alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
An update on this thread that some may find of interesthttp://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/stone-age-massacre-offers-earliest-evidence-human-warfare-kenya
Quote:“The deaths at Nataruk are testimony to the antiquity of inter-group violence and war,” said Marta Mirazón Lahr, from the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at Cambridge, who led the study. “These human remains record the intentional killing of a small band of foragers with no deliberate burial, and provide unique evidence that warfare was part of the repertoire of inter-group relations among some prehistoric hunter-gatherers…The Nataruk massacre may have resulted from an attempt to seize resources – territory, women, children, food stored in pots – whose value was similar to those of later food-producing agricultural societies among whom violent attacks on settlements became part of life…Nataruk may simply be evidence of a standard antagonistic response to an encounter between two social groups at that time.”The study’s co-author, Prof Robert Foley, is marginally more optimistic about the human condition: “I’ve no doubt it is in our biology to be aggressive and lethal, just as it is to be deeply caring and loving. A lot of what we understand about human evolutionary biology suggests these are two sides of the same coin.”
Quote:The concept of communes is at the core of communism. Notice that communes is in plural form, i.e. there are several communes interacting with each other in a given society and that interaction will definitely include commodity exchange too. However, this exchange will acquire new qualities and is different from that undertaken between capitalist firms.Sepehr, I noticed that you cited Wolff approvingly in an earlier post. I wonder if this mention is related to his proposals for Worker Self Directed Enterprises.
A review of the Big Shorthttp://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34451-how-the-big-short-shorts-audiences-hoping-to-understand-the-2008-financial-crisis
Quote:the film largely blames the crisis on the fraud and corruption of the big banks, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the ratings agencies – thus missing that the crisis was rooted in the fundamental irrationalities of capitalism, and specifically the contradictions of the neoliberal restructuring of the past 30 years. The problem, in other words, is not "corruption" that upset the normally harmonious functioning of capitalism, but rather that crisis is an irresolvable part of capitalism.Oh, I could have provided many more facts and figures Robbo, but I got weary googling. After all, just like the history of Africa, the information is freely available on the internet for anyone who genuinely wishes to learn. A 2014 OECD report "Policy Challenges for the Next 50 Years" envisages an average annual growth rate up to 2060 of 3%. Paul Mason the ex-Channel 4 News economics editor and now Corbyn’s communications adviser comments in his book on post-capitalism:“To make the OECD's central growth scenario work, Europe and the USA have to absorb 50 million migrants each between now and 2060.” That's a million a year on average or 5 "millions" over 5 years. True, the OECD doesn't think that will happen but then neither will growth which, of course, depends on using more and more labour. On the other hand, if the capitalist economy does grow at that rate then millions of migrants will be pulled in, regardless of what the anti-immigration lobby might want.Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit explained that something like a quarter of a million Poles entered the UK. However, recorded unemployment rates went down between 2003 and 2005, and recorded vacancy rates actually went up slightly. The data would suggest that they weren’t taking the jobs of Brit. The econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens. People in lower paid jobs are more likely to be affected, but even then the effect, statistically speaking, is relatively small.As I said Europe’s population is ageing and, in many countries, shrinking If it weren’t for migration, the EU’s working-age population would already be shrinking. Last year, deaths exceeded births in both Greece and Italy – where the vast majority of the migrants arrived – and in Germany, where the largest number end up. Like that of the UK, Germany’s economy is creating jobs faster than the natives can fill them. And it’s not just about the number of people or workers – migrants can bring new ideas and new dynamism to an economy, something many European countries sorely need. I saw a report where someone was complaining that refugees that were being rescued were all professional occupations but of course they will be banned from taking up employment and contributing until they get their residency approved. Yet countries are about to demand refugees hand over their valuables to pay for the expense of housing them, just as many of the people-smugglers also do. Next, I am sure these governments will be starting to extract asylum-seekers gold teeth from their mouths. There are more than six million foreign-born workers in Britain, accounting for one in seven of all in employment, according to Oxford University’s Migration Observatory. They make up more than a third of workers in food and clothing manufacturing, and more than a quarter of warehouse workers. And 31 per cent of cleaners and people working in food preparation and hospitality – ranging from butchers to cooks and bar managers – are migrant workers. Around 30 per cent of NHS doctors, and 40 per cent of nurses, are from overseas. One in five of carers are foreign workers, and tens of thousands of migrants work as fruit and vegetable pickers. Is there really a rational case for sending such numbers home?I have no doubt those statistics will