Socialist Party Head Office
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here is the reply of the editorial committee:
Quote:It’s hard to see what the substance of your complaint is. You offer no
evidence to show why any statement in the article was wrong. The reasoning
seems to be that if Tories or businesses support an argument it must be
wrong while if local residents oppose an argument they must be right. The
case against fracking appears to be that it is part of capitalism and
therefore it is obviously bad for the environment. There are some concerns
and we stated what they are. We of course agree that regulation is no
guarantee of safety but it is surely better than no regulation. It may be
true that the ‘competitive drive (for shale gas) does pose risks for the
future of the planet which should not be underestimated’ but if making
this argument it is necessary to explain what these risks are.
We don't understand your assertion that fracking is a class issue. If this is so, which section of the working class are we supposed to back, workers in the fracking industry, workers benefitting from cheap gas supplies, or workers who are local residents? If we are siding with the residents, should we ignore in favour of continued recession a report from accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (BBC News Business, 14 February) which estimates that shale gas reserves could push down oil prices by 40 percent and boost the world economy by $2.7tn, developments surely in the interests of many workers? Are we required in the interests of the working class also to side with those local residents who oppose nuclear power stations, GM crops, roads, housing developments, electricity pylons and wind farms? Something is a class issue if there is a common class interest in it, and we don’t see one in this case.If everything is a class issue, as is claimed, we would be led into the impossible position of supporting every fragment of the working class against every other fragment, caught in an endless vortex of competing interests with their various dubious claims and counterclaims. We have to be more objective than this, whether local residents like it or not, whether it means on occasion taking the same line as the Sun or not. It is not our policy to ridicule environmental campaigners per se; however the Green claim, that fracking is unnecessary and that the post-oil energy shortfall can be met by renewables, seems to us ridiculous and we said so.Paddy Shannon, for Editorial CommitteeWe have received the following criticism of this article:
Quote:Unfortunately press/media coverage, let alone informed political debate, has not made 'fracking' the hot new single issue of the year' the 'Pathfnders' column predicts. Unless of course one reads the 'Sun' with headlines like 'Lets Get Fracking' and 'Frack to the Future'. One may ask why not? but that would lead into discussion of the nature of the dominant media in a capitalist society. In fact trying to get the problems facing those who live in the areas selected for the process of extracting shale gas or the potential environmental impact, has proved extremely difficult, as residents know to their cost. Having been born in one of those areas, near Blackpool and as a regular reader of the Socialist Standard, I was therefore pleased to see that fracking was featured in your January edition and looked forward to sharing some of the socialist analysis with my family and friends who continue to live in the area. Imagine then my disappointment at the summary dismissal of their concerns in the 'Pathfinders' column, which poured scorn on their anxieties, portraying them as exaggerated horror stories, 'cows dropping dead after drinking poisoned water, flames coming out of kitchen taps, earthquakes spilling cups of tea in northern England.' These stories are apparently 'green friendly rhetoric' from an 'opposition lobby' of 'protestors' and 'complainers' frustrated by States having discovered a 'get out clause' from their energy problems! The approach of 'Pathfinders' here does not differ much from that of the Sun, who in declaring 'Hale to the Shale' urge readers to ignore the 'green zealots'. Those behind fracking, the real 'lobby' of energy companies and corporations, who surprisingly (sic) had just heard the news that the moratorium on fracking was to be ended and that Osbourne had announced tax breaks for companies taking advantage of exploration for shale, must have rubbed their hands with glee (if they read it) at this sharp satire directed against their opponents, especially as the column then went on to laud the benefits of fracking '….if one is looking for a practical and immediate solution to an existing energy problem, fracking looks like it…. not clean but 50% less carbon belching than coal…not easy to get but getting easier.' The 'much publicised fire faucets and poisoned water' _ dismissed as 'preventable accidents and cowboy carelessness'. Who is writing this column? I'm sure they would find a future in the PR industry. Goodness knows what they would make of drone strikes or recent oil spills, 'more effiicient than conventional warfare' or 'exaggerated teething problems' presumably! The article suggests that any problems caused by fracking, very real to local residents who find whole areas of their neighborhood sealed off, churned up and lit up,(see some of the blogs on the internet about daylong controlled explosions) result from lack of regulation. Surely a reformist position? It is certainly the position of the major political parties. The local Tory MP recognises the 'class issues' that your writer dismisses and that given the financial interests of major party donors, backing fracking, there is no possibility of stopping the developments by