ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Went to leaflet this. Their aim seems to be to build up a mass movement to bring pressure on governments to bring about “climate justice” by doing something to stop climate change.
Some agreed with our leaflet’s title — End Capitalism. One person was against the idea being raised as it might put off people who were for “climate justice” but not necessarily against capitalism. I guess this will be the view of the organisers too. But of course this begs the question by assuming that governments could do something lasting and effective about the threat of global over-warming.
Surprisingly radical leaflet from War on Want which said:
“People say our economic and social system is broken, but it isn’t. The system is rigged. It generates increasing wealth for the already rich and powerful at the expense of the majority of the people on this Earth.”
“Billionaires, corporations and oligarchs measure success by their bank balance, or by share prices, and by holidays in space. Where we see climate breakdown, poverty and injustice — they see nothing but profit.”
“It is the relentless pursuit of profit for the few which is causing the misery of the many, and pushing the planet to the point of no return.”
But then they fall at the last hurdle:
“Stand with us now, and demand a Global Green Deal for People and Planet.”
They are a registered charity. I wonder if at sone point they won’t get done by the Charity Commission for being political. But if they can away with this sort of language as a charity, good luck to them.
Let’s hope so but the Ukrainian nationalists are not likely to agree as long as NATO is arming them. Which means in practice when the US judges that Russia has been sufficiently weakened.
Actually I agree with you that Greta is alright. I wasn’t meaning to criticise her for not using the words “capitalism” and “socialism”, just noting that she hadn’t.
I can see why she would avoid the word “socialism” (and probably always will) because of the baggage that unfortunately has come to go with it. That’s why Peter Joseph explicitly avoids the word, though he doesn’t hold back on using “capitalism”. I wouldn’t be surprised if she uses it in private because that’s obviously what she means and maybe will in public at some point.
I agree that she has come a long way in coming to the conclusion that what is needed is a mass movement for change if there is going to be any change. At the moment she seems to envisage this mass movement as being to pressurise governments into doing something. But, as we know, they can’t because of the nature of capitalism as involving a competitive struggle for profits between corporations and between states and the consequent pressure to be “competitive” in terms of reducing the cost of production per unit of what they are trying to sell.
The Adam Smith Institute claims that she said this (two years ago):
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/greta-thunberg-is-of-course-entirely-correct?format=amp
I can’t find that she said that either. It seems to be what someone else said that she re-tweeted.
But according to this she did say, after being accused of saying “end capitalism”, that all the various isms had failed including socialism:
https://menafn.com/1105125007/Greta-Thunberg-demands-that-capitalism-end
I can see that she would not want to be associated with what “socialism” has come to mean (what we would call “state capitalism” and/or leftwing reformism). All the same, she is still rather vague as to what she thinks the present system should be replaced by.
This is what the population of Kherson can expect when the Ukrainian state takes over and the Ukrainian secret police get to work:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/11/ukraine-sbu-traitors-russia-kharkiv/
We don’t of course know what’s behind the Russian state’s announcement that it is to withdraw its troops from Kherson which it regards as part of its territory. But a shrewd move would be to declare Kherson an “open city”. That might be the only way to protect any pro-Russians left there from the revenge of the Ukrainian state and its secret police. It would also reduce the number of soldiers and civilians killed on both sides.
But I doubt if it will happen.
I think we discussed open cities here before:
For instance (from bbc website):
Has anyone managed to get big pay rises?
A number of disputes have been resolved this year, with some workers being awarded pay rises of 10% or more.
Criminal barristers in England and Wales accepted a 15% pay rise in October, after a strike which began in June.
Refuse workers in Eastbourne, negotiated a deal worth over 11% in January after going on strike.
Train drivers in Scotland agreed a 5% pay deal in June.
2000 bus drivers in North London won an 11% pay deal after threatening a strike.
480 bus drivers in Kent won a pay deal worth nearly 14% after six days of strike action.
In July BA staff at Heathrow accepted a pay deal worth 13% after threatening to strike.That’s more like it but one-day demonstration strikes won’t bring anything. Only proper strikes or a credible threat of a one will. And even that is not guaranteed. But the balance of force between employers and workers needs to be tested.
Yes, the only use for TrueStalinist on this forum is as a source of Russian government propaganda. Since RT and Sputnik are banned we can’t access this directly. We just get NATO and Ukrainian propaganda (as spread by newspapers like the Guardian). Of course we are not taken in by either side, but it is still useful to know what their propaganda is saying.
There seems to be some ambiguity about what the aim of the 1 December action called a “strike” is. Originally, I think, it was to get energy bills capped at the level they were in April this year. Now it seems to be that it is that they should continue to be capped at their current, higher level after April next year.
In one sense it doesn’t matter, as what the organisers are trying to do is keep popular discontent on the boil and use it to get some mass reform movement off the ground. To do this they obviously feel the need to put some concrete aim before those they are trying to involve. What this aim is doesn’t really matter as long as it is something — it can be, and actually seems to be, a moving target.
This of course is one of the tactics of reformism — billed as “the only game in town”.
The Socialist attitude would be for people to express their discontent by organising for socialism. That is the most effective mass movement to get off the ground. If it did, the government would fall over itself offer concessions in a bid to buy off the movement for socialism. As we have always argued, if reforms (concessions, palliatives) are what you want the best way to get some would be a mass movement for socialism.
But that is not part of the reformist playbook.
Are they really going to go ahead with their “strike” (not paying their energy bills) from 1 December despite not having the million commitments they wanted? I suppose they had to call their own bluff.
It’s a bit Napoleonic though: “on s’engage et puis on voit”, ie you commit yourself and then see what happens.
They could find themselves out in front with no troops behind them.
Conspiracy to cause a public nuisance seems pretty wide-ranging if they want it to be (not that magistrates and juries will always let them get away with it).
“What is conspiracy to commit public nuisance?
Public nuisance is a common law offence in which a person carries out an act which has the effect of endangering life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public enjoying its rights. It is both a criminal offence and a civil wrong.
It typically consists either of an environmental nuisance, such as carrying on works producing excessive noise or smells, or of offensive or dangerous behaviour in public, such as noisy parties and hanging from bridges.
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons agree to carry out a criminal act.
Source: gov.uk / CPS”I see they have arrested Hallam on a charge of conspiracy and are holding him in custody pending the trial. It’s probably what he wanted (and a lot of other people too but not for the same reason) as part of his strategy of building up the number of his activist followers. He has claimed that he only needs 2 to 3 percent of activists practising civil disobedience and he can change the world.
He obviously did “conspire” to disrupt the M25 motorway but they will have difficulty proving it. And so they should as “conspiracy” never used to be a crime and can catch all sorts of people just for meeting to discuss some activity that breaks the law.
If he does get 5 years (as he could) he will have time to reflect on his absurd prediction that if global warming is not stopped 7 billion of the world’s population of 8 billion will die — which was the justification for the name “Extinction Rebellion” and for the extreme action its offshoots are taking. Not sure what’s happened to the original XR.
What a shower of shits they are ! There’s practically no difference between them and the Tories, as can be seen by the fact that the only criticisms they have of the Tories are the behaviour of ministers blown up out of all proportion.
According to this, the Starmer clique who control the party have been selecting candidates in their own image:
Starmer’s quiet purge of his would-be MPs
byu/kontiki20 inLabourUKAnd still the trade union leaders want a Labour government and are mobilising their members to vote Labour. They have no dignity or self-respect.
