|
U-Know! Forum » Voting for the lesser of two evils |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 14:49
|
||
|
Upon re-reading your previous post necropolist, and then my response, i realise that i (a) didn't really address the stuff you raised, and (b) don't really disagree with all of it by a long way. i just got onto a riff with my rhetoric (sounds like a Tanita Tikaram single) and let it wander. You're right that currently the power structures of the capitalist system are maintained by corporations and companies that require "worker complicity". Hence any organisation to change those power structures needs those people on-side. However, you and i both know that much of the talk of "class struggle" that goes on in the far left is not concerned with human values or a more equitable division of resources. It's about gaining power and "running things differently". And Marxism is so mired in the notion of "progress" and "production" that it can never be an environmentally responsible system. Not that there aren't some responsible clear thinkers in the far left who feel that this is the best route to positive change. I accept that those people exist and are perhaps even numerous. But that's not really what class solidarity and workers revolution is all about. It's about seizing the factories and doing exactly the same thing but with you in charge. (not 'you' personally y'dig? "You" in the abstract). Again, my ultimate problem with the left's obsession with class is that it is an attempt to organise change based around something that needs to be abolished. They may claim that ultimately it's all about the abolition of class; but that's smoke and mirrors. It's about as realistic as my solution that we all recognise the value of our life is rooted precisely in how valuable we treat all life.
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 15:09
|
||
|
bloody hell, i spend half an hour writing an intemperate reply to what you'd put, and then you go and get all reasonable on me! okay, yup i agree with a lot of what you say. but i do think you're view of the far left is a bit stuck in the 70's/80's. i think it has moved on a bit since then and there is a great recognition of the need to drastically change what it is that the factories we hope to take over will do. actually this has gone on for a while as well, think of the old line of 'turning swords into plughshares', or there was the 'alternative lucas plan' in the (?) 70's, which was all about taking a near bankrupt engineering form producing mainly crap for weapons/cars, and producing socially useful goods. most of the (not completely mad) left now orientate themselves around the issues that originated in the 'green'movement (for cynical reasons perhaps, but still, they are there, and doing it seriously), the SWP is greatly criticised on the left because it DOESN'T criticise the likes of George Monbiot and Naomi Klein (peeps who want a nice reformed capitalism). Like, crazy man.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 15:21
|
||
|
if a system can be got rid of simply by us denying its existence (as could happen with a religious system, if we simply stopped believing in that particular god) then it clearly has no basis in a MATERIAL reality. That is to say, its purely an idealistic notion, not created by any kind of physical forces in the world. If, as i believe, class is created by the material conditions of our society, then we cannot simply abolish it by denying it. We must tackle the social roots that caused it to come into existence in the first place. I think those roots lay in the lack of sufficient resources to adequately feed all the people in the world, or indeed within a particualr community, and so some was taken by the elite (originally the war and religious leaders) who have continued to do so, in various guises, ever since. Now, there are sufficient resources in the world for this not to be the case any more, it is a question of how the resources are distributed. Once some kind of equality has been achieved here, we can start talking about building a wonderful society where we are really all seen as equals (because we're not now, and its not just money, its power, its influence, its security, and safety, and a whole bunch of other stuff), but until then, i think its naive to think we are doing. Sorry if thats foolish.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 15:47
|
||
|
I would like to challenge the accepted orthodoxy. Necropolist says: > > Now, there are sufficient resources in the world > for this not to be the case any more, it is a > question of how the resources are distributed. > As we stand here in the year 2002, the above statement is completely true. Right now the 6 billion people on the planet can be supported to a decent level by the resources we possess. Indeed, the same will probably be true in 5 or 6 years when there are 8 billion of us. That the majority of human beings live at sustenance level is entirely the fault of an inequitable distribution of the resources we currently consume as a race. Those who believe that the human race is currently consuming global resources at a sustainable level can now leave the room and work on a better distribution plan. The rest of us need to work out what a sustainable level actually is, and how best to spend the last of our great bequest of oil in achieving a society that functions at that level. The great despair i have for the future is that all of the research i have read suggests that 6 billion people can't live sustainably on planet earth - that the number is closer to 1 billion. And the fact that we seem to be squandering the last of our energy on a consumerist lifestyle instead of a solution to the race's problems.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 16:04
|
||
|