parliamentary means and that regulation is the best that can be achieved. Lord Browne, former Chief Executive of BP, knighted by Tony Blair and currently appointed as non executive Director to the Cabinet Office, to advise on making government decisions more business friendly, is a director of Cuadrilla, the firm undertaking drilling exploration near Blackpool. Remember the Texan and Alaskan oil spills or that in the Bay of Mexico, which many attribute to cuts in health and safety made while Browne was in charge? In terms of class one might also refer to the interests of Lord Rothschild or Rupert Murdoch in the industry (see 'Private Eye' December) (surely no connnection with the Sun stories? Ed.). All developments under capitalism are class issues! However to use phrases similar to your writer, if people believe that regulation is a guarantee of safety '…in the middle of a depression they are up a tree.' Representatives of the main capitalist parties in this country have unanimously backed fracking. On BBC programmes such as 'Question Time' and 'Any Questions' they have sold it to their audiences as the source of future employment and cheaper energy costs. They cite the example of the USA economy, which apparently views fracking as the solution to rising energy costs and fuel security as the way out of depression. Your writer seems to share this optimistic assessment '..a text book example of how capitalism periodically gets itself out of a fix by finding new commodities or techniques to replace old or unprofitable ones.' No doubt fracking will have an impact on profitabilty, but its impact will indeed be 'short term' as the resource seems widely distributed and available to many States to exploit. As is usual in capitalism then, any advantages to one player is soon undermined by competition from others and this competitive drive does pose risks for the future of the planet which should not be under estimated, as your writer appears to do.The energy problems which your writer refers to, arise from the nature of a system that is geared towards production for profit, capital accumulation and growth in competition with other capitals, not human need and well being. The risks such a system poses to the future of humanity cannot be ignored and should form a key part of any socialist propaganda. A major key to current development of socialist consciousness is not to ridicule environmental concerns but to show how these can only be properly addressed in a socialist society and this is evident in other articles in the edition. While 'Pathfinders' acknowledges this in a way, the main target of the article appears not to be capitalism and how it distorts our energy needs, but those who attempt to contest capitalist interests, who are attacked on grounds of 'realism' and 'common sense'. What emerges is capitalist apologetics. Little different from much coverage in mainstream media. which, posing as 'scientific', 'objective' and 'impartial', conceals a subservience to the current economic system.The article is abstract and unengaged with the real issues which people face and the rhetorical socialist flourish with which it ends, calling for people to 'get real and support workers to abolish capitalism' (who they?) merely emphasises this.The article on such an important issue is not worthy of your journal. It is not characteristic, as the other articles in the edition on issues such as nuclear power demonstrate, but it should not go unchallenged and the approach should not be repeated as it can only undermine the socialist case.John Holliday, LiverpoolThe Internet Dept have added another 50 or so articles to the Socialist Standard archive here on the Party website:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/archiveTo see what there are use the "Latest Additions" near the top on the right. Many are on Scotland but there are also some pre-WW2 and pre-WW1 articles.
Letter received by editorial committee:Have to disagree with you when you say that the value of land is not the product of labour.Primitive farmers cultivated the tops of hills when the soil was thin and any tree cover easily removed: but soon thereafter, farming moved to the more fertile valleys where forestry had to be cleared, wet soils drained, either heavy clays broken up with the addition of lighter soils, or thin sands and chalks given fertilitv by the adding oi manure, compost or clays.Then, particularly in Roman times or in the USA during the 1920s & 30s massively extensive farming without care, came in where no effort was made to keep the land fertlle, and large areas of previously fertile land became semi-desert. Much the same is now happening in Brazil.Strangely enough the last time I had to argue this, was with one of my fellow anarchists, who had argued that Marxist economics were wrong because labour had no effect on the value of land.Laurens Otter
Letter received by Editorial Committee:Outrage was expressed at the beginning of December over the New York Post decision to print a front page photo of a man pushed into an oncoming subway train and subsequently killed. December 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard saw fit to print a photograph of a number of dead bodies (War, Weapons and Water) and January 2013 printed what looks like a dead body (Oh! What a Lovely Centenary). We know capitalism can be barbaric but a propaganda journal for socialism should principally appeal to reason not emotion. It is time to adopt picture policies of sensitivity rather than sensationalism.DJW
Letter received by editorial committee:As you write in your July 2012 editorial money can and does buy scientists.Along with Catholic priests, scientists are the most wicked people on earth; without integrity and very evil minded.James Haggerty, Glasgow.