be ignored or challenged Robbo. People with prejudiced ideas will prefer their own figures. In November Cameron claimed that 43 per cent of EU migrants claimed benefits in the UK within four years of arrival – but provided no source or visible working for his claim. The UK Statistics Authority castigated the Government over Cameron’s citation of questionable figures purporting to show how many European Union migrants claim benefits in the UK. The UK Statistics Authority accused the Government of avoiding scrutiny by withholding key sources and calculations that could have led to the figures being debunked before yesterday’s headlines were written. It said the way in which the figures were disclosed was 'unsatisfactory' and prevented effective scrutiny. When Cameron make such claims out of context, it is understandable that people will misinterpret that "work-shy scroungers". But actually the benefit they are receiving most is tax credits because most are working and doing so in low-paid jobs. Incidentally, there is nothing stopping Cameron barring non-EU migrants receiving tax credits, eg Filipino nurses, so why doesn't he do it?Of course we have those who say we are full-up and we should house our own homeless…charity begins at home, eh? But nothing is done about the 600,000 empty houses in the UK and the number of holiday homes. There were no refugees competing for accommodation when the Welsh nationalists drew attention to homeless Welsh by giving those who bought second homes in Wales a warm welcome. Of course the other option if we are to assume a population growth and to create employment for everybody is what happened in the 50s and 60s …start building new towns. There is no denying that there is pressure on infrastructure like local schools and local hospitals. Rather than the earlier policy of closing them down, let’s build new ones. All those extra willing workers should make it accomplishable.Another fact overlooked in the half-hearted response to people drowning at sea and being exploited by people-traffickers is simply remove the airline regulation that forbids them flying people without the proper papers and have well-organised social services to greet them on arrival at the airports. Also nobody would pay in excess of 1.000 euros per head for a life-endangering boat journey across the Mediterranean if they could apply for their papers and permits abroad and pay 200 euros for a commercial flight to their destination of choice.There is no immigration problem. There is a problem of poverty and inequality, wars and civil wars, but most of all, a problem of an economic system that render the lives of many people in the world unsustainable, sentencing many to misery and suffering. Anybody can become a refugee. Rich or poor, black or white, male or female, adult or a child. There can never be absolute safety in this capitalist world. By the Grace of God, go I, according to the saying. Only a few decades ago, the Irish Republic were preparing to set up refugee camps for displaced British citizens, the Northern Irish Catholics, who were being burned out of their homes in a civil war. Lastly, another thing often overlooked is that immigrants support the families in the countries they have come from, lessening the need for foreign aid. Migrants living in Europe Of the total remittances sent by migrants living in Europe, about one-third (36.5 billion dollars) remained within 19 countries in Europe, while two-thirds (72.9 billion dollars) were received by poor families in over 50 developing countries outside Europe.Today, some 250 million migrants live and work around the world, and in the coming months and years many more will certainly join them. It is time to accept that the ebb and flow of human movement cannot be stopped. Destination countries – whether in Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia, or Oceania – should not turn their back on the desperate and wretched. It is important that we accept the fact that efforts to block migration are bound to fail, with disastrous consequences for human lives – whether they are lost on sinking boats in the Mediterranean and the Andaman Sea or threatened by xenophobic violence in South Africa, India, or elsewhere. Those migrating today are doing so for the same reasons that once spurred millions of Europeans to leave their countries. They are fleeing poverty, war, or oppression, or are searching for a better life in a new land. All too often, migrants are used as scapegoats but to be sure, immigrants must accept to adapt to the cultures and customs of the countries in which they settle.The Socialist Party is the only party based on the common interests of the world working class. It is aimed at forging a united movement of workers of every country.
Robbo, no doubt there will be a video following the School, and if they do go with the money, i think they should draw attention to the resultant video to those groups. Since it is now after 4th November can you tell us the theme for JulyMe, unlike Robbo, i would have opted for Borders considering the prominence of EU exit, migrant workers and refugee crisis.But they we all good subjects…contemporary..left and right, Corbyn and Trump, Democracy…Poland protests about democratic dictatorships,
A riveting interview…(Can't fool me Clifford…i wore the same black star badge when i was an anarchist ).I also noted Clifford's brief exposition of the materialist conception of history at 23.28..always an opportunity to expound socialism.Not sure how these things go but i wonder if Clifford talked about politics with George in the Green Room and discussed socialism? I think i mentioned on another thread that i changed my mind and find GG a good communicator, entertaining and informative and with his phone-in shows, demonstrated he is the last breed of soap-box orator in the sense of putting down hecklers and opposition.
