J Surman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Back to Brand, there's an article by Jonathan Cook today that I consider well-balanced – 'Brand shows his irritation with mediacracy.'http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-10-24/brand-shows-his-irritation-with-mediacracy/Tried to paste a quote but it's not doing my bidding.try the FT’s interview with Brand. This part of their exchange had me howling in mental anguish at the sheer obtuseness of Lucy Kellaway:When I ask how lucrative [acting] is, he shrugs.“It makes me scared if I think about money too much, then it makes me feel guilty. The only thing I tell the people who look after my money is, ‘Make sure my fucking taxes are 100 per cent legitimately paid,’ and then I do my own shit.”But isn’t he against taxes? “Only as part of a mass movement, not as tax evasion,” he says.- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-10-24/brand-shows-his-irritation-with-mediacracy/#sthash.iYV88JBd.dpuftry the FT’s interview with Brand. This part of their exchange had me howling in mental anguish at the sheer obtuseness of Lucy Kellaway:When I ask how lucrative [acting] is, he shrugs.“It makes me scared if I think about money too much, then it makes me feel guilty. The only thing I tell the people who look after my money is, ‘Make sure my fucking taxes are 100 per cent legitimately paid,’ and then I do my own shit.”But isn’t he against taxes? “Only as part of a mass movement, not as tax evasion,” he says.- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-10-24/brand-shows-his-irritation-with-mediacracy/#sthash.iYV88JBd.dpuftry the FT’s interview with Brand. This part of their exchange had me howling in mental anguish at the sheer obtuseness of Lucy Kellaway:When I ask how lucrative [acting] is, he shrugs.“It makes me scared if I think about money too much, then it makes me feel guilty. The only thing I tell the people who look after my money is, ‘Make sure my fucking taxes are 100 per cent legitimately paid,’ and then I do my own shit.”But isn’t he against taxes? “Only as part of a mass movement, not as tax evasion,” he says.- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-10-24/brand-shows-his-irritation-with-mediacracy/#sthash.iYV88JBd.dpuftry the FT’s interview with Brand. This part of their exchange had me howling in mental anguish at the sheer obtuseness of Lucy Kellaway:When I ask how lucrative [acting] is, he shrugs.“It makes me scared if I think about money too much, then it makes me feel guilty. The only thing I tell the people who look after my money is, ‘Make sure my fucking taxes are 100 per cent legitimately paid,’ and then I do my own shit.”But isn’t he against taxes? “Only as part of a mass movement, not as tax evasion,” he says.- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-10-24/brand-shows-his-irritation-with-mediacracy/#sthash.iYV88JBd.dpuf
Those following this thread will probably have seen this one already:http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2014/patnaik171014.htmlIt's too long and complicated for me but I particularly like the conclusion:"Piketty's suggestion for wealth taxation, as a transitional demand, is unexceptionable. I say "transitional demand" because it cannot possibly be realized without a significant mobilization, not just of world public opinion, but of the forces of class resistance against growing wealth inequality, for which it is useful as a consciousness-raising demand; but precisely when such mobilization has occurred on a scale large enough to make a difference on the terrain of wealth taxation, this very mobilization would have shifted people's demand to a terrain beyond wealth taxation, to the abolition of the capitalist system altogether.The tragedy of all such demands, like for a progressive wealth taxation, is that they make sense (as non-transitional demands) only if they can be easily accomplished, i.e. without any need for a massive mobilization; but they are not in fact easily accomplished, which is why when the massive mobilization does occur because of which they could be accomplished, this very mobilization pushes the demand beyond mere wealth taxation.Michal Kalecki, who had shown as early as in 1937 that capital taxation, which served to reduce inequality in society, was also the best way to finance government expenditure for raising employment in the economy, had ended his essay by saying: "It is difficult to believe however that capital taxation will ever be applied for this purpose on a large scale; for it may seem to undermine the principle of private property."9 He had gone on to quote a part of Joan Robinson's remarkably insightful comment: "Any government which had the power and the will to remedy the major defects of the capitalist system would have the will and power to abolish it altogether, while governments which have the power to retain the system lack the will to remedy its defects."10 While reading Piketty we should not forget this basic insight of Joan Robinson."
alanjjohnstone wrote:As we always say, you cannot build the foundations of a new society on the ruined rubble of the old one, (well, not as easily)Much food for thoughtful digestion, nevertheless.Plus we need to remember this is in the middle of a war zone. This set up began in 2012, as related in the article, when local population took over municipality buildings and the security bods gave up followed by municipal workers resigning or walking out to become 'normal citizens'.Work in progress. I have read in Ocalan's prison writings that he recognises that this is not 'true' socialism and that true socialism is not possible in one country. (I'm hoping nobody asks for exactly where – it could take a while to rediscover it!)
