alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the main point to take out of this thread is how the capitalists, plutocrats, the 1%, the 0.01% – whatever we wish to call them – ie the ruling class, disposes of those it considers a threat to their interests. Regardless of Corbyn's politics being reformist of the pinkest hue, i think it can be conceded that his proposals do challenge the wealthy in their own view, although in no way dispossesses or dis-empowers them. The media even the so-called liberal left joined together in a litany of falsehoods and half-truths to undermine Corbyn's credibility with his party and the voters. They sought to de-legitimise him as a person and as a politician. In the course of the socialist movement growing in strength and increasing its influence, we too will be subjected to this very same campaign of misinformation and disinformation. Since the mass media is under the control of the rich, to compete to gain a level playing field, i believe will fail. Therefore as many have suggested we need to create our own means of getting out our message and should concentrate on the social media outlets, because we do have access to those and it is something we can seed and cultivate now, no matter how limited it is for us at the moment.We have to keep up with the new developments and innovations that keep arising, and try to keep pace with them and not be left too far behind in adopting them – an important role for the Internet Committee – predicting future trends and adapting to them…a considerable task
Quite a few threads on Chomsky on this forum. So i randomly chose this one.http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36819-noam-chomsky-on-anarchism-communism-and-revolutions
Quote:Marx had very little to say about post-capitalist society, but the basic thrust of his thinking about long-term goals seems quite compatible with major strains of anarchist thinking and practice…As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism… .the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom. The Leninist intelligentsia had a different agenda. They fit Marx's description of the "conspirators" who "pre-empt the developing revolutionary process" and distort it to their ends of domination… For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline "will become superfluous" as the freely associated producers "work for their own accord" (Marx)…Before seizing state power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed state power in October 1917…Quote:Those established systems are the problem. We do not have a few bad apples. We have a diseased orchard. And from it we have had one diseased harvest after another. Time to re-plantHe has a nice turn of phrase. I'm going to steal this analogy.However how radical is radical, i wonder.
Quote:I believe the next election will not be about left or right, but about neoliberal globalism versus democracy. The trade deals, CETA, TTIP and TISA, will be major issues.I fear he is substituting his own agenda for what will be the real issues in any election. And just is his counter-arguments to globalisation – regulation and legislation – even national autarchy disguised as localism? Words do matter but more importantly also their meanings – as been raised on the Corbyn thread.
As others have been saying the media has been dishonestly smearing Corbyn and this report gives some backing to the claim.Academics at LSE analysed months of newspaper articles about the Labour leader and found 75% of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn fail to accurately report his views.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html“Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader,” Dr Bart Cammaerts, the project director concluded.Academics at the London School of Economics analysed the content of eight national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, when Mr Corbyn was first elected.The media researchers found that in 52 per cent of articles about the Labour leader, his own views were not included – while in a further 22 per cent they were “present but taken out of context” or otherwise distorted. In just 15 per cent of 812 articles analysed, Mr Corbyn’s views were present but challenged, and in only 11 per cent were they present without alteration. In terms of tone, fewer than 10 per cent of articles were judged by the researchers to be positive, while more than half were antagonistic or critical. Around a third had a neutral tone. 28 per cent of articles analysed were based on anti-Corbyn Labour party sources, while 23 per cent were based on pro-Corbyn sources.
