ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Theresa May has just said that a post-Brexit Britain will be the "global champion of free trade":http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-uk-is-global-champion-of-free-trade-10656863i.e. of more globalisation, but isn't the effects of this on some being said to be one reason for the Brexit vote and the election of Trump? I don't think she understands that Britain on its own will be a minor player on the world market compared with the US, the EU (and its single market), China and Japan. The tendency is towards big, regional customs unions which do trade deals with each other. The sort of hard Brexist she and some of her ministers want would be a move in the opposite direction. A Britain outside one of these unions may be able to do deals with Canada and Australia but these are countries with small populations and so small markets.
Here's the take of the "Freeworlder" (who stand for a money-free world) on this proposal:http://freeworlder.com/2016/11/06/universal-basic-serfdom/I'm not sure that the motive behind the proposal is to head off any moves towards getting rid of money (as opposed to streamlining and saving costs on the so-called welfare system). But he does make a valid point against those who, on the contrary, see it as a move in this direction:
Quote:As my good friend Rafi succinctly put it; “how does more money get you to no money?”twc wrote:Can anyone supply a link to just the plain non-annotated statement of our Object and Declaration of Principles?As the banner we fight under, it is far superior.It's here, for instance:http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/object-and-declaration-principles
We practise what we preach. The 2007 SPGB Conference passed the following revolution:
Quote:Be it resolved that all material created and published by the Party shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs copyright licence.This means that anybody can freely use what we publish as long as they attribute it to us and don't change it.More on this type of copyright here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license
I think you must mean this article accessible from the website of our companion party in Canada:https://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/imagine.200505.may.pdfHere's another article from us on the same subject:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2006/no-1217-january-2006/intellectual-property-further-restriction-persona
The both of them had the same protectionist policy as a way of supposedly reviving employment in the rust belt. Trump won because he got the vote for this as well as those of traditional Republicans (and also because of the undemocratic US presidential election system). We'll see how protectionist Trump will be be and if he really will provoke trade wars with China and Japan.
This is the best anti-anarchist (and anti-insurrectionists in general) song of all time (just as Rovics's is the best against the vanguardists — we play his all the time at our Head Office in Claphm High St)::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPXnoLAEUSQThey fight the state and the state wins …
We now know the date and candidates. It's Thursday 1 December and there are 8 candidates, which is low for a by-election. There's the outgoing MP (Goldsmith), the Liberals, Labour. Since the Greens and UKIP are not contesting (calling for a vote, respectively for the LibDems and Goldsmith) the popular saying of yesteryear lives again :
Quote:Labour, Liberal, TorySame old fucking storyOnly Goldsmith is not standing as a Tory but as a Nimby. The other candidates are: the nasty Christian Peoples Alliance (which wants to ban abortion, gay marriage, and sex that's not for procreation), the Monster Raving Loony Party, two independents and a rich eccentric with more money than sense.The LibDems fancy they can win and are pouring resources and people into the campaign. I've already had two of their canvassers knock on my door and had six leaflets from them. They are trying to turn it into a referendum against "hard Brexit". Goldsmith, like his dad nororious asset-stripper Sir James Goldsmith who founded and financed the Referendum Party in the 1997 general election (and who Private Eye dubbed "golden balls" because he was always suing them), is a Brexiteer.We shan't be contesting but we will be doing something, eg holding a lterature stall, to be decided at West London branch meeting on Tuesday.
Just ordered his book on the Open Economy. Previously ordered Peter Joseph's new book The New Human Rights Movement due out next March. We'll review both in the Socialist Standard.
Actually, I remember contacting him in 2011 or 2012 when his Free World Charter video first came out. He's from Ireland as is rather obvious from "the strong regional accent" of the commentary.
Sounds like a good idea. You've had a good run for your money (sorry, time) here, Here's their website:http://www.wspus.org/There is also this:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WSM_Forum/info
His summary of so-called "post-Marxism" (which boils down to forget the big picture only local struggles count) is quite good. It's the practice and implicit view of most activist groups even if they don't call themselves "post-Marxists):
Quote:(1) Socialism was a failure and all "general theories" of societies are condemned torepeat this process. Ideologies are false (except post-Marxism!) because they reflect aworld of thought dominated by a single gender/raceculture system.(2) The Marxist emphasis on social class is "reductionist" because classes aredissolving; the principle political points of departure are cultural and rooted in diversidentities (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference) .(3) The state is the enemy of democracy and freedomand a corrupt and inefficientdeliverer of social welfare. In its place, "civil society" is the protagonist of democracy andsocial improvement.(4) Central planning leads to and is a product of bureaucracy which hinders theexchange of goods between producers. Markets and market exchanges, perhaps withlimited regulations, allow for greater consumptionand more efficient distribution.(5) The traditional left's struggle for state poweris corrupting and leads toauthoritarian regimes which then subordinate civilsociety to its control. Local strugglesover local issues by local organizations are the only democratic means of change, alongwith petition/pressure on national andinternational authorities.(6) Revolutions always end badly or are impossible:social transformations threatento provoke authoritarian reactions. The alternativeis to struggle for and consolidatedemocratic transitions to safeguard electoral processes.(7) Class solidarity is part of past ideologies, reflecting earlier politics and realities.Classes no longer exist. There are fragmented "locales" where specific groups (identities)and localities engage in self-help and reciprocal relation for "survival" based oncooperation with external supporters. Solidarity isa cross-class phenomena, a humanitariangesture.(
Class struggle and confrontation does not produce tangible results; it provokesdefeats and fails, to solve immediate problems. Government and international cooperationaround specific projects does result in increases in production and development.(9) Anti-imperialism is another expression of the past that has outlived its time. Intoday's globalized economy, there is no possibilityof confronting the economic centers.The world is increasingly interdependent and in this world there is a need for greaterinternational cooperation in transferring capital,technology and know-how from the "rich"to the "poor" countries.(10) Leaders of popular organizations should not beexclusively oriented towardorganizing the poor and sharing their conditions. Internal mobilization should be based onexternal funding. Professionals should design programs and secure external financing toorganize local groups. Without outside aid, local groups and professional careers wouldcollapse.His refutation, while making some valid points, is not so good. He seems to be coming from a Leninist position, certainly from someone who thinks there was something socialist about Russia and such countries.
Anybody can laugh at and raise a chuckle at Trump's expense but Brand (speaking as an individual like you and me not as a comedian) was trying to do more than this. In fact he was trying to be funny at all but to offer an explanation why people who wanted a change from the existing status quo were so desperate as to try even an option like Trump, despite them knowing how offensive and absurd he is, and that this says something too about conventional politics and politicians.I'm not sure how valid this analysis is but at least it's a serious contribution to the debate.
Here's Russel Brand on Trump's election:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Ou5uFFn8Q&feature=push-u&attr_tag=X_DnzuPjAQw-6Perhaps surprisingly, not all that bad.
