draft Model Motion on Co-operative Socialism to Labour Party Branches, Co-operative Partyy branches, Trades Councils, etc.

Drafted by John Courtneidge
0795 099 6418  courtj@myphone.coop  Also on Facebook and Twitter

1) The objective of the Labour and Co-operative Movement is, as Clement Attlees wrote in 1937, 'The establishment if the Co-operative Commonwealth' (see his book 'The Labour Party in Perspective, Left Book Club, Victor Gollancz, Chaper 6);

2)  To that end, we need an economic plan, suitable for the 21st Century, that produces the Co-oprative Commonwealth and that is, therefore, consistent with the Co-operative Values and Principles, as contained in the 'Statement on the Co-operative Identity' and as refreshed, periodically, by The International Co-operative Alliance (see www.ica.coop);

3)  Such a plan, termed 'Co-operative Socialism', has been gathered together, with that end in view, and may be seen in an Occupy London web-page (by web-searching the phrase "Co-operative Socialism") and discussed in papers archived at the web-page for The Campaign for Interest-free Money (www.interestfreemoney.org);

4)  This plan has already been adopted by Labour Action for Peace, by Occupy London and by the Bromley Branch of The Co-operative Party;

5)  We [include your organisation's name here] also adopt this plan for Co-operative Socialism: with a view to promoting it to our related organisations and to write to our MPs, both organisationlly and as individual constituents, to see if they support and promote this plan and, if not why not.

6)  We will share the information so gathered with Labour Action for Peace (LAP), so that LAP can share this information publicly.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Goverments Decide on Sustainability So Politics Matters

Those Feb 2017 UK by-elections. Check the data. Not the spin.

Copeland                                             Stoke Central
Con gain from Labour                         Labour hold

%vote Change from 2015 General Election:
* = ELECTED
Con*        +8.5%                                  Con         +1.8%
Lab          -4.9%                                   Lab*        -2.2%
Lib-Dem  +3.8%                                  LIB-Dem +5.7%
UKIP        -9.0%                                  UKIP        +2.1%
Green      -1.3%                                  Green      -2.2%

Turn-out (ie % of registered electors that voted):

51.33%   ( -12.5% cf GE2015)         38.2%  (-11.7% cf GE2015)

My commentary follows references to data.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_by-election,_2017

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_by-election,_2017

http://www.ukpolitical.info/by-election-turnout.htm

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout15.htm

Commentary

1) The  Labour vote did not evaporate in either case, contrary to the propaganda by the capitalists

2) The Tories played a blinder again by selecting a woman candidate who had worked in the local industry: nuclear power and reprocessing. And by pointing out the long-held anti-nuclear credentials of Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

3) To finish the Copeland remarks, the UKIP vote looks mostly to have switched back to its traditional home ,the Conservatives (ie UKIP -9.0% ,Conservatives +8.5%) with the prresently-typical protest vote going to the Lib-Dems and not the Greens).

And the turn-out moved down by 12.5%, to 51.33%,  from the 2015 General Election level (which, at 63.83% was almost the same as the turn-out average in England of 65.8%).

4) In Stoke Central (which was a much  more 'high prrofile' election due to the presence of a well-publicised UKIP candidate and a re-standing Muslim candidate for the Lib-Dems). the turn out at both the 2015 General Election (only 51.26%, then) and this by-election (36.7%, down, therefore, from 2015 by 11.7%) reflected/es the run-down economic status of many ex-industrial, mostly northern and midlands Constituences, that were used and deserted by the New Labour project of Tony Blair, Peter Madelson, Gordon Brown, JohnPrescott, Neil Kinnock, etc.

5) To round-out the Stoke Central commentary, the UKIP efforts mostly  failed despite the media coverage, etc. The two protest votes moved as in Copeland (LD up, Green down: neither by much).

6) The bigger picture:

The two by-elections were  caused by resignations of two anti-Corbyn, pro-Remain, Blair/Mandelson-promoted New Labour MPs (whether they are members of The Labour Friends of Israel I don't know: that pro-Zionist group has along-standing hatred of Jeremy Corbyn's pro-Palestinian position).

Their resignations certainly appear to have been coordinated by the pro-Remain, pro-capitalist factions (which likely the involvement, if not coordination, of the Chatham House pro-capitalist network).

As such it was a failed attempt to 'get rid of' the Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell project for democratic and co-operative socialist.

A project that is heartened by the outcome.

Not least that the Blairite candidate in Copeland was defeated.

One step back, but two steps forward (at least!)

Friday, February 24, 2017

A Call for a Needs'-based Politics,Rather than a Rights'-based Politics.

What's needed is a 'Needs-based politics' (ie Co-operative Socialism) rather than a 'Rights'-based politics' (ie any formmof managed capitalism = 'Social' Democracy = fascism (ie a collusion of 'elites' and states = eg the WTO, The 'World' Economic Forum, the Chatham House/Council on Foreign Relations/PowerCorp etc.