Letter received by editorial committee:Dear EditorsIn reference to recent articles in the Socialist Standard of December and January, Voice from the Back contains two puzzling statements:“The daily press in Britain is fond of creating the myth that workers are gradually improving their economic position in society” (December) and “Newspapers are fond of depicting a Britain with a steadily improved standard of living” (January).Both these statements were followed by quotations from capitalist newspapers which contradict the Voice from the Back observations.Therefore would it not be accurate to state that newspapers (and politicians) would like to state that working class incomes are gradually or steadily improving but that reality prevents them doing so?Frank SimkinsP. S. All members, surely, are seeking the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as far as humanly possible.
The publishers of the Howard Zinn book on Just War have provided a link on their site to our review:http://www.chartaartbooks.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=35&lang=en_US
Can anybody get to this meeting tomorrow at 6pm to discuss alternatives to the TUC's Future that (is Supposed to) Work?http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/no-future-future-works-two-critiques-tuc-london-16-october-06102012#newIf they can, if they pass by Head Office first they can pick up some of our leaflets on this to hand out.The CutsCafe is on the south side of Blackfriars Bridge.
gnome wrote:And for all those like northern light on this forum………….http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-applicationThose who have previously been members and now wish to rejoin need not complete a fresh questionnaire. All applications to be made online, to the nearest branch or to Head Office, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UNPhone: 0207 622 3811 Email: <spgb@worldsocialism.org>Former members who left in disagreement will of course need to confirm that they are no longer have that/those disagreement/s.
Email comment received from a member not on this forum:It was pretty awful, probably nothing especially BBC about it as such, just a reflection of dominant mindsets generally really. I'd imagine Paul Mason would have done a better job simply because he's studied it more. What was especially poor was the claim Marx didn't really have an alternative to capitalism (it was fair enough to say he didn't have a blueprint, but that's not the same thing of course). There was also no critical examination of Marx and the so-called 'Communist' countries, the link between the two being taken pretty much for granted, with a couple of very minor caveats. Bizarrely, she also put forward the workers 'can't buy back' theory of crises at great length, though in fairness explaining Marxian economics in less than an hour for the uninitiated isn't the easiest of tasks! It got 5 out of 10 at best though. The level of scholarship wasn't great – she repeatedly claimed without any evidence that Marx thought capitalism would collapse, but I honestly don't think she understood what she meant by this claim herself (conflating collapse with the abolition of capitalism). At root, you needed a relevant academic with some presenting skills to do that job, but she's a presenter with a bit of economics knowledge. And if some of it was written for her anyway, then the writers were just as bad!