"Rojava has many foes Turkey: The example of Rojava is not liked, because it may be the blueprint of a federal Turkey with Kurdish autonomy and it challenges the existing central government. USA: Because Rojava cannot be used against Bashar Al-Assad, the United States are not interested to support it. Northern Iraq: The autonomous Kurdish province in northern Iraq under the rule of tribal leader Barzani boycotts Rojava because the conservative and autocratic Barzani clan has no interest in a democratic model in its neighborhood. Most of the regional neighbors are against Rojava because the Arab states have a patriarchal society and emancipatory movements are undesirable and viewed as a threat to the social fabric."The above from Mato's blog (http://mato48.com/2014/10/16/rojava-has-no-friends/) – these four sentences are pretty apposite. Each player has his own agenda. How can a number of 'independent' states, all with different interests, ever really work to a satisfactory outcome for all? They talk about 'international agreements' – what a joke.Included in this blog is quite a bit about Ocalan's 'Democratic Federalism' which was discussed here a few posts ago and it's worth reading.My view on this 'Kurdish autonomous region' is that thy are engaged in defending their region against ISIS (ISIL, IS, ISID) along with the Syrian army (in different areas) defending Syria against the same, plus all and any of NATO's aggression. Early on in this fracas Assad agreed with the Kurds that he would leave them to their own autonomy and defence , freeing up the Syrian army to concentrate elsewhere. The US and allies long term goal is not ISIS, they're a tool, but the overthrow of Assad pure and simple.
If you're obliged to work – at whatever, blue collar, white collar, low, middle or high income, wage or salary , in order to support your life's needs – you're working class. Just keep reminding people of that.
It seems impossible to know how things are going from one minute to the next. There's plenty of talk going on in local media but there is a lot of control over that here. So many threads going on at the same time.Here's a take from Urfa, a Turkey/Syrian border town, in Turkey from Roar Mag:http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/roarmag/~3/y_4lK6UQ2Nc/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=emailWe're more than 600 miles from the largely Kurdish area where most of the protests are taking part and here locals seem to blame Erdogan for anything and everything that is bad, or goes wrong. They are not AKP supporters in the main. A lot of folk are more worried about the domestic issues linked to Erdogan's long stint in government and now as president cum sultan – that they will wake up one day and find they have a state that is based on religion as Iran is. One avowedly secular friend speculates about a break up of Turkey (not along the US lines of Turkey/Kurdistan) but as two states, the eastern religious one and the western secular.But, back to Kobane, Turkey/US/UK and 'allies' are certainly playing a double game. Prime target is still Assad, which might have to be delayed while they pretend to lessen the strength of ISIS, and of course their agendas do not coincide neatly which also adds problems to the whole. Turkey and US are at odds about how to proceed at this point but make no mistake Erdogan is determined to be top dog in the area.Re Ocalan's philosophy, I have some of his 'prison writings'. You can find them listed on Wikipedia and also Amazon.
Engelli – sorry no s – in Turkish means disabled. Funny how the mind works! (Well, certainly mine, anyway)I do like anagrams enormously. Nothing personal but anyone else notice driBL?
Coming back to this topic, here's a site, new to me, that has relevant comment to make.eg – BBC News at Ten relayed, uncontested, this ideological assertion from Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen:'Surrounded by an arc of crisis, our alliance, our transatlantic community, represents an island of security, stability and prosperity.'In fact, the truth is almost precisely the reverse of Rasmussen's assertion. Nato is a source of insecurity, instability, war and violence afflicting much of the world. True to form, BBC News kept well clear of that documented truth. Nor did it even remind its audience of the awkward fact that Rasmussen, when he was Danish prime minister, had once said:'Iraq has WMDs. It is not something we think, it is something we know.Their latest post can be found here: http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=777:the-comic-book-simplicity-of-propaganda&catid=52:alerts-2014&Itemid=245http://tinyurl.com/nuazvzo
An article I've just found/read is pertinent to this discussion, and says in more detail than I could/would have.EG: "The states in the fifteen countries represented here range from quasi-military “democracies” of the right (Guatemala) to governments that say they are “on the road to socialism,” but which are actually “reformist” at best.[9] They, as well as their political parties, also claim to represent “the people.” But in fact, the interests of civil society, as organized in social movements, rarely converge with those of parties and states, because reformist states must respond to the pressures of international capital, local oligarchies, and other forces that directly oppose the interests of the majority."And later it talks about how all of the governments are hostage to the transnational capitalist class – with which we can largely agree – leading to discrepancies between discourse and practice.There's some really interesting perspective relating to history of the various countries and it's clear to see that so much of what's happening is about RESISTANCE to what's gone before. So, although the article is based on Latin America we can relate it too to the Phillipines, where the thread started, and to a whole host of other places. So, what do we do if we can't have socialism in one country? We resist, fight back, protest, occupy land and buildings, etc etc – as was mentioned somewhere in the article – there is a practice of unity in diversity. And we keep on doing what we can in our various ways to build the movement and keep it moving forward.Article here: http://www.upsidedownworld.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5060:until-the-rulers-obey-learning-from-latin-americas-social-movements&catid=30:international&Itemid=60or here: http://tinyurl.com/lqamfhbDefinitely worth a read.