1 billion? i would suggest the books you are reading are catastrophist and don't (refuse to?) see that production could possibly be organised in a different way to how it is now. clearly not all the world (of 6 or 8 billion, whichever) can (ab)use eresources the way they are (ab)used in the 'rich west'. but we can improve the quality of life without using more resources in many ways - particualarly regarding SOCIALISiNG goods services etc - something which requires far far less resources than the private consumption that the west promotes. there is certainly plebnty of food available for all, and there is the capacity to produce up to (dependfing upon who you read) 10 - 25 billion people ALREADY, not counting future improvements that could be made. if there is room only for 1 billion of us, how should we decide who is going to die? or rather, who is going to be killed, because that's what you are talking about at the end of the day.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 16:13
|
||
|
Maybe if the anarchists won a few more struggles then we'd be able to historically judge properly. The anarchists have less of a history of shooting ex-comrades cos they normally get shot first! Regarding present day anarchists, they come in so many shades that it's much more difficult to generalise. The absence of any party line means there's all kinds of ideas labelled 'anarchist', whereas the various communist factions are much closer together. Incidentally, I'll be doing a leaflet for those going on the anti-war demo in London on the 28th (see the News sewction of U-Know or info about the demo). It's 'I Spy Left Wing Factions'; collect points for every one you spot (SWP 1 point, Socialist Appeal 25 points, Communist Party of Great Britain 10 points, Communist Party of Britain - and they *are* two separate organisations! - 20 points, etc). Bonus 5 points for every donkey jacket, 10 points for every megaphone (20 points if it's being used to make an isn't-Saddam-Hussain-great-really speech). It'll be online as a PDF in a coupla weeks.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 16:20
|
||
|
you aint listed my lot in your leaflet you barsteward! what's wrong with us then, not vanguardist enuf 4 ya, grrrr, growche grumble, n valium, valium <hunches shoulders, screws up face lurches off into distance> ps - we dont do donkey jackets anymore, trendy leathers all the way now man! and its not true that the CPGB & the CPB are two organisations...they are in fact three! Big rows over who 'owns' the name CPGB (one of them is in our local Socialist Alliance, quite nice chap, but a complte stalinist get at the same time)
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 16:26
|
||
|
Which lot's your lot then? You may well be on the list - I gave four examples but there are 25 on the list (made @ the anti-war demo last November). What's the third bit of the CPGB called then? My favourite is 'International Bolshevik Tendency'. Not a party or a movement for Bolshevism, just a bit of a tendency. |
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 16:27
|
||
|
I chose 1 billion because my reading on the subject seems to constantly throw up "between half a billion and two billion" as a sustainable number in a post-petroleum world. You describe this as "catastrophist" and go on to cite claims of 10-25 billion as a sustainable population. Just as i half-acknowledge the label "catastrophist", i'd like you to try on "cornucopian" for size. You talk about "[organising] production... in a different way". Are you suggesting that we empty the cities and everyone goes and grows their own food? Or are you suggesting that population centres of millions of people can be supported by a rural population wiithout the use of fossil fuels? I simply cannot envision how either can be achieved successfully. I am more than willing to be enlightened; but there's already a developing shortage of arable land on the planet. This has its root in many factors; chief amongst them being intensive farming - though climate change may well play a greater role in that as time passes. With the loss of nitrogen-rich fertiliser (a fossil-fuel product) and pesticides (largely speaking, fossil-fuel products) the arable land we do have will see significant yield losses (the actual levels of loss are being fiercely debated on a mailing-list i'm on at the moment; so i won't presume to speculate just how much). The global "population boom" (a loaded phrase, but still a good one) of the 20th century can be blamed on industrial farming methods more than any other single cause. This methodology cannot exist without the input of vast quantities of concentrated energy and petrochemicals. I have yet to read any model of sustainability for 6 billion people that can (a) provide a replacement for fossil fuels in the production process, and (b) find a replacement in the distribution process. I'd be interested in reading anything that contradicts that view however. So do point me in the right direction.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Sep 04, 2002, 16:35
|
||
|
"most of the (not completely mad) left now orientate themselves around the issues that originated in the 'green'movement (for cynical reasons perhaps, but still, they are there, and doing it seriously)". I was actually just going to post something about this. My major problem with traditional left wing thinking is that it reduces everything to industrial practicality and wilfully ignores so much that's essential to the human spirit. As Grufty Jim said, it'd be fine to have wealth redistibution as your main focus if there were any evidence that wealth made people happy. While there've been a lot of socialists and greens combining on issues in recent years as individuals, that certainly isn't what's happened with the actual *Parties* and their publications. They have been notable by their absenceand/or hostility to environmental movements. "the SWP is greatly criticised on the left because it DOESN'T criticise the likes of George Monbiot and Naomi Klein" - maybe, but neither does it ever stick its oar in to anything green. Indeed, its contribution to many anti-capitalist things is to print up loads of placards with their name at the top, and bring buses of people who arrive as late as possible and leave as early as possible, spending the intervening time marching on the streets behind other people. It keeps an ear to the ground for what issues are igniting passion, then tags along using them as chances to recruit people to the SWP. This is not solidarity, it is the opposite - not lending support to a cuase, but using a cause to get weight for the monotheistic god The Party. *rant mode: OFF*
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
