ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan wrote:
Is Fully Automated Luxury Communism the way to go?
No. For a start, there doesn’t have to be “full automation” before communism/socialism can be established (otherwise it would be years away). Second, that everybody should live in “luxury” isn’t necessary either, bearing in mind the dictionary definitions of the word. “Abundance” or “plenty” is ok, but “luxury” is overdoing it. And the “hair-shirt” brigade you’ve been cultivating over climate change would be put off. 🙂
On the other hand, “Sufficiently Automated Abundance Communism” isn’t all that snappy.
What about “World of abundance”?
Actually it was the ineffable George Walford in his Idiotical Commentary who invented calling us “anarcho-socialists” as in this article from 1984:
He does come up with a good quip here, though, that the anarchists want to abolish the state the day before the revolution while we want to abolish it the day after.
I doubt that the NZ comrades would like us to take it up. After all, the word “anarchism” has negative popular connotations too (bomb-throwing, anarchy, individualism). So, by combining them, we’d get the worst of both worlds. I imagine what they’ve got in world is something like “free access society”, “world commonwealth”, “resource-based economy”.
Another contribution by us to Poliquads digital magazine, this time on the anti-fascist group Antifa:
https://www.poliquads.com/antifa-issue
And that’s in South East of England (almost as far South East as you can get) where everybody is supposed to be prospering at the expense of those Up North. It’s a wonder why 36% there voted Remain. Also be interesting to know what the turnout was. I would imagine that most didn’t bother to vote.
Correction: it is only until the end of 2020 (not 2021) that there will continue to be free entry for EU migrants into the UK.
However, there is a hare-brained scheme proposed by some Tories to unite their party that is being considered by the government. Under this free entry would be extended until the end of 2021. This scheme is hare-brained because, instead of the backstop if no comprehensive trade deal is reached by then, it propose an automatic free trade agreement, but this won’t address the EU’s concerns since it is not so much customs checks to see if tariffs have been levied that is the problem as checks to see if goods imported from Northern Ireland into the EU meet the EU’s single market regulatory standards.
And nobody is mentioning how the UK will preventing “illegal” migrants coming in through the backdoor that NI will be.
If/when Scotland votes for independence and applies to rejoin the EU, as the SNP proposes, then the same problem will arise over the Scotland/England border.
The whole thing is crazy. Reconstructing borders that the development of capitalism has already broken down. That’s what the capitalist class get when the are foolish enough to ask the working class to settle a disagreement they have amongst themselves.
If they voted to ‘kick the foreigners out’ and no doubt many did, they’ve been ‘betrayed’ by the government which has made it clear that not only can all EU migrants who are already here stay (and a good thing too) but so can any who enter until the end of 2021. The extreme Brexiteers have chosen to interpret the result as a mandate, not to kick the ‘foreigners’ out but to bring in more ‘free trade’, i.e more globalisation, which was a contributing factor in the deprived areas becoming deprived. But, if it comes to an another referendum, we can be sure that they will again be beating the xenophobic drum to win votes (I remember seeing one of their leaflets suggesting that the whole population of Rumania and Bulgaria had the right to come here; true but unlikely to be exercised any more than the right of the whole UK population to move to Spain was going to be). The Remain side had a bad hand since they were defending things are they are, that a general status quo that was indefensible should remain. Which all goes to show that a referendum is not the best way to make decisions since what motivates people to vote one way or the other often has nothing to do with the question at issue.
If the Kurdish Nationalists are “anarchists”, the Syrian Arab Nationalists are “socialists”:
http://www.aymennjawad.org/2019/02/the-arab-socialist-movement-interview
Whatever next.
Seemingly accurate article (unusual for Fox News, I know) on why some Westerners have gone to Syria to fight with the Kurdish nationalists:
Interesting, and if accurate revealing, report just out which produces evidence to show that a protest against austerity and welfare cuts on the part of those particularly affected was a factor in the Leave side winning:
Welfare cuts and other austerity measures implemented under the Conservatives pushed vital swing voters to back Brexit and won the EU referendum for the Leave campaign, according to a new report.
Research published by the Social Market Foundation suggests the best indicator of a person’s referendum vote was not age or education, but happiness or sadness about their personal finances – with unhappy people tending to vote Leave and contented ones preferring Remain.
The report, which analysed the level of cuts in each area of the UK alongside each area’s growth in support for Ukip, argues that had it not been for austerity, the referendum would not have turned out the way it did.
If that’s the case that shows that working class consciousness is not as bad as might be thought. If this is the reason why so many voted Leave at least it shows that it was not to kick out the Poles.
I wasn’t expressing scepticism about a new recession coming (I think one will at some point as capitalist production is cyclical, but we can’t know when) but about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit scenario. It’s that that I don’t think will happen.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
According to this from CNN it’s going to start on 30 March 2019:
The rest of the world should be far more afraid of a no-deal Brexit than it has been so far. Yes, this situation would be more damaging to Britain than to anyone else, but it is hard to see how a no-deal could take place that would not launch a global economic crisis and perhaps one to rival last decade’s financial crash in scale.
Personally I don’t think it’s going to happen, but you never know.
I hope there will be a speaker about being a socialist in a trade union as an example of being a socialist in a capitalist world.
Just finished reading his book. Reynolds is an anarchist with a good grasp of Marxian economics and makes the case that technological developments within capitalism are paving the way for
“A state of society in which wage labour and the production of value have been abolished. Each person contributes what they can according to their abilities and each person receives goods according to their needs.”
He calls this society “communism” and says further of it:
“a communist society would not compel its members to work for a wage. It would provide goods to its people for free, allowing them to fulfil their needs without having to worry about artificially produced scarcity. Production would be carried on entirely through voluntary work and would be defined by a cooperative spirit.”
Good stuff. The trouble is that, despite aiming to show that because of technological developments (3-D printers and automation where those who lose their jobs won’t be able to find employment in some other or new section of the economy as with past automation) production based on labour-value will collapse in the course of this century, he doesn’t see such a society as being the immediate aim.
Instead, disappointingly, he sees what he calls “socialism” as the immediate aim as a transition to a communist society. Defined as “a socio-economic system where the means of production are owned by, controlled by and operated for the benefit of the working class”, it turns out to be production for the market organised by workers’ cooperatives aiming to cover their costs. As he himself points out:
“It still requires forms of money, coercive taxation and meaningful scarcity to function.”
Proudhon’s “People’s Bank” is even to be revived.
Disappointing indeed, but nevertheless a straw in the wind that (real)socialism/communism is back on the agenda as an item for discussion amongst critics and opponents of capitalism.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by