With social production and consumption, it is not just the immediate producers who are involved in the supply chain. Won't they all have their own input on what they wish to be associated with. Taking your example of alcohol, i don't think society will be prohibitionist and try to shut down the moon-shiners and their stills, or close the microbreweries that have sprung up everywhere. But will transport logistic workers want to divert their resources to distributing it widely or glass-workers to making the bottles. They can use re-cycled bottles as part of the ecologically minded world. I think for many products there will become cottage industries once more, full of local variety and diversity. I foresee the end of MacDonalds and KFC but not the end of local cafes and take-outs, or special restaurants with their own cuisines..People like showing off their cooking skills. Will the tobacco industry exist and be supported by society despite its social costs? i don't think so, but you can home-grow your own tobacco plants, as many now do for cannabis, and i'm sure there will be some online website like e-bay to exchange different cheroots.Will workers still toil under extreme conditions to pick tea-leaves? Again, it may well transform into local rather than global. After all we are going to be freed from the imposition of long hours of employment and commute journey with a socialist revolution of work where we have increased free time to turn to such hobbies…much like today's people crave their allotments and gardens and DIY…They will share their pleasure…very few strive to keep the good things in life private, they want to show off their expertise and imagination and innovation. If i create a good home-brew ale, i am sure their will be plenty of opportunities to let others enjoy it and another person's enjoyment is appreciation and respect is enough to continue.
Meel, there is a great ignorance of pre-colonial Africa. Many well organised societies existed. Our African themed blog Socialist Banner has occasionally drawn attention to them.
Quote:The Mali Empire was a great African medieval kingdom that lasted over 400 years with its own schools of Mathematics,Astronomy and Philosophy. Sub-Sahara African empires had written languages just like any other. The Mali Empire was known for its high quality manuscripts, and the city of Timbuktu was a major learning center. Even as south as the Kongo and its Kingdom that rose had establish relations with Europe. Not to mention the Christian Ethiopia.http://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2014/02/african-history-2.htmlIt is often over-looked that the British simply used the existing administrative structures to impose and maintain their power. As always Wiki presents a good over-view of various empires in Africa and their accomplishmentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empireshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:States_of_precolonial_Africa
Vin, you may find his views distasteful and be offended, but there is still the legal right to express such opinions. A recent court decion upholds an individual to similar opinions. “The courts need to be very careful not to criticise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive…"I think we would all defend that principle, otherwise it could be so easily turned against ourselves. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/atheist-banned-criticising-islamic-faith?page=2
I hope you are still visiting the forum, John, because i thought you might like to know of this announcementSpecies and Class seeks to be a group blog that explores the animal-human relationship from socialist or anarchist perspectives, and we're looking for writers. You can write pretty much about anything, so long as it has a class angle and a species angle. If you need them, here are a few topic ideas:http://speciesandclass.com/2014/07/24/topic-lists-combined-updated/If you are interested in writing for us, please get in touch:http://speciesandclass.com/contribute/
"All sounds boringly familiar."Gnome, more likely it is Hrothgar under a new assumed name from this old threadhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/government-launches-immigrants-go-home-campaignThey both appear to be reading from the same script and possess the same high opinion of themselves.
