ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
For the period after 1920 there are these two books (which also cover the period before). Of course we are talking now not so much about the history of socialism as about the history of the main group of people in Britain who called themselves “socialists”:
Parliamentary Socialism by Ralph Miliband
The Labour Party — A Marxist History by Tony Cliff and Donny Gluckstein
Miliband, Cliff and Gluckstein, like Ensor and Beer, were aware of us but had their own, different political perspectives. Here they present a criticism of the Labour Party’s theory (“socialism” to be achieved gradually by a long series of reforms enacted by parliament) and practice (management of capitalism in the interest of the capitalist class), much of which we can go along with.
My bet is still that it’s the Unabomber.
That book is in the Party Library if you want to borrow it. Just contact the Library Committee.
Incidentally, before WWI Ensor (later Sir Robert) was a leading member of the ILP (a member of its National Council) and Labour member of the London County Council. The Party debated against him in January 1908, so he was aware of us and knew our position. The report of the debate in the February 1908 Socialist Standard reads:
At Poplar on Jan. 12th Anderson debated with R. C. K. Ensor the question of “Reform v. Revolution”. Ensor boasts of being the best educated man in East London, but his arguments on behalf of reforms were of the usual kind dealt with in these columns. Will Crooks M,P. was present at the debate and assisted the proceedings by shouting ” liar ! ” during the course of Anderson’s speech.
I see Kratakoa has erupted again. A big one, like that of 1883, could slow down global warming. As Wikipedia says of the 1883 eruption:
Average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.
No, an ecowarrior attack on an airport would not be like a strike. All the two have in common, yes, is in being deliberate acts. But a strike is aimed at employers, with any harm or inconvenience to other workers being incidental or even accidental. An ecowarrior attack on an airport would be deliberately targeted at workers using it, either to express displeasure at them flying or to punish them for doing so. Quite different. Besides, a strike is part of the class struggle.
An ecowarrior attack is likely to be counter-productive even on its own terms. As Dave B has pointed out, those whose lifestyle is being criticised (in this case ordinary workers flying to a holiday destination) are likely, to defend their choice, to deny that there is a climate change problem and become or listen to climate-deniers.
Also, of course, we’d be hypocrites to sympathise with such a stunt. To be honest, I myself flew from and to Gatwick a couple of months ago, without feeling the slightest guilt. Many members will too (all the members of my branch do or have). And why not? Of course there’ll be airports and flights in socialism, though a trip in a balloon might be fun.
I agree there is a huge difference between death and harm but what they have in common is where the aim is to deliberately target workers.
The more valid comparison would be with the bombing of that pub in Birmingham and of the shopping centre in Wigan by IRA which were clearly anti-working-class in that they were directly aimed at harming workers.
For causing suffering and distress to tens of thousands of workers by disrupting and ruining their holidays. A direct attack on members of the working class.
The PKK had its origins in Maoism and, despite its change of aim, is still organised on top-down, Leninist lines. Ironically, it is this Leninist structure which has made its armed wing in Syria, the YPG, an effective fighting force. So no wonder the US decided to rely on them rather than the ragbag of unruly jihadists and simple gangsters that make up the other armed rebel groups.
But why would they be “ultra conservative” and play down the implications of their studies? A good scientist will advance their ideas as tentative and in terms of probabilities rather than certainties but that’s not the same as being “ultra conservative”. In fact, it’s the scientific method. And what gives non-specialists (like ourselves) the standing to say that a specialist’s conclusions are wrong or underestimates? We would have to set out our reasons in detail, so that they can be examined and challenged.
When it comes to climate change any estimates as to what might happen in the future have to be a “guestimate” even if an informed one. Scientists do not know even such a basic thing as by just how much average global temperatures will rise in response to a given increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Nobody knows. All they can do is offer a range of more or less likely outcomes. So all we know with certainty is that if there is an increase in CO2 levels there will be an increase in global temperature and so in the effects of this in terms of rising sea levels, more stormy weather, and changing regional agricultural and ecological conditions. So, to avoid these, there’s a need to cut emissions whatever the guestimates.
As to presenting their estimates as “benign”, in the case of climate change the standard way of presenting them is in terms of a rise in average global temperature since pre-industrial times, with 1.5C at the low end 4.5C at the high end by the end of the century. But as average global temperature has already risen 1C since then, they are actually talking about a further rise of between 0.5C and 3.5C, which is rather less scary (though a rise of 3.5C is scary enough).
Two people have been arrested. It remains to be seen whether they are pranksters, publicity-seekers or “eco-warriors”. Environmentalists are already shitting themselves about this anti-working-class stunt being the work of one of theirs:
Another, older study here:
IPCC’s worst case global warming scenario by the end of the century is extremely unlikely, according to study
“We have a more accurate set of models now. Humans are clearly influencing this situation and we need to do something about it, but the range of expected warming this century has gone from 1.5-4.5 degrees C to 2.2-3.4 degrees Celsius.”
It is also rules out the IPCC’s “best case” scenario of 1.5 degrees C. Or narrows the range of what is likely to happen. Also, since it’s so many degrees above pre-industrial levels and since there’s already been a rise up to now of 1 degree, it’s talking about an additional rise by the end of the century of 1.2-2.4 degrees. It is still (like all the others) only a guestimate as who knows what will happen. The trouble is none of us here are likely to be around towards the end of the century to find out what does.
Yes:
The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.
It’s from his 1844A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, the same article which contains his famous quote about religion being the opium of the people. See:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
I wouldn’t say that’s a Maoist position. When quoted in full, it’s what we say isn’t it? Except that when the socialist idea grips the masses and becomes a “material force” this doesn’t necessarily mean armed force but political pressure backed up, if need be, by armed force?
It’s not just us. This morning’s Times is reporting:
Police are investigating whether environmental activists were responsible for the attacks.
