ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
On the face of it this is against the new UK-EU trade agreement, which provides for a level playing field. But there is a let-out clause — it must be demonstrated that any change gives the UK a competitive advantage. Since most of those affected will be low paid workers on two-day or zero hour contracts (who will have their already meagre holiday pay cut) they won’t be working in industries that export to the EU. The EU is therefore unlikely to invoke the clause that allows them to retaliate by imposing tariffs.
In any event, it shows that the Tories are still openly the party of the rich. But it’s a measure which, if implemented, could cost them votes in the ex-Red Wall seats. So maybe it won’t be.
This isn’t pure UBI of course and Yang himself at least in this quote calls it only “basic income”.
It’s not universal as it won’t be paid to everyone living in New York and it’s not unconditional in that you have to be poor to get it and presumably will have to be means-tested to prove this. It is possible that once you meet this condition there will be no other conditions such as seeking a job or being sick. No doubt it will replace some existing benefits.
So Yang is clearly on the tweak the poor law wing of the “U”BI movement. It’s not clear that he is on to a vote-winner here as many workers with a job resent money being given to those who are not working.
Relevant comment in Granthan’s prediction by Simon Nixon in today’s Times (of London). He says that there is no doubt that there is a bubble (pointing the soaring price of Bitcoin among other things but
“the big question is whether it is possible for the current bubble to burst without triggering a crisis. Jeremy Grantham, the founder of GMO asset management and one of the most respected Wall Street watchers, earlier this month likened the current situation to the South Sea Bubble or the global financial crisis of 2008. But not all market corrections result in crises; neither the stock market burst of 1987 nor 1994 led to a deep recession.”
A point to bear in mind.
Another conspiracy theory circulating is that the Democratic Party, representing the old gang establishment, let it happen so that they could discredit Trump and get rid of him for good.
In any event, that woman Pelosi’s publicising the fact that she had contacted the chiefs of staff to ask them to stop Trump pressing the nuclear trigger was pure theatre. Trump is not that mad (his main concern is himself). Also, as an Isolationist (another reason why the establishment hated him) he was in principle against involvement in further military adventures. It is much more likely that Biden would press that button or start a war as his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is said to be in favour of military intervention on so-called “humanitarian” grounds (as the bombing of Serbia under Milosevic in 1999).