A passage from an upcoming future SOYMB blog
Quote:Our party is proud of the fact that it looks upon the free discussion of party problems, party principles and policies, not as an occasional luxury but as an integral part of its daily life, as an indispensable element in its development. The Socialist Party is a revolutionary organisation. It has perhaps come into being along a different road from yours. Also in many ways, it traditions and its methods differs from your own. We know that many of you have significant differences with ourselves, particularly on questions relating to history, more specifically on the question of Leninism or Trotskyism and of aspects of the Russian Revolution. Since 1917, we believe our original analysis has been the correct one and now argue that history has confirmed this fact. Take no one’s word, but find out for yourself; and after this has been done, we feel that our conclusions will also be yours.Already spotted and noted on our bloghttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/07/time-to-imagine-new-global-economy.html
There are 9 million people, mostly young women, dependent upon jobs in textiles, garments, and footwear within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) economic area, which includes Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. These are the workers the ILO identifies as most susceptible to losing their jobs to the new robot workforce.https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/16/robot-factories-threaten-jobs-millions-garment-workers-south-east-asia-women
This s the most charitable explanation of Saunders strategy i have read on the internet. Make up your own mind if it is viable and can be successful. "If Sanders had gone third party, split the votes and then Trump got elected, it would have divided the left and set back the momentum and gains the Sanders/progressive movement has made another 10 years. The center of America would blame the progressive movement for Trump's victory and align with the centrist dems for fear of repeats. Idealists may love a martyr, but in this case, 'standing for principle' does not make up for the disastrous real-world consequences which would harm our movement's long term goals. Bernie is doing what he thinks is best for achieving his long list of policy goals over the next 8 years. As activists, Bernie and the movement has more leverage to influence Hillary than Trump. It is simply a smart and practical decision.Being a martyr, you get to feel good about yourself and how you 'stayed pure' but you walk 100 steps back from your goal when Trump and other far right politicians get elected and they don't give a shit about your protests against climate change, police brutality, universal healthcare, income inequality – the list goes on.By supporting Hillary and not going third party, he retains and builds on his leverage with the party, while the socialist/progressive gains we made in the last year are allowed to continue to build up power and momentum. There are also the short-term advantages for the coming Democratic convention, which have been written about elsewhere.By 2020, perhaps the movement will be strong enough to launch a third party or Democratic challenge to Hillary, and by that time, if we stay focused and all don't scramble back to our homes in despair and defeat, we can continue to organize for down-ballot progressives to win seats from the city to state levels. With that kind of bottom up power, we can continue to advance our goals."http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/why-did-bernie-endorse-hillary-knowing-he-was-the-same-person-as-the-day-before/
Many Sanders supporters are still supporting him on the grounds that he pushed Clinton to the "left" on some important issues such as limited rather than universal free education and healthcare. However, Clinton is unlikely to implement them in any serious way. The Green Party generously offered Sanders to be their presidential candidate despite all the work Jill Stein has done yet Sanders spurned them without as far as i know any sort of public statement. or acknowledgment. Even Chomsky recommends voting Green in safe Democratic states for those who wish a protest vote for third party. Has Sanders left a legacy of any form of grassroots organisation? Or has he handed it over to the Democratic Party machine? Time will tell. Robbo asks"Sanders campaign has prompted unpredecented levels of interest in the word "socialism". Whats gonna become of that I wonder?"I think we could have pushed the boat out more on the 100th anniversary of an alternative party. Nevertheless, we do have a new website orientated towards that constituency Robbo says may now exist. But it will have to improve its presence since i can't find a link to it. Some post it for meso i can list its link as a favouriteSince it is an unofficial WSM website perhaps it could include a wider range of contributors to attract more visitors. I know i will be placing my head on the chopping block but there may be more of a case for a World In Common type of socialist website than a formal party one. Maybe Robbo should contact Stefan and see where they can cooperate where there is an overlap in North America
Kshama Sawant of the Trotskyist Socialist Alternative disavows Sanders endorsement of Clinton and instead endorses the Green Party's Jill Steinhttp://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/13/bernie-sanders-abandons-the-revolution/
Sanders with his endorsement of Hilarity Clinton is trying to turn a lemon into lemonade but a lemon is still a lemon.
About 12 million Thais may lose their jobs to robots and "dehumanised smart systems" over the next 20 years, wiping out one-third of the 37 million positions in the workforce. Administrative and office with basic skills are most at risk from the impact of "Industry 4.0" or the world's fourth industrial revolution, according to a joint study by the Quality Learning Foundation (QLF), Dhurakij Pundit University and the World Bank (WB). Advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology and 3D printing will take hold in all industries, said the study. However, demand for computer… http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1034329/technology-imperils-12-million-jobs
From various news reportsLast time it was open to anyone prepared to pay £3 – and it was the £3 supporters, more than the paid up party members, who gave Jeremy Corbyn his victory. This time, supporters will have to re-register and pay £25. And the thousands of new recruits who have joined the party since the referendum will have to pay that fee if they want to vote, because the executive has ruled only those who have been party members for at least six months will have an automatic right to vote. Only those who joined Labour on or before 12 January will be able to vote in the leadership contest. Anyone who joined after then will have to pay an extra £25 to become a "registered supporter" – and will get a two-day window in which to do so.The NEC ruled that only those who have been members for more than six months will be allowed to vote – while new supporters will be given two days to sign up as registered supporters to vote in the race, but only if they are willing to pay £25 – far higher than the £3 fee many Corbyn backers paid in the contest last year. Labour’s membership has shot up to more than 500,000, according to party sources, as both Corbyn’s supporters and those who want to replace him recruit new supporters to their cause. But the introduction of the six-month cut-off point is likely to infuriate members who have joined in recent weeks with the hope of influencing the vote, and will not now be able to do so without paying an additional £25.
