ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The papers are reporting today on anti-climate demonstrators with a banner (and presumably sloganizing) “No Borders, No Nations. No Gas Power Stations”. Clearly this can’t be Extinction Rebellion as they merely want national governments remove to adopt more drastic anti-emission measures.
It seems to be a new group Reclaim the Power which sounds like the old Reclaim the Streets rebranded. They do at least bring capitalism in to it:
“We Need to Talk about Capitalism. Climate change and environmental collapse are the products of an economic system based on infinite growth on a planet of finite resources, on colonial plundering and on the many inequalities of a class based system. The fight for climate justice cannot be removed from this social and economic context.”
True, except that in practice they do. And they overlook the fact that direct action by Reclaim the Streets didn’t succeed in stopping a single motorway or by-pass. I wonder what happened to Swampy.
Here is the Conference Report on the rescindment in 1994 of that 1974 resolution. Notice who moved it.
Islington and Lancaster branches moved:
“That the 1974 Conference resolution ‘that membership of Women’s Liberation organisations is incompatible with membership of the Party’ be rescinded.”
R. Headicar (Islington): The issue was not about whether women members should or should not join “women’s liberation” (whatever that was) but why should one section of the membership (women) be the subject of a specific proscription over and above the Rulebook? This was discriminatory and should go.
N. Snell (Lancaster): Socialists had always said that marriage was a property relationship in which the woman was subordinated to the man. In the words of the 50 Years Ago column in the January Socialist Standard we wanted to end this “economic bondage”. This was part of what we aimed at, so we wanted women’s liberation. If anybody wasn’t for this then they weren’t a socialist.
R. Cook (Birmingham): Socialists had indeed always used the phrase, in relation to married women, that they were “slaves of a slave”.
S. Coleman (EC member): Members don’t – and shouldn’t – have to ask permission to join neighbourhood associations, tenants’ associations – or women’s groups. We shouldn’t have a list of proscribed organizations, but should trust members to behave as Socialists.
G. Woods (Central): Women’s Lib divided the workers, while Socialists wanted to unite them. Equal pay didn’t end exploitation and sometimes resulted in male workers being sacked.
V. Vanni (Glasgow): Some Glasgow members were against the blanket nature of the 1974 resolution but had worries about rescinding it without putting something in its place, specifying which types of women’s organizations were permissible and which weren’t.
C. McEwan (Glasgow): Clause 1 of our Declaration of Principles says there’s only one property relationship in society, so if women were the property of men then we would need to amend this Clause. He was against feminist propaganda that claimed that all women were good and all men were bad.
B. Montague (EC member): Clearly class exploitation and oppression were primary, but this didn’t mean that there weren’t other secondary ones too. Why were some members afraid of discussing the relationship between the sexes?
A. Atkinson (Central): The Lancaster circular was wrong to describe the man-woman relationship in marriage as one of employer-to-employee and so liken women’s organizations to trades unions. They couldn’t be equated with unions but were reformist.
T. Lawlor (SW London): The Party was becoming polarized into those who stood by Marx’s economic analysis and those who were interested in these other issues. The latter were becoming a faction that seemed to have to be accommodated at all costs. Why weren’t women members interested in economics instead of feminism?
K. Mohideen (Islington): If she had known about this resolution at the time she would probably never have joined. There was nothing wrong with Marxian economics but to concentrate only on this was to fail to take into account the women’s movement and its contribution to social change.
P. Lawrence (SW London): One reason for rescinding this resolution was that it was unenforceable – who in the Party would vote for the expulsion of a women member who associated with a women’s refuge group? Nobody. That’s why the resolution had long been a dead letter.
H. Vallar (Chair) said that there was no time to read a letter from M. Judd (SE London) opposing rescindment
N. Snell (Lancaster), winding up, agreed that it was a bit misleading to have referred in the Branch’s circular to the man-woman relationship in marriage as an employer-employee one, but this didn’t alter the substance of the argument: that the Party recognized that women were oppressed in ways that men weren’t and that we were for ending this, i.e. for women’s liberation.
The Resolution (Vote 7) was carried 80-43.
I don’t think “Socialism or Extinction” is a good slogan, because the human race is not really threatened with actual extinction. I’m not too sure about “Socialism or Barbarism” either. It’s more like “Socialism or Hopelessness for Ever” as that’s all capitalism has to offer and can deliver. Besides, you can’t scare people into wanting social change. That is more likely to get them to favour a strong government to deal with the perceived threat. What about the old “Socialism is the Hope of Humanity”? It used to be before Russia with its state capitalism spoiled things by making the word “socialism” toxic for many people.
People might get the impression that you are saying socialists endorse it when at the time nobody else who called themselves a socialist did. He put “a” case against feminism but not “the” case. It reflected his personal prejudice and had more in common with the “anti-feminism” of Jordan Peterson and the “new Right” than with the socialist position.
Yes, I remember comrade Gordillo in Spain saying that under Franco their Capital study group had to be disguised as a Protestant bible study class (itself a bit dodgy in Catholic Spain).
