ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here's yet another article arguing that there will be increasing technological unemployment as more and more work processes are computerised:http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/speed-of-innovation-and-automation-threatens-global-labor-market-a-897412.htmlThis article does at least mention the counter-argument:
Quote:Still, many economists remain unconvinced. Critics argue that there have been constant warnings of the consequences of technological transformations since the beginning of the industrial revolution, yet these fears have always turned out to be exaggerated. These observers believe that this will also be the case now.Articles in the June Socialist Standard (which deals with theories of capitalist collapse) takes a similar position, but from a Marxist point of view, on the grounds that most of the unemployment today is cyclical (the reserve army of labour returning to its slump size) not technological and that there is a difference between technological invention and its actual application to production. (capitalist firms only apply inventions if these reduce the amount of labour, including that incorporated in machines, that they have to pay for, which is a much higher bar than simply saving total labour).While it is true that computerisation does reduce the total number of workers that need to be employed even taking into account the extra ones employed to make the machines, this will only lead to increasing unemployment if capital accumulation stops or slows down permanently. But economists like the two mentioned in the Der Spiegel article have yet to make a convincingly case for this.Unfortunately perhaps, capitalism is more resilient than some might like to think. Or perhaps not unfortunately, as, if capitalism collapsed before there was a majority in favour of socialism, the result could be worse in that some of the scenarios envisaged in the many dystopian novels and films could well come about.
"Anti-Possibilist" is better as it's the same as anti-Reformist. The trouble is that the term "possibilist" is not used by anyone today. When the German Green Party had a similar discussion they were divided into "Realos" ("Realists" who wanted to pursue what Green measures were considered achievable within the system) and "Fundis" ("Fundamentalists" who wanted to give priority to campaigning for a Green society). The Realos won and this is now the approach not just of the German party but of all Green parties. But we can't call ourselves "Socialist fundamentalists", can we (even if we are)?
Stefan has a point: why do we call ourselves "impossiblists"? I know the historical reason (label applied to us by the "possiblists", ie those who said the workers' movement should aim to get reforms that are "possible"), but surely it is those who think that capitalism can be reformed to work in the interest of the rest of us who are the real impossiblists?
alanjjohnstone wrote:There are an estimated 50,000 foreign jihadist fighters terrorizing Syria. MAIREAD MAGUIRE Nobel peace laureate.I don't doubt that there are thousands of them but 50,000 seems rather a lot. What's the evidence for this?
Here's what we said at the time about his dad:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1969/no-780-august-1969/book-review-state-capitalist-societyhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1977/no-871-march-1977/open-letter-professor-milibandActually some of his criticisms of the "far left" mentioned in the second article are not all that wide of the mark and still apply today.
Young Master Smeet wrote:These apparent auto-jihadists would probably find a cause to be violent even if Islam didn't exist, it just provides a map for their actions and a means to comprehend their desires.The fact the two beheaders have turned out to be ex-christians who chose to become muslims suggests that this is probably true and that under other circumstances they would have found another ideology through which to express their frustrations. But why did they choose islam?
jpodcaster wrote:How are they differentiated from the Green Party? To my mind the GP is now to the left of the Labour Party and has many of the same policies as I'd imagine LU will end up supporting. Plus it has local and national representation and a growing membership base. I wonder what the attitude of prominant GP-ers such as Derek Wall and Peter Tatchell will be towards LU?(That thought had occurred to me too. I can't see the policies they are likely to adopt being much different from those outlined in this Green Party election broadcast for the local elections in England earlier this month:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4BcCi7Xr06MAnectodotal evidence suggests that many of those who might be attracted to the Left Unity project already vote for the Greens when there is no non-Labour Left candidate. For instance, in the London elections last year a prominent SWPer living in Lambeth said he had voted for the Greens (not us) while a TUSC supporter in Wandsworth said he had done the same.Apart from undermining a LU party by boring from within it, the Trotskyist groups are likely to try to orient it towards concentrating on seeking the support of public sector trade unionists and workers living on council or housing association estates, so excluding a large section of potential supporters..
Just realised that Kate Hudson, who is the registered Leader of the Left Party and one of the prime movers behind Left Unity, is the secretary-general of CND. So no wonder that the registered address of her party is Houseman's Bookship. She is also a former member of the Communist Party of Britain. At least she's not a Trotskyist.
Quote:'there is no god, and Allah isn't his name.'I like it (even if I shouldn't). Sounds like a good title for a daring meeting.Meanwhile there's a lively discussion on this beheading going on on the forum of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain:http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=68e6398ad09798b645ee7fe4069798f5&topic=24183.0
Quote:Journalist Laurie Penny used the same platform to warn of “ugly racism and Islamophobia”.Here's a much more rational approach from a fellow writer for the New Statesman, Andrew Zak Williams:http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia
Quote:Take Sam Harris. His 2003 book End of Faith catalogues the Qur’an’s long list of orders to murder and exhortations to avenge. (…) Surely, rational discourse should be permitted to tiptoe cautiously along the hallowed corridors of the house of Islam without the guards frogmarching it out, bellowing allegations of racism and bigotry. Cannot we not agree that the real issue is whether the critiques of Islam proffered by today’s prominent atheists are correct? For instance, does Islam fall short when it comes to women’s rights? Does it trample free speech while enforcing its own precepts, by the sword if necessary? (…) Islam isn’t a race, so to accuse its detractors of racism should appeal to no-one bar those in need of an cheap jibe.What did these Jihadist nutters expect:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329290/Woolwich-attack-More-100-English-Defence-League-supporters-gather-near-scene-killing.html
Are the Parecomics going to join Left Uniy as well? If so it's going to be a real what the French call "panier des crabes".
Stuart will be relieved that the Cooperative Bank's current difficulties are not the result of pursuing a "ethical banking" policy. On the contrary, they would seem to have resulted from them behaving like any other capitalist enterprise. But then to stay in business so as to be able to pursue an "ethical" policy, a business has to behave like any other business, has to beat the competition, make profits and accumulate capital (grow).. Either way, "ethical" capitalism is exposed as a sham. Though I'm not quite sure what to do with my accounts with the Cooperative Bank and the Britannia Building Society. Move My Money perhaps?
