stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I disagree with ALB. Thompson’s biography is superb, but so is McCarthy’s. I prefer McCarthy’s because it is just so beautifully written. I did not get the impression that she was trying to make Morris out to be anything other than what he was: multifaceted, and hence appealing to many people, including greens and class struggle sociaiists.To answer Jon’s initital question, is Thompson any good? Who better?
A very good review of David Graeber’s book here:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n09/benjamin-kunkel/forgive-us-our-debtsIt about covers everything.All the best
Chomsky is a great man, and if saying so irritates Gnome, so much the better! I think he’s more than great: I think he’s wise, an enlightened being, a boddhisattva. There, I’d hate to leave this forum for the weekend without leaving the cynics and scoffers something to sneer at. Cheerio.
If it’s the evidence you’re interested in, why not email and ask him? He’s usually good at replying (though as a matter of basic courtesy and decency you might want to keep your message shorter than the stuff you burden us with on here). I’ve never questioned the authority of the great man on this issue because his point seems to me to be blindingly obvious. If not to you, then question away.
Dave voted for Labour, which I’m sure he wouldn’t mind my saying. I wouldn’t presume to advise on your own voting. Perhaps the Liberal — does he do any good locally?
That Obama has been worse than Bush on some issues, for example foreign policy, is an argument Chomsky has made himself, so I don’t see how you can offer it in support of an argument against him. The key point in that interview is this:”Obama is quite different from the Republican candidates, and the constituencies of the two political organizations differ, which helps lead to different policies. Over a long stretch, for example, working people have made out better under Democratic than Republican administrations …”Chomsky votes for the party that is most likely to lead to the most positive outcome for the working class, a decision he bases on the best available evidence and research. It’s not a hard point to understand. Indeed, I know most sensible SPGB members understand it perfectly well: privately, many SPGBers will admit that they prefer to see a Labour win than a Tory one (you’d have to be mad not to), and I have known a few members admit to voting secretly for “lesser evil” candidates. Good on them.
Hmm, you might be right, but I don’t know on what basis you can be quite so confident or blasé. It took a world war to get us out of the last depression. Will the human race survive another world war? Is the survival of the ecosystem compatible with the continuation of the profit system, even if on a ‘greener’ footing? I’m not stocking up on tins of food, but I won’t be making any bets either.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Well worth a watch on Al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2012/03/201232754252617285.htmlThanks Alan, good piece, well worth watching, as you say. Also, relatedly to what we were just talking about:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122261354555340.html
ALB wrote:stuartw2112 wrote:it’s sometimes hard to tell if you’re not actually there.You’re not saying, are you, that this means being there in a tent? Or can visiting occupations and talking to people there, reading their leaflets, blogs, etc count as well?
No, of course not: I’ve not been there in a tent, most people haven’t, even the most active! I just meant it’s easy to get one impression from blogs, websites, videos; quite another from just turning up. I try to do both, but Oakland’s a bit far to go!
ALB wrote:It’s not easy from over here to work out exactly what’s been happening in Oakland. Here’s a rather different analysis, from some “ultraleftists” on the spot (taken from one of their discussion forums I’m on). Don’t know if there’s any truth in their allegation that the movement there has been hijacked by a bunch of varied vanguardists (and of course any contacts with the organised trade-union movement would be anathema to ultraleftists even if not such a problem for us and a delight to vanguardists):http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/01/30/18706115.php“Regardless of the million problems that existed in Occupy Oakland (whether from the abuse of modified consensus, or the lack of willingness to discuss what it means to reclaim public space and move toward disrespecting private property, or the naïveté of most of the regular folks), the active participation of those regular folks was the only thing keeping OO from devolving into yet another absurd Leftist spectacle of half-assed dissent and truncated opposition