Granted, most of us probably feel a bit of a lift when we read something that strikes us as positive because most of the time we feel like we're facing interminable opposition – pushing that huge rock forever up the hill.Any of these movements, whether Philippines, Bolivia and other Latin American countries are all massively constrained by the capitalist system. We accept that socialism is impossible in one country, it has to be global. That also means that all ethnicities with our widely diverse cultures have to be taken into account. people in different regions live lives often very different from each of our personal/collective norms.WSM members and sympathisers are in the main from the empire builder, coloniser countries – UK, US, Canada, Australia and english speaking with a huge baggage of history. Latin America, Phillipines etc have a different history, different baggage, that of being the colonised. Different perspectives, different goals. But seeking a way out from under. And lashing out against what is forced onto them by the system. Certainly capitalism is more widely recognised around the world as being the major factor in our troubles. That has to be good.Sorry, got to go – back later.
Following up on your 'interesting question' I wonder if you've seen the article I posted on SOYMB yesterday? A view from the Philppines with much that resonates with our viewpoint:http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com.tr/2014/09/statement-from-philippines-socialist.htmlCould be a discussion point here too.
Yes, it is the VP project – however don't be disappointed. I put a comment up and gave a link to our site and to Paddy's video Capitalism and Other Kid's Stuff – you never know who might follow it up. We just have to keep on doing what we can.
42!?Isn't that the answer to life, the universe and everything? You should be in for a VERY interesting day. Success to you all.
Too many dormant brains, that's for sure. 'They' – fuckin idiots – sure, some of them, some of us? I'm trying not to be pedantic but I'm always uncomfortable with sweeping generalisations, and 'they' , meaning working class, is an awful lot of people so I can't go along with it."If we do this, and use a theory of class, we start to see a small group of humans deliberately shaping the majority into forms which suit the minority. That is, this society makes 'fuckin idiots' of the majority, and we have both an explanation 'why' and a 'how to change it'." – from L Bird, above – I definitely do go along with and there are many examples of people, members and non-members, trying to do this in different ways.Ozy, life is tough and some lives much tougher than others and our object seems to be a tough call but what would you suggest we do if it's not to pursue our goal, however impossible it may seem to some? Seriously, would you rather give up totally, forgo the challenge, and encourage others to do the same? Is that even in your nature? I wonder.
Washington Post – this from Peter Hart on FAIR'S blog here: http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/08/29/washington-post-editorial-page-meet-noam-chomsky/"I was recently reading a Noam Chomsky lecture from 2004 where he speaks about terrorism, human rights and the concept of universality:One moral truism that should be uncontroversial is the principle of universality: We should apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others–in fact, more stringent ones.Chomsky's point is that Western elites carve out an obvious exception for themselves–they deem their own countries "to be uniquely exempt from the principle of universality…. The crimes of enemies take place; our own do not, by virtue of our exemption from the most elementary of moral truisms."I thought of this as I read the Washington Post's editorial (8/29/14) condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine, which the Ukrainian government and other observers are calling a military invasion:If any international norm can still be called uncontroversial, it is the stricture against cross-border aggression by one sovereign state against another. Certainly any failure to enforce it in one place invites violations elsewhere.The paper cannot possibly mean this to be taken literally, for it amounts to a call for someone to stop the United States.Of course, their words are not to be taken literally. The paper has been highly critical of the White House's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan (most recently last week); they would prefer prolonging those conflicts. The paper's advocacy for US wars during the Bush years is well-documented; it ran a couple dozen editorials in support of the Iraq invasion, which one should agree was an act of "cross-border aggression."The other US wars of the moment, waged via drones and airstrikes, receive enthusiastic support from the Post. And it has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of striking Syria. The record–of which one could say plenty more–speaks for itself.It is difficult to find a coherent explanation for the Post's apparent position that Putin's aggression so obviously violates "international norms" that are "uncontroversial," but US warmaking is, if anything, insufficiently aggressive. Unless you accept that the kind of people who edit the Washington Post are the kind of people who do not believe that "universal norms" apply to everyone."Thing is, what he's talking about swamps us daily – unsubstantiated trash and downright lies from all around. Yes, we can choose to stay away from it but that then cuts us off from much of which we choose to contradict. Does anyone else ever feel so angry, indignant or so weighed down with it that they almost lose the will to live? Arghhhh!