When 'I' wrote the 'Four Needs' essay (see the papers'section at www.interestfreemoney.org) there a) wasn't a needs-based Needs Theory and b) the overarching economic need (for income equality and equity - as adumbrated by 'The Spirit Level' - see www.equalitytrust.org.uk - and Richard Wilkinson's earlier books).

What we now know is that, for sustainability, happiness, health and properity for all, the world needs to move to a zone of maximum equality and equity - Aubrey Meyer's concept of 'Contraction and Convergence' (see lower down this page earlier this week).

I know that my distaste for Rights'-based Politics is going to elicit discussion, so let's leave my support and justifcation for the better option - Needs'-based Politics - to then.

Monday, February 20, 2017

The Big Picture: Chemistry, Sustainability and Economics

On 'my' Facebook page, I posted the following nonsense:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1214499648589099&id=861349470570787

My friend, Mavis asked if it was true. I replied as follows.

I think, Mavis​​ that the water is split into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis (a process called electrolysis) and the hydrogen is then burnt in the engine.

Of course, the electricity has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is almost certainly a fossil fuel source (oil, gas, coal, nuclear). Ideally, the electricity comes from solar panels. But they come from manufacturing that uses fossil resources in the main.
In addition, the electrolysis of water requires an added ionic material: sulphuric acid is used in school, demonstrations of the electrolysis of water, for example.

Overall, these 'magic' solutions are not the way forward.

First we need, in the global north-west to reduce our GDP activity (ie our capitalist 'economic' activity: the '' marks signify that most capitalist 'economic' activity is harmful and not beneficial to the  global household).

Secondly, that activity in the global north-west needs to include far greater income and economic equality and equity (the evidence in, say, The Spirit Level, is that more equal societies act more sustainably: partly because their populations have less 'need' for status bling).

Finally, the overall poorest countries need a) to not be hand-bagged by the global north-west's capitalist businesses (including ususry-based for-profit banks) and b) they need to be helped to come up to the 'contraction-and-convergence' sweet spot that is the dog-leg point on the GDP-vs-Wellness graph in The Spirit Level.

All of the above is, of course, in the plan for Co-operative Socialism!

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Letter to MPs regarding the plan for Co-operative Socialism

Dear Peter,


Letter text as requested.


(LAP comrades, Colin Bastin (LAP Chair) and Helen Watts (LAP Secretary Organiser cc'd)

--------------------

14 February 2016


From John Courtneidge


Flat 10 Coleridge House

79 Bromley Road

Beckenham, Kent BR3 5PA


MOBILE 0795 099 6418

E-mail for questions and MP Responses: courtj@myphone.coop


---------------

Dear Chartist editor


Thank-you for publishing the earlier Chartist article on the plan for Co-operative Socialism: a plan that Labour Action for Peace, Occupy London and the Bromley Co-operative Party all support.


As a follow-up action:


Might Chartist readers care to join in an information gathering and sharing exercise among MPs, concerning the plan for Co-operative Socialism?


Below is a letter template to MPs in this regard.


I, on behalf of Labour Action for Peace, will correlate results (my contact details are also below).


Thank you, in and for co-operation


John Courtneidge (Dr)

-------- MP Letter template--------


[My name]

[My address and Post code]

[Date]

Dear                                 

MP for

Re: Plan for Co-operative Socialism

I write to you as one of your Consituents.

A number of groups (including, for example, Labour Action for Peace) now support a plan for Co-operative Socialism. Details of that plan may be found by web-searching the term "Co-operative Socialism" and navigating, for example, to the relevant Occupy London web-page and the papers' page of The Campign for Interest-free Money.

I write to ask if you support this plan.

If yes, will you promote it to your Parliamentary colleagues?

If, no you do not support this plan, could you please let me know why not?

Please note that your reply and that of Parliamentary colleagues (even non-replies) will be shared publicly.

Thank-you!

[Signed]
 

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

from Now to Peace and Sustainability


Some of you might wonder about the graphic (above), that I shared yesterday (5Feb 2017) on 'my' Facebook page and which I'll re-produced today (6Feb 2017, I think).

Here is its 'sister' image. 





This photo is a share from, and of, my/our FB friend, Barbara Hillman (and I hope she doesn't mind me sharing it). It exemplifies the serenity of 'peace, krder and good government' (to use that phrase from the British North America Act: the founding document for the, then, Dominion of Canada).

So, back to that image from yesterday.

It attempts to show the mental turmoil in each personality qudrant as people scramble around, tyrying to find the worm-holes of tansition.

And finding the blocking walls between some attempted transitions.

One (vertical) worm hole is that from the pride of the greens (the Ratioalists) to the groundedness of the blue quadrant.
The others are the pair close to the eastern-most point on 'the personality equator' which show the route/s from the turmoil of 'now', to the tranquility of sustainability and peace available to us as 'then'.

We are standing at those three worm-holes of liminality.

And woo-hoo 4 that!

-------------

Thx, again, Barbara Hillman​​! And my apologies for prior use of this without permission!