Fourteen kings of England weren't even born here, and some didn't even speak English! Facts are the enemy of the anti-immigration brigade, because they usually prove them wrong. The simple fact is that everything which is blamed on immigration is actually the fault of the economic system. Low wages, increased job insecurity, out-sourcing etc. Not to forget the decline of the unions, the hire and fire attitude and zero hour contracts… “It’s all because of immigrants,I tell you…” Don't blame the poor who strive for a better life elsewhere. We're all human, after all, who would not want a better life for themselves and families? A large group of immigrants are Eastern European, and are a cultural threat say many because shockingly, they like beer, football, sausages, decent bread… Completely and utterly unlike the natives! Values are neither static nor pure. They are never the same for everyone in a society and they change. Modern nationalists talk of the threat to "cultural identity". Today the rise of modern communications technology, social networks and internet and so on makes communicating with people across national borders and cultural boundaries easier and more "natural" than ever.The SPGB are not in the business of patting our fellow workers on the back for their attitudes. After all we were pilloried for opposing capitalist wars and we are a miniscule minority opposing capitalism. Yes, the majority of fellow workers in the UK hold differing views from us, but our task is to change these mistaken opinions. 77 percent of Britons want reductions in the number of new arrivals to their country. Eight out of 10 Britons now believe that immigration rates should be limited, with almost six in 10 supporting significant reductions in the number of foreigners allowed in. One in three Britons now support the view that immigration stimulates Britain culturally, as opposed to 45 percent who believe it is outright dangerous. 56 percent favor reducing the number of new arrivals “a lot” – a record figure. In 1995, when the question was first posed to Britons, just 39 percent supported major reductions, while two years ago only 51 percent held the view. 54 percent of individuals who view immigration as a positive factor for the economy still want to see immigration reductions, including one full quarter who would favor “severe reductions.” Among those who believe immigration is culturally beneficial to the nation, 55 percent still support greater limitations. We even witness the phenomenon of older waves of immigrants attacking newer waves of immigrants for under-cutting their labour. It is easy to find first or second generation immigrants to say they support a government policy of lowering the number of immigrants who can come into the country and cracking down on illegal immigration.The argument that “They steal our jobs!” signifies a staunch nationalist attitude, and has nothing to do with the truth: Jobs do not belong to those who talk this way. And illegal immigrants can’t take away anything they don’t possess. The decision on what jobs exist is made by a completely different authority: a business which must be willing to make money off those who offer their ability to work for sale. Whether a person has a job or not is the result of one condition: they must find a businessman or woman who lets them work for him or her – which they only do if their work increases the private wealth of the owners of that business. Only profitable work matters; it is not a matter of just doing the work that is needed to provide for oneself and one’s family, but working for the wealth of others. If immigrants did not get these jobs because they were sent back to where they came from, these jobs would either be eliminated or offered under the same conditions as they were before, at wages close to or under the minimum wage – because only then are they profitable. This principle applies equally to the xenophobic indigenous worker as much as the immigrants they are so hostile towards. All workers, native or immigrant, are subordinated to profit making.The impact of immigration on Britain’s tax and welfare system is perhaps the most important economic issue in the debate over the country’s relationship with the EU and its principle of free movement. There are claims that immigrants from Europe take advantage of the UK’s benefit and health system. Research published by the Royal Economic Society based on the UK Labour Force Survey and a multitude of government sources, calculated the overall fiscal contribution of native Britons and immigrants. The findings showed that European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services. Immigrants to the UK who arrived since 2000, and for whom we observe their entire migration history, have made consistently positive fiscal contributions regardless of their area of origin. Between 2001 and 2011 recent immigrants from the Eastern Europe countries contributed to the fiscal system about 12% more than they took out, with a net fiscal contribution of about £5 billion. At the same time the overall fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totaled £15 billion, with fiscal payments about 64% higher than the value of public services they used. Immigrants from outside the EU countries made a net fiscal contribution of about £5.2 billion, thus paying into the system about 3% more than they took out. The fiscal balance of overall immigration to the UK between 2001 and 2011 amounts therefore to a positive net contribution of about £25 billion.Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a study by University College London said. Recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain. The authors said rather than being a "drain", their contribution had been "remarkably strong". "Our study also suggests that over the last decade or so, the UK has benefited fiscally from immigrants from EEA countries, who have put in considerably more in taxes and contributions than they received in benefits and transfers. Given this evidence, claims about "benefit tourism" by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality." Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011, according to the report by Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini from UCL's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.Research published in 2009 by the Institute for Public Policy Research.” found no evidence that migration from Eastern Europe since 2004 had had any substantial negative impact on either jobs or wage levels. Little has changed six years later. In its 2015 General Election briefing, the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) observed “There is still no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on jobs” and “wages” and that “any negative impacts on wages of less skilled groups are small.”Answering the question of whether immigration negatively effects jobs or wages, Jonathan Portes, the Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, notes “The short answer seems to be: not much.” Portes continues: “It’s fairly obvious that wages are generally higher and jobs easier to come by in areas of high immigration like London, while many low migration areas have relatively depressed labour markets.”How could this be? Portes explains: “People who say this… usually don’t actually know or understand basic economics. More immigrant workers do increase the supply of labour. But, because immigrants earn money, spend money, set up businesses and so on, they also increase the demand for labour. And it’s true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can’t take that job – but it doesn’t meant he or she won’t find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration.”A recent study by the Migration Policy Centre, using figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, shows that foreigners are net contributors (they add more to the state than they spend), across almost the whole of Europe. A 2011 study from the Institute for the Study of Labour in Bonn found no correlation between levels of unemployment benefit and immigration to different countries in the European Union, with the authors explicitly rejecting the concept of a "welfare magnet". Research in 2009 published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that more than 60% of migrants who had come to Britain in the past five years were living in privately rented accommodation, with most newly arrived migrants and asylum seekers actually banned from access to social housing. In 2015 the Centre for Economic Performance at LSE noted “There is still no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration” on social housing.The overwhelming majority of migrants living in Britain do not need to learn English, they already speak it. As the most recent 2011 census showed only 138,000 (1.84%) of the 7.5 million non-UK born population in England and Wales cannot speak any English. It is true that the main language spoken by 4 million people living in Britain is not English or Welsh but Polish, Punjabi or Urdu in that order. But 1.7 million can speak English very well, a further 1.6 million can speak it well and 726,000 can get by in conversation but have difficulties with written English. It has long been recognised that the 138,000 who cannot speak English at all are likely to be among an older generation of Asian women who never learned English and so never worked outside the home or their community. “Despite the pressures of a growing population and a very large number of children for whom English is not the first language, London schools significantly outperform the rest of the country, especially for more disadvantaged children. And recent research suggests that the presence of children from Eastern Europe actually improved the educational attainment of kids here already.”In America the Immigration Policy Center drawing from federal data and various empirical studies reported "While lawmakers repeatedly justify their crackdown on immigrants as a means of fighting crime, the reality is that crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status." The report concludes. "This is hardly surprising since immigrants come to the United States to pursue economic and educational opportunities not available in their home countries and to build better lives for themselves and their families. As a result, they have little to gain and much to lose by breaking the law." The analysis found this has held up for decades. In 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010, native-born Americans ages 18 to 39 were two to five times more likely to be in jail or prison than immigrants of the same age.We are all descendants of migrants. We are all mixed.
Follow up articlehttp://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34440-cartoonist-kate-evans-on-drawing-the-indomitable-rosa-luxemburg
I’m no longer going to treat you with kid-gloves. You are a despite all your well-rehearsed counter-claims a white supremacist and when someone uses the word racialist, it means racist. We have encountered the likes of you before on the forum…people advancing ideas of scientific racism. Anarchists have the same sort, the national anarchists, all wanting to set up their ethno-communities. If you are a socialist –then you are a national socialist of the Strasserite persuasion or a national Bolshevik. No point in trying to apply reason to you. You have all the answers because you decide what the questions that count are. You talk about European culture. Do you go to the opera, have you gone to the ballet, do you attended the theatre? When was your last visit to an art gallery, or a museum? What was the last classical music concert? What was the last modern novel you read by a British writer, or an European writer? Have you picked up a book of poetry in your life? You talk of European culture, what other languages are you fluent in? I challenged you on your supposed solidarity for fellow workers in other countries. Silence. No advocacy of any such acts of solidarity unless if I’m not mistaken voicing support for Pegida. You are not with the socialists, but your sympathies are with the EDL. I called you a bully and I stand by that…and go further…I think I can safely psycho-analyse you as a Me person…the world revolves around Ike Pettigrew…ME…ME …ME…If something doesn’t benefit or give Ike a personal advantage then he has no interest. Even women should serve your needs, their lord and protector. Facts are conveniently forgotten, history ignored. Your homogenous British society was built by force and blood. The Scottish Border clans were deported to Ireland, the Highland clans deported to the colonies. And even in England regional diversity was destroyed by the sword and the State. I’m no supporter of the validity of IQ tests but how do you treat this information.The average white male youth is two points below the UK average in Cognitive Assessment Tests (CAT) Nigerians were 21 points above, Ghanaians 5.5 above and the Chinese 38, Indians almost 30 points. The worst performing was Portuguese at 45 below the UK mean. When it comes to GSCE exam results Luganda- and Krio-speaking Nigerians did better than the Chinese students in 2011. Whites all lagged behind. The Igbo-speakers were even more impressive given their much bigger numbers and their consistently high performance over the years, gaining a 100 percent pass rate in 2009. In 2010, the best student in the whole country was a Nigerian girl who scored 15 As, which was higher than any Chinese, Indian or white student, and higher than any student from prestigious elite schools like Eton. Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, suggests that the internationally recognized quality of London’s education are not due to any government policy but simply a result of three high achieving groups moving to London in recent years: Chinese, Indians, and Black Africans. The racist hereditarians like you have to explain how West Africans kids possess better IQ than average black American child who have more “white” mixed in their genes. I leave the others to try and reason with you, but I no longer will. We won’t change your views in a debate or discussion and the only way you will change or even doubt your over-valued opinion of yourself is if you have a Damascene conversion, an epiphany.
