ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This from last night. Apparently Russell Brand is an "anarcho-populist":http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03srj6m/Analysis_The_Philosophy_of_Russell_Brand/
The review of the book by CLR James has been translated into French and is on the internet here:http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/la-repudiation-de-clr-james/
Yes, interesting as you say. I noted this part in particular:
Quote:Q: Right-wing parties and fascist groups play a role in the protests. How important are they actually? Do they get much support? How do other protesters relate to them?A: Far right party Svoboda is the most organized of the three large political forces trying to control the protest. They are the only party which has real active cells in various regions, actual activist base. So, as the most organized and the most ideological of the three, they are gaining the most. Apart from Svoboda, there is an umbrella coalition of neo-nazi militant groups. It is called Right Sector. They were formed in the beginning of the protests, and by now they've succeeded to gain enormous prominence and conquer sympathies from apolitical and liberal people. They are mostly famous by their demonstrative militancy and aggression, and the public doesn't see anything wrong with these cute young patriots. Lately, the same pattern repeats in other regions, where neo-nazi football hooligans turned out to be the main assault force fighting the police and pro-government thugs.The fascist hegemony was indisputable until January 19th, when the protests were joined by lots of other people – random apolitical citizens, liberals and even the left. That happened because the agenda of the protests shifted to repealing the "dictatorship laws" passed on January 16. Since then they had to step back a bit but nevertheless it's obvious that in the long run these protests will enormously benefit the far right, whoever wins. In the case of the victory of the opposition, they will surely get themselves the police forces, special services etc. If Yanukovych wins, this means that half of the country will become firm supporters of the far-right as supposedly the only patriotic radical force able to confront the dictator.It seems that, just as in Syria, the Western Powers are using movements to which they claim to be ideologically opposed to further their ends. That it's not about "democracy" but realpolitik as to which sphere of influence the Ukraine is to fall into: the West's (Germany's in particular) or Russia's.
Here's the case Peter Tatchell will presumably be putting:http://www.petertatchell.net/social_justice/imagining-economic-democracy.htm
Meanwhile the US Trotskyists are campaigning for a minimum wage of $15 a hour as opposed to this Republican's $12.Since the rate of exchange for the dollar is about $1 = 67p, that's a demand for a minimum wage of £10 an hour. Which is what their counterparts in Britain are campaigning for not by negotiating with employers but to be imposed on them by government legislation. Some hope. Campaigning for the abolition of the wages system would be more realistic.
Latest news from Brighton parish. Local councillor quotes Shakespeare and calls for a Labour-Tory-Green administration that will carry through the cuts:http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2014/01/30/greens-lose-no-confidence-vote-but-stay-in-office/27065
We've more or less worked out what a minority of local councillors would do, but you're talking about the situation where there's a socialist majority in a local council before there's a sufficient overall majority in the rest of the country to win political power. Presumably, we wouldn't agree to administer a council as a minority administration as the Greens in Brighton have done. But would we agree to administer the council even if we have a majority? Another option would be allow the minority of pro-capitalist councillors to form a minority administration.But do we have to say anything more today than that whatever is decided will be decided democratically by the socialist movement in the light of the precise circumstances? Which implies, as you say, that a democratic decision once made has to be abided by by those who might not have voted for it.
I agree with Alan that this is hypocrisy coming from a Labourite even though I can easily believe anything the Green Party tried would be a shambles. Glad to see, though, that the Greens are having trouble pushing through the 20mph limit. I've been arguing against the local LibDem councillors in my ward who want to impose it everywhere, including on the nearby main A road. It's crazy on a main road. Anybody ever tried driving a modern car at 20mph for any length of time?
I'm not sure Kliman or the MHI would describe themselves as "disequilibium theorists" (except insofar as every crisis is a reflection of a disequilibium; we ourselves have preferred "disproportionality"). They are more into the falling rate of profit. But all will be revealed when our long-discussed interview with Kliman appears in the March Socialist Standard, though there will be a taster in the February issue out on Friday on this debate in New York.
Jusr listened for an hour to the film version of this at:http://pro.moneyweek.com/myk-eob-tpr-cut/PMYKQ105/DAP is right. It's basically just an ad for the Money Week magazine aimed at people who've got a bob or two, the message being The End of the World is Nigh but if you subscribe to our magazine and follow up on our financial tips you and your wealth will survive. Like all ads just worthless boasting and lying,in this case also trying to scare people into subscribing and pretending to want to help them when all they want is to make a profit from selling their particular commodity.Don't recommend watching it unless you want to see the depth of cynicism of some people in their pursuit of profit.
