[ALB]

Quote:

We … still consider the accomplishments of the Russian Revolution the high point of human history, and the construction of a working class vanguard a historic necessity for the possibility of capitalism’s overthrow… bla, bla, bla..

That's when I stopped reading.

[ALB]

Don't worry. It's not you, it's them. I don't know who said "when I hear the name Foucault I reach for my gun". I agree and the same goes for Bordieu, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze,etc. They are just pseudo-intellectuel poseurs, windbags with nothing interesting or relevant to say.

[ALB]

Another retro photo from the same period:Which one was the spiv?

[ALB]

Itsn't that the definition of charity: the poor people in the rich countries give money to the rich people in the poor countries?

[ALB]

A couple of quotes from Soweto and Durban residents in today's Times:

Quote:

Neighbours in Soweto, minutes from Vilakazi Street, where people have flocked to celebrate their former leader's life, said that the ANC was full of empty promises. One, Sinazo Ntaka, said: "If you speak out in South Africa, you will be killed. Just like the apartheid time, you spoke up, you get killed. Worse: this time you are killed by your own people."At a march inMandela's honour, shack-dwellers in Durban lambasted the ANC, saying: "Today we are experiencing leaders who are black Boers. They are leaders that evict us, beat us, torture us, arrest us and kill us."

 

[ALB]

Actually, although it could have been written by an ex-member, even by a member (there's a good criticism of Lenin's post-1917 theory of imperialism), it's a reprint from the CWO.http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2012-03-01/anc-%E2%80%93-a-hundred-years-in-the-service-of-capitalBy co-incidence there's a review of them in this month's Socialist Standard here.

[ALB]

There was an ex-member of the party, Adam Ford, who wrote for them, e.g.http://thecommune.co.uk/2012/06/15/sparks-show-the-way/Where has he gone to?

[ALB]

It seems that they are evolving from being a self-appointed Leninist vanguard and changing into an ordinary reformist "vanguard" ("vote for me and I'll doing something for you") elected by non-socialist voters.

[ALB]

He might be a reconstructed Stalinist but much of what he writes is not implausible, especially this (and even though he takes the side of Russia):

Quote:

Ukraine's refusal to sign an EU association agreement, the ensuing protests and the attempt to oust the government in a failed no-confidence vote all have their origins in a grand geopolitical battle being waged between Germany and Russia.

To be dependent on either Germany or Russia has always been the lot of the smaller states of east Europe. In the Ukraine some have wanted to side with Germany and some with Russia, as in the Second World War and still to-day. Any socialists there would obviously be saying a plague on both your houses.

[ALB]

I wasn't agreeing with them, but if you read on you'll come across something more to your liking:

Quote:

Economists seem wont to believe that their “thinking like an economist” mindset is merely a technocratic, ideologically neutral one, but in fact it often comes with a whole lot of baggage. For example: an insistence on quantifying things that may not be quantifiable, and comparing incommensurate concepts (cost-benefit analysis for environmental catastrophe); the idea that people are mostly driven by incentives (see Freakonomics); a use of particular criteria – such as Pareto Efficiency and GDP – to judge the economy/society. We are not claiming that this mindset is ‘wrong’ per se, but that all too often it is taught to students as if it is unquestionable and scientific, rather than simply one of many lenses through which to view the world.

No?

[ALB]

Vin Maratty wrote:

ALB wrote:

 Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.

But you are not saying that a single 'great man' was responsible for that 

No, of course not. It was something that had to happen sooner or later as apartheid was hampering the normal operation of capitalism in South Africa. In any event, it would be F.W. De Klerk rather than Mandela who'd be the imagined "Great Man" here. South Africa's equivalent of Gorbachev.I see that Imposs1904 has just published Pieter Lawrence's excellent 1985 article "Democracy and South Africa" on his Socialist standard Past & Present blog:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/democracy-and-south-africa.html

[ALB]

Thanks but I must confess I had to look up DSGE and IS-LM, but I did understand straightaway headless chicken economics:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqYlI agree with this comment you referred to:

Quote:

“Sixth, I am happy to discuss and debate Marx and variants of Marxism with you. Historically he is a great and important thinker. However, he is less relevant to modern societies and economies as we have abandoned command economies for the very simple reason that they do not work. Don’t believe me? Take a trip to North Korea. Take a trip to Cuba (I have). While his ideas are intellectually appealing but Marxist theories have not found success in practice.”The intentions behind the letter are good, but common, saying this, really ? Usually it is the habit of people who have no clue about Marx to reply “North Korea” as soon as they see “Marx” written somewhere (I am not saying it is the case of this Professor, but he uses the same rhetoric). It is indeed another reason to teach more of Marx economics.

Not so sure about this one, though:

Quote:

Suffice to say that Marxism is really just a tool for understanding capitalism, rather than a blueprint for alternative societies.

but as you say:

Quote:

To start, it bears repeating that as a society we do not have political aims. We are not lobbying to get rid of central banks, overthrow capitalism, save the planet or what have you. We are not merely pushing to have “Marx and Keynes”, or any other thinker in economics, taught simply because we happen to like them.

Fair enough.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

I don't see any one here agreeing that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference or that it was not a welcome advance.  What is being strongly argued is that the outcome made no essential difference to the situation – other than the introduction of representative democracy – and explaining why and how this major advance came about.

I think it meant rather more than the introduction of representative democracy. It meant above all the abolition of the colour bar, which so far has meant more for the everyday life of  the "Non-Whites" than has political democracy.

[ALB]

I see they've pulled down a statue of Lenin, even if for entirely the wrong reasons. Still, it will save us having to do it when socialism is established.

[ALB]

Quote:

John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die"

I can guess what he's arguing but, strictly speaking, the title is inaccurate. Apartheid, as the legal separation of the different so-called "races" in South Africa with jobs reserved for some of them, did die (and a good thing too). And it died because it had proved to be a barrier to the normal operation of capitalism and the process of capital accumulation in South Africa. What its death didn't do was to improve the economic situation of most "Africans", even though it did improve that of some of them, not just businesspeople and politicians (who were able to enrich themselves).but also skilled workers (who were able to move into jobs previously reserved for "Whites"). Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.

[Author]

Posts