ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’d get proper medical advice. I think I read somewhere that people with diabetes are more vulnerable if they catch the virus.
What do you mean by “held fully accountable”? I though they were by being voted out of office. Or are you wanting a mass treason trial?
A French minister has been forced to retract after making the faux pas of using the term “privilèlge blanc”.
A comment (in the bit behind the pay wall) from Jean-Luc Mélechon, “leader of the radical left Unbowed France party” (who got 20 percent of the votes cast in the last presidential elections):
“The three or four people who believe in the existence of white privilege have never seen a poor white”.
Touché.
They don’t put up with that nonsense over there.
I want to ask you, ALB, if, knowing that this is capitalism, where profit directs everything, had you absolutely no trepidation in being vaccinated at all, in case of any reactions? Do you have an informed or a blind faith in the medical establishment today?
Sorry for the late reply, TM, but I got the answer to 18 minus 13 wrong and got denied access for 24 hours.
I have no faith whatsoever in so-called “complementary” or “alternative” “medicine”. So, all that is left is the evidence-based medicine that has proved it works despite being applied under capitalist conditions but that applies to lots of things we have to use today under capitalism. It is best of course to be careful about all these things and weigh up the available evidence.
When offered the jab I jumped at it, partly because if you refused you’d be unlikely to get a second chance.
As I don’t like needles being stuck in me, the only trepidation I felt was about this. But it didn’t hurt.
But don’t you think the ballot box demands a majority of the populace to gain said class consciousness?
We are now getting to the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is Yes. But this is because the existence of a socialist-minded majority is one of the preconditions of socialism. How could a non-coercive, non-state society involving a high degree of voluntary cooperation work unless most people wanted and understood it? People cannot be led or forced into socialism.
It is precisely because we think there must be a majority in favour of socialism that we think using the ballot box makes sense. Without it, neither a minority-led insurrection nor a minority-led general strike could or would lead to socialism (your article has eloquently described where a minority-led seizure of power has led historically — a form of state capitalism as in the old USSR). With it, a general strike would be unnecessary (except perhaps as a back up). If there is a majority for socialism, why not take the easiest way of the ballot box as the way for the organised majority to express this and win control of political power (needed, if only to stop it being used against them)?
Not all syndicalists take the view that obtaining a socialist majority under capitalism is impossible. But in its heyday, before WWI, its main advocates did and held that the “masses” needed to be led or pushed by an “active minority”. It us true that many of these were anarchists who had infiltrated and taken over the trade Union movement. It also explains why after WWI so many went over to Bolshevism and Leninism and not a few even to fascism as doctrines which attributed a key role to an active minority as a “vanguard” or “spearhead” (to use their terminology). A position we have always rejected and opposed.
No, we don’t say that the revolution should take place solely at the ballot box.
The ballot box is one means — the easiest in our view, once a majority want the revolutionary change to a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life — to gain control of political power that is currently used to uphold capitalism and which can be used to coordinate the social revolution. It should certainly not be ignored and not utilised.
The changeover to socialism will also need to involve action in workplaces and organisation on that field, but not to stop production by going on strike but to keep it going by taking them over. In any event, capitalism cannot be overthrown solely by a general strike.
Having said this, in the fairly unlikely event of those in power refusing to accept electoral defeat then a general strike would be one way to protest against this and confirm majority support for the changeover to socialism.
Glad you added a link. I was searching everywhere on the internet for your article !
What has been called “syndicalism”, which as you point out goes back to before Marx (and Bakunin), is in its simplest form is a spontaneous expression of workers to capitalist exploitation, the spontaneous class struggle. Nothing wrong with that but is this enough on its own to usher in a non-market, non-state society?
I don’t think a spontaneous general strike by discontented workers would lead to that. A higher degree of class consciousness is required and by a majority not just an active minority.
Here is a review from 1913 of a book by two French syndicalists suggesting how a general strike might overthrow capitalism. They were not very convincing!
“Just to say, i’m in the camp that socialism will be brought about by a substantial minority taking into account that not everybody will engage in the political process”
A misprint surely? Otherwise you could well be in a minority of one in the Socialist Party. Unless you mean that those who actually join the future mass socialist party will probably only be a minority of the working class. But a majority of workers will still need to understand and want socialism for it to be established.
But this is not the thread to discuss this. I was only making a passing reference to this in a not entirely serious way.
In any event, it will require more than a “substantial minority” to be immune before the “herd immunity” can be achieved.
Sounds a bit like what we need to get socialism. We don’t need everyone but just a substantial majority. Don’t know what we do about the recalcitrant minority though. We know what we’d have to do if they take up arms but what if too many refuse to offer their arms?
Thanks. That seems clear. So, if there is 70 percent efficacy that means there will be a reduction by that amount among those vaccinated. The trouble is, from an inoculated individual’s point of view, that you can’t know whether you are going to be in that 70 percent who won’t get it. A lottery, as you say, but presumably the chances of not getting it are more than if you don’t get vaccinated at all.
Is there a statisticians in the house? What does it mean to say that a vaccine is 50 (or whatever) percent effective? Does it mean that it “works in only 50% of cases”?
Does it means that 50 of those who have the vaccine jab will get the virus? Or that anyone who has the jab is only 50% protected (ie has a 50/50 chance of getting it)? Or are these the same?
According to this,
“When we talk ‘vaccine effectiveness,’ what we’re talking about is, ‘How effective was the vaccine at preventing actual disease?’ ” explains scientist L.J. Tan, chief strategist of the nonprofit Immunization Action Coalition.
In other words, Tan says, “If you vaccinate 100 people, 50 people will not get disease.””
But does that mean that 50 of those vaccinated will get the disease or just that they could get it? And how do you know which group of 50 you fall into?
Still, it seems that you increase your chances of not getting it even if the effectiveness is 50% (or less, for that matter).
But, as I said, is there a statistician in the house?
I had the Pfizer jab on Wednesday and I am still alive.
Before the Covidiots and the anti-vaxxers jump to their prejudged conclusion wait for the facts to emerge:
Useful reminder that everybody not living Oop North is well off living in leafy suburbs surrounded by golf courses. There’s deprivation in the South too. In fact everywhere. This article suggests that this is why the new variant started there:
That disproves the theory (held among others by currency cranks) that loans are supply-led, by banks creating them. In fact, it’s the other way round. The level of bank lending depends on the demand for loans, obviously viable demand (ie that will be repaid with interest) and this depends on the prospect of the borrowers making enough profit to repay the loan with interest. Apparently at present there is not enough demand for viable loans for banks to meet. As that link says:
“Perhaps banks have learned their lessons from the last crisis too well. After being bailed out with public money and taxed with tough oversight, they have little reason to lend to borrowers who might not repay. Meanwhile, many business owners don’t actually want to borrow on terms banks are prepared to offer. The Federal Reserve found that even before Covid-19, less than half of small businesses had used a bank to raise money in the past five years. Of those who applied for financing, around half got what they asked for.”
The central bank can make as much money available as they like to commercial banks in a bid to increase lending and so economic activity but, as the old saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. The banks won’t drink because there are not enough viable borrowers and there are not enough viable borrowers because there are not enough prospects for profit-making. Result: banks use the extra money to speculate on the stock market driving up prices there.
