Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Not wishing to speak for Stuart, but he's recently said this article:http://leftunity.org/which-way-for-left-unity-the-case-for-the-left-party-platform/ more or less summises his political reasoning/trajectory. It's part of an interesting debate within the new left unity mob, one that reprises, funnily enough, the one that lead to our foundation.I can remember, when I were a bairn, that in the school playground two lads would put their arms over each other's shoulders, and start chanting: "All join up for playing (rounders/tigs/hide and seek, etc.). New lads would join the line, until most of the playground were in the chain (and playtime ended before we could play tigs, rounders, hide and seek, etc.).The debate there is that you'll get more people to link arms if you just chant 'All join up' without having any specific game in mind. It's a valid argument, but I know I come down on the other side, that without a specific objective it will end up being like St. Joseph's playtime.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-live Can't deep link, but the section "Technology in Capitalism and Socialism" may be what you're looking for.
Quote:Another difficulty is that modern science and technology have developed with capitalism. This makes it seem at times that there are good scientific and technical reasons for the complexity of life and work in the modern capitalist state. Capitalist propaganda takes advantage of this and often tries to turn the frustration and anger that workers feel on to scientific and technical workers, as though they were the ones who decided to make the obscene weapons of modern war, thalidomide, battery farms or polluted rivers. Of course, it is capitalist business and the capitalist state that decide what workers shall produce or what experiments and research they will fund.etc.
LBird wrote:If humans are involved, ideology is involved. 'Scientists' are humans, and are not non-ideological beings, but are products of our class-divided society.No amount of ideology, though, will allow anyone to square a circle : the scientific process exists between humans, and the moves in its language game are valid or invalid according to to the process and irrespective of any ideational set.
gnome wrote:Depends surely on whether those personal views conflict with or are detrimental to the interests of the Party…Not if the person who holds them accepts that they are not the policy of the party and accepts the democratic decision of the party. That's the advantage of having an agreed party position, we can disown rogue voices. Oh, and don't call me Shirley.
Frankly, I'd rather not be a member of an organisation that expelled people for having their own personal views. The position of the party, as democratically decided is pretty clear. For instance: "trade unions being a necessity under capitalism, any action on their part upon sound lines should be heartily supported." (Manifesto fo the Socialist Party). "Trade union" above can stand in for any organisation for the defence of the living conditions of the working class.Of course, that means we do not fetishise lawfulness any more than we would fetishise lawlessness: we recognise that most confrontations with the state will lead to the victory of the big battalions (or the small ones with the heavy fire-power).What we stand for is effective action, and the most effective action is building a mass movement for the abolition of capitalism.
Almost as bad as when they are using science against us, is when they won't use science:
Quote:In both word and deed, Thatcher expressed hostility towards feminism, which explains why Britain’s first female head of government insisted on being known as the first British prime minister with a science degree. ‘Who are you?’, she asked Dr John Ashworth, the Chief Scientist, as he entered No. 10 for the first time. ‘I am your Chief Scientist’, Ashworth replied. ‘Oh,’ said Thatcher, sharply, ‘do I want one of those?’ Ashworth explained he was preparing a report in the new subject area of climate change. Thatcher hurled a fierce stare. “Are you standing there and seriously telling me that my government should worry about the weather?’ She then announced to the Chief Scientist that her government had no room for a minister for science. ‘I’m a scientist’, she said. ‘I shall be my own Minister for Science.’https://theconversation.com/margaret-thatcher-tales-of-power-and-vainglory-15639
Actually, according to Luke Akehurst :
Quote:We are basically asking other unions to follow UNISON’s model of an opt-in affiliated political fund (APF) and a separate general political fund, which seems to work well. It has the advantage of us being able to tell the assorted Trot and Stalinist political parties that like to infiltrate some unions that they are not allowed anywhere near the affiliated political fund or its policies.Now, what happens in practice is that the unaffiliated fund becomes a back-door 'support Labour style policies' fund (believe me, I've tried to opt out of paying my political levy, and it isn't easy). So, this begins to look more and more like a canny move. I'd bet a lot of the Affiliated Fund payers are just there by default, rather than an active choice (someone often helps fill in the form).
Hmm, Interesting article at the Weakly W.http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/969/egypt-not-the-next-stage-of-the-revolution
Quote:The reality is that, for all the lofty phrases about defending the poor and seeking social justice, political Islam – be it in Egypt, Turkey or Iran – is failing dramatically, mainly because it cannot provide answers in the face of the global crisis of capital. Out of power it was easy for Islamist populists in the Middle East and north Africa to blame the westernised upper classes for poverty, the gap between rich and poor, and so on. But in power Mursi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad followed exactly the same economic policies as their predecessors, both on a national and international level.And I think that's the key.