Here's Owen Jones being an open reformist, deliberately as he knows his Marx and that Marx described "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work" as a "conservative motto":
Quote:A statutory living wage, with immediate effect, for large businesses and the public sector, and phased in for small and medium businesses over a five-year Parliament. This would save billions spent on social security each year by reducing subsidies to low-paying bosses, as well as stimulating the economy, creating jobs because of higher demand, stopping pay being undercut by cheap labour, and tackling the scandal of most of Britain’s poor being in work. An honest days’ pay for an honest days’ work would finally be enshrined in law.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-joness-agenda-for-hope-we-want-a-fairer-society–and-heres-how-we-can-achieve-it-9086440.htmlAt least he's not as bad as Harold Wilson who, when Labour Prime Minister in the 60s, called on workers to increase productivity by doing "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay"
Here's SPEW's local branch's official statement opposing the referendum:http://brightonhovesocialistparty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/oppose-green-partys-cuts-budget.htmlI wouldn't have thought that the alternative policy they propose is any more realistic or likely to defeat the cuts than what the Greens are proposing.They do, however, seem to be right on one point when they say that recalcitrant councillors can no longer be surcharged:
Quote:[In the 1980s]… 47 [Liverpool] Labour councillors were surcharged and banned from office. The draconian laws which allowed this to happen no longer apply. The worst which Brighton Councillors defying Pickles’s cuts today would face is being forced to face a new election at which they could defend their strategy …See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surcharge_%28sanction%29I'm not sure they are right that recalcitrant councillors can no longer be banned from office for up to 5 years. And the central government retains the right to appoint "intervention commissioners" to run failing councils.In any event, we need to be up-to-date with the current law and no longer say (as we have been doing) that any councillors doing what TUSC propose would be surcharged. .
This passage from the current issue (23-29 January) of their paper, the so-called "Socialist", confirms that they are "underconsumptionists" (workers-can't-buy-back-ists):
Quote:Even in boom times the working class cannot afford to buy back the full product of its labour power. In periods of growth capitalism can temporarily overcome this problem by ploughing part of its profits into developing the means of production. This in turn creates new factories, workplaces – the organisation of science and technique – but at a certain stage all the same contradictions reappear.Of course even in the state capitalism they envisage the income of the working class won't be (and couldn't be) enough to purchase the "full product" of their labour.
I think you are right. He is merely elaborating a theoretical defence of a reformist practice.His defence of the obvious criticism that he is saying "finance capital, bad; industrial capital good" is pretty weak, i.e that non-financial capitalist enterprises engage in financial speculations too. Of course they do. If they've accumulated a cash mountain of non-reinvested profits they're not going to leave them in a current account but are going to try to get what income they can from them. But their main activity remains production and it is only there that surplus value, that later takes the form of profit, interest and rent, originates.Actually, he admits that the profits from finance are not created there but must come out of the surplus value produced in productive industry. Thus he describes financial transactions as a "zero-sum game":
Quote:The remarkable thing about finance, however, is that it is not simply inefficient but also exploitative in ways that industrial capital cannot be. It is a primordial capitalist activity that long predates the establishment of industrial capitalism and has retained its ancient predatory outlook. Finance can extract profits from any money income and stock of money – its profits are not limited to the fresh flows of value produced annually. During the past four decades, it has become expert at making zero-sum profits that involve transfers from one economic agent to another.Exactly and what we've always said, that all that happens on the stock exchange, etc is that profits already extracted from the working class are shuffled around. What one speculator gains someone else loses. No new profits are created.HIs proposal to end the "predatory" activity of finance on productive industry is state capitalism:
Quote:If interest and exchange rates were controlled, a body blow would be delivered to financial markets, particularly derivatives markets. It is apparent, however, that this kind of intervention would be impossible without also expanding public ownership in the economy, including among financial institutions.Given the worldwide nature of the capitalist economic system, this would be a return to the "siege economy" of war-time and immediate post-war times and, worse, of the old USSR. That's not the way to go. We've seen the past and it doesn't work. Nor has it anything to do with socialism as he imagines. People like him have nothing to offer.