If it’s the first three chapters where Marx explains the labour theory of value that you find tedious (and parts are difficult), read this guide on this site to his 1865 talk to English trade unionists later published as the pamphlet Value, Price and Profit where he explains this is more simple terms. Then return to chapter fIV rom when on Capital is more descriptive and historical as well as theoretical.
Good shortened versions are:
The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx by Karl Kautsky (which sticks closely to the arrangement of Capital.
Economics for Beginners by John Keracher.
Marx’s Capital by Ben Fine, a more modern one, reviewed here.
The first five paragraphs of this article by of all people Tony Cliff set out rather well the different approaches to women’s liberation of Marxism and of Feminism:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1984/women/00-intro.htm
There’s some interesting stuff in the rest, e.g. about there not being a common category in history of “women” (women have always been divided into classes, and still are) but of course, as a Trotskyist, he goes off the rails about the supposed need for a vanguard party, the Russian revolution and the so-called middle class. But, as I said, the first five paragraphs are good.
Just realised that when I wrote that the rate of inflation could be maintained “even if unemployment rose above the NAIRU” I meant to write “even if it falls below the NAIRU”, i.e even if unemployment fell. Actually, it could still be maintained if it rose above it as well, as the basic point I was trying to make was that the there was no necessary link between the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment.
Forgot to add that next month’s (i.e. August) Socialist Standard also has an article on “People Power in Hong Kong”.
I couldn’t access that New York Times article as you have to sign up. So I looked up what the Guardian reported.
There does seem to be a parallel with events in Hong Kong in that, as with China and Hong Kong, Puerto Rico is a US territory (tempted to say colony) with its own administration also struck by “people’s power” demonstrations. But there has not been much coverage in the British media (not been mentioned on TV or the radio) compared with that for Hong Kong. Partly no doubt because Hong Kong used to be a British colony but the fact that China is seen as a rival while the US is an ally will also be a factor.
I think we can agree with Marquito that there could be some parts of the world where the ruling class might attempt to resist the majority will to abolish capitalist rule even if ultimately this will be futile. But, as we have always said echoing the slogan on the Chartists in the UK, “peaceably if we may, forcibly if we must”, though mass demonstrations like in Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, combined with strikes, might do the trick better than an armed uprising.
In this context I see that in Puerto Rico (though not in Hong Kong) even some of the police supported the anti-government demonstrations. There’s is an article on police revolts in this month’s Socialist Standard, the paper edition of which is already out but won’t be online till next Thursday.
Makes you wonder what would have happened to the Jews if an “anarchist” insurrection led by his secret society had succeeded.
The first part of the claim is true (established by reputable research) — Marx is distantly related to the Rothschilds — but of marginal interest and of no political significance. It has already been known that Marx was a first cousin of Frederick Philips who set up the Philips electrical (later electronics) firm. Good material for pub quizzes.
The second part is fake history concocted by antisemites and not worth the paper it was first printed on. We haven’t the time to refute every example of fake history or every conspiracy theory, but don’t even need to in a case like this one.
Quite part from the difficulty of calculating this so-called “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” it is based on the false assumption that it is wage increases that cause inflation (as a rise in the general price level) whereas we know that the main reason for a rise in the general price level is governments’ currency/monetary policy.
At present the aim of government policy is to maintain a rate of inflation of around 2 percent. This is compatible with various different rates of unemployment. If applied strictly enough, it could be maintained even if unemployment rose above the NAIRU, or “natural” rate of unemployment as some economists have chosen to call it. From a Marxist point of view, it is capitalism’s nature to require a pool of unemployed as a “reserve army of labour” to be mobilised in times of boom, but there is no particular rate of this.
What the endorsement of this theory as a policy aim does show, however, is the hypocrisy of governments in imposing draconian conditions for the granting of as little unemployment pay as possible on the grounds that everybody could get a job if they wanted, whereas they know perfectly well that everybody can’t and that its their declared policy aim that they shouldn’t.
According to the papers, Boris Johnson’s great-great-grandfather was Haci Ahmet Riza born in Central Turkey in 1813. This means that in all probability he will have 3rd cousins living in Turkey. So what? Just as irrelevant as Marx being the 3rd cousin of the founder of the UK Rothschild dynasty.
A no deal Brexit will certainly impose completely unnecessary hardship on ordinary people, brought about purely because the political representatives of the capitalist class can’t agree on the trading arrangements of UK PLC. Or even as a deliberate policy by the government. Even if this hardship proves to be temporary and things eventually settle down it will be a case of capitalism imposing unnecessary hardship.
Of course it is by no means settled that this will happen. The new prime minister may be the leader of the Leave campaign but he hasn’t got a majority in parliament or probably the country nor even a mandate from the 2016 referendum for no deal. So it might not happen.
Something similar to May’s deal (which only dealt with technicalities anyway, not the substance of a future UK – Europe trade deal) still seems the more likely outcome. It might be under yet another prime minister and/or after a referendum or general election. We shall see.