From what I'm hearing, and this may be rhetoric, some of Morsi's opponents are effectively accusing him of being anti-democratic, in the broad sense beyond nose counting. For instance, his attempt to rule by decree (something Chavez succeeded in doing). The bloc of working class votes gives oppositionists an incentive to court workers and their freedom, it also gives the working class an incentive to court the peasant vote as well. I think it remains preferable to any form of military dictatorship (even a, if you will, constitutional military dictatorship). That the generals have had to call a fresh poll indicates there is a democratic hope available, and maybe municipal autonomy for the big cities will allow compromise between the two forces.The other question is whether the military played a long game, and then orchestrated a popular uprising…
This article from Lobster makes some good points:http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l29consp.htm
Quote:Conspiracy theories are like black holes–they suck in everything that comes their way, regardless of content or origin…Everything you've ever known or experienced, no matter how 'meaningless', once it contacts the conspiratorial universe, is enveloped by and cloaked in sinister significance. Once inside, the vortex gains in size and strength, sucking in everything you touch.and
Quote:However that may be, real covert politics, although by definition hidden or disguised and often deleterious in their impact, simply do not correspond to the bleak, simplistic image propounded by conspiracy theorists. Far from embodying metaphysical evil, they are perfectly and recognizably human,with all the positive and negative characteristics and potentialities which that implies. At the most basic level, all the efforts of individuals to privately plan and secretly initiate actions for their own perceived mutual benefit –insofar as these are intentionally withheld from outsiders and require the maintenance of secrecy for their success–are conspiracies. Moreover, in contrast to the claims of conspiracy theorists, covert politics are anything but monolithic. At any given point in time, there are dozens if not thousands of competitive political and economic groups engaging in secret planning and activities, and most are doing so in an effort to gain some advantage over their rivals among the others. Such behind-the-scene operations are present on every level, from the mundane efforts of small-scale retailers to gain competitive advantage by being the first to develop new product lines to the crucially important attempts by rival secret services to penetrate and manipulate each other.ALB wrote:The chart defines "Total Factor Productivity" asQuote:GDP growth minus the contributions of labour and capital weighted by their shares in output. The labour share includes the income of the self-employed.Capital is defined "as the non-housing whole economy capital stock" and labour as "the whole-economy total hours worked". Profit doesn't seem to enter into it, at least not directly.
True, but they wouldn't measure profit as we'd understand it (as we understand it is broader than companies and individuals would understand it, since we'd include rent and interest). It may just be the nearest we'd get to a measure of ROP.
Part of the equation is the President's political history:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilma_Rousseff#Education_and_early_political_awarenessShe is actually a time served physical force guerilla (admittedly, in the context of a military dictatorship), but presumably she is more inclined to use 'the people' to advance her ideology (even if it is state capitalist). Indeed, I believe she and her predecessor, Lula, have rebutted attempts to try and portray their movement as a moderate alternative to Chavism.This is a bit like a (whisper it) Prime Minister Miliband using mass protests to remember that he was Tony Benn's intern.
Anyway, I'll add a useful resource, for those of you who don't already know Lobster:http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/
Quote:Lobster magazine began in 1983. Its initial focus was on what was then called parapolitics – roughly, the impact of the intelligence and security services on history and politics – but since then has widened out to include:contemporary history and politicseconomics and economic politicsconspiracy theoriescontemporary conspiracist subculture.Robin Ramsey at least is good for finding the stories (some of them interesting incidents, rather than the fashionable big ticket theories. He also has a column in Fortean Times (He backs the idea, ish, that LBJ did JFK).
I'll bring this here (and hopefully move the thread up the list), just to contrast what seems to be happening in Turkey & Brazil with my comments above about plebeian as opposed to proletarian politics.https://theconversation.com/fare-game-buses-and-football-fuel-protest-in-unequal-brazil-15325
Quote:So what does it all mean? There is a strong possibility that the protests will fade, and life will carry on as usual. The movements are outside of traditional political groups, unions and organisations, so whether they can form a formidable power bloc remains to be seen.In contrast to dictatorships, democracies can see off such uprisings, because, eventually, they can point to the support of the inactive majority and can always go to the polls to demonstrate the isolation of the insurgent crowds.One thing that comes from the above article is that, in the case of Brazil, it is not the poverty so much as the feeling of not sharing in the growth, which points again to the idea that economic slumps don't help the socialist case (in fact, the opposite, they seem to be the key to disciplining the workers).And, just to stick to the ETUC theme of the thread, it seems they have put their colours firmly on the mast:http://www.etuc.org/a/11263
ETUC wrote:The Executive Committe of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) is following the unfolding events in Istanbul, Ankara and other Turkish cities with great concern. The European trade union condemns the disproportionate and unacceptable use of force by the police.This current repression brings to mind a similar reaction against a rally, held in Taksim Square on 1 May, celebrating Labour Day as was the case in many other places around the world. The ETUC supports those who are fighting for the respect of democratic social and trade union rights and against creeping authoritarianism in Turkey. The ETUC Executive Committe calls on the Turkish Government to respect fundamental international rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.The ETUC will stay in close contact with its affiliates to determine what action to take, if necessary, to ensure the respect of these rights in Turkey.The ETUC notes positive signal from parts of the Turkish Government to engage in dialogue.And, a useful bit of background:http://www.etuc.org/a/10150
ETUC wrote:05/07/2012Lire la version française“Stop attacks against trade unions in Turkey”, demand European and international trade unionsWe have in recent weeks witnessed an unprecedented wave of repression against Turkish trade unionists. At least 73 members of the public sector trade union KESK are currently in prison, some without charges. Others, such as the President of KESK, have been released on bail. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has raised the issue on several occasions with the Turkish government and the European authorities, denouncing the attacks against affiliates of several Turkish member confederations.Apparently the "international community" did stay silent until the protests erupted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22932330
Quote:The Co-operative Bank has unveiled a rescue plan to tackle the £1.5bn hole in its balance sheet.Most of the capital to be used to plug the hole will come through a "bail in" – a process where bond holders will be offered shares in the bank.The deal will result in a stock market listing for the group.Robert Peston notes:
Quote:That said, many will argue that the culture and practices of the bank are bound to change once its shares are owned by commercial investors – even though the Co-op Group will retain a controlling majority stake in the bank.[…]Co-op Group says the bank will henceforth concentrate on providing banking services to individuals and small businesses, and will pull out of banking for "larger corporate and commercial customers with complex product and servicing requirements".In general, the bank will be more focussed on making profits because of the "need to generate an appropriate return on equity".Although, the point is, that the bank has always focused on making a profit, that's what co-ops do: it's just a question of who gets the profit. The capital is in the hands of the capitalists, and the bank needs capital to keep going.