The TUC is organising this big march in London on Saturday 20 October. For some details see here: http://afuturethatworks.org/ Naturally the Party will be covering this. We have in fact ordered 15,000 leaflets the text of which can be found in the October Socialist Standard here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1298-october-2012/future-works The marchers will be assembling on the Embankment between 11am and 1.30pm before setting off for a rally in Hyde Park. As the Embankment is on a direct tube line from Head Office (52 Clapham High St, SW4 7UN, nearest tube, Clapham North, on the Northern Line) we are advising those wishing to leaflet in the morning to come to Head Office to pick up supplies of leaflets and Socialist Standards. There will be someone there from 10am, and probably before as some comrades will be staying there on the Friday night. There will be a Party stall in Hyde Park (Marble Arch) from 2pm on, where those planning to come in the afternoon can pick up leaflets. The TUC rally is expected to finish about 4pm. Then back to Head Office for something to eat and the Workshop on how we can use the current dissatisfaction with capitalism to advance the cause of socialism from 6.30.Anybody, whether a member or not, wanting leaflets beforehand should contact us at: spgb@worldsocialism.org or by writing to 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN
A reader has drawn our attention to an article “Marx at 193” that appeared in the London Review of Books by John Lancester on 5 April and asked for our comments. Among other things Lanchester claims that Marx never used the word “capitalism”:
Quote:Marx doesn’t use the word ‘capitalism’. The term never occurs in the finished first part of Das Kapital. (I checked this by doing a word search and found it three times, every time an apparent mistranslation or loose use of the German plural Kapitals – in German he never talks of Kapitalismus.)Reply received from David Graeber:Dear editors:You may be surprised to know I have read Capital, and am familiar with the concept of primitive/original accumulation. I might suggest it is the reviewer, rather, who might wish to expand his reading list, since he is evidently unfamiliar with that strain of the Marxian tradition that has most informed my analysis of such matters: the “autonomist” or “post-workerist” strain that runs through Tronti to Cleaver to the Midnight Notes collective, Federici, Caffentzis, and de Angelis (a very different one from the more familiar Negri strain). In that tradition, “primitive accumulation” is not treated as a one-time thing that somehow teleologically prepared the way for capitalism, but rather as part of an ongoing process of the enclosure of different sorts of commons (and the creation of various forms of capitalist commons, like, currently, the US military) that has marked capitalism’s history from beginning to – hopefully its rapidly approaching – end. I actually cite my sources here in a footnote the reviewer seems to have missed. In fact he doesn’t seem to notice that my entire analysis of post-war economic cycles is based in this tradition.What I was mainly trying to address in the section on capitalism is a question that to my knowledge no Marxist analysis has really been able to resolve: why, if capitalism is a system based on factories and free wage labor, did most of the financial institutions that we associate with it – stocks, bonds, futures trading, semi-private central banking systems, and so on – actually arise in the 17th century, long before either factories or (any significant amount of) free wage labor made an appearance. The whole idea of “merchant capitalism” which is supposed to characterize the period from roughly 1500 to 1750 (or even 1800 in most of Europe) has always been a puzzle. If capitalism is a system based on wage labor, then it wasn’t capitalism at all. But if so most bourgeois revolutions happened before capitalism had even appeared! If merchant capitalism is capitalism, then capitalism does not have to be based on wage labor, and certainly not free wage labor, at all. Claiming that merchant capitalism was capitalism because European elites were somehow trying to create a system that didn’t exist and there is no evidence they were even capable of imagining, seems absurd. The obvious answer is that capitalism is not in fact necessarily based on free wage labor contracts. Marx was, as I note in the book, effectively saying “well, let’s take a best case scenario, and imagine workers are in no sense constrained; I can show the system would still lead to impoverishment and self-destruction.” He wasn’t saying that the assumptions of the political economists were empirically true. He was just allowing them for the sake of argument. As I note many seem to have forgotten the “as if” quality of his analysis.I find it genuinely odd that I get so many reviews that accuse me of ignorance of even the basic ABCs of Marxism, while at the same time, systematically ignore everything I actually say about Marx! Granted, the book is meant for a wide audience, and therefore avoids scholarly debates of all sorts, Marxist or otherwise. But it’s all there in the footnotes. And I do talk about Marx in the text.As for the reviewer’s final claims that we are primarily wage slaves not debt peons: how does he know this? Because the secret to our 21st century situation lies in the correct interpretation of 19th century texts? That’s silly. Systems change. I mean, it might be true, but it’s a matter to be empirically established. A far larger percentage of Wall Street’s profits is now derived from the financial sector than from industry or commerce – that is, from the exploitation of wage laborers. Where does that profit really come from? It would be very interesting to know what percent of the average (say) American’s income is now directly expropriated by the FIRE [Finance, Insurance, Real Estate] sector, compared to what might be said to be extracted indirectly, through the wage. But the research simply hasn’t been done. Nor will it be if we can’t open up our minds a little and treat Marx’s legacy as a living tradition. It’s possible that the system is already starting to turn into something else. Or maybe it isn’t. Let’s figure it out rather than just shouting doctrine at one another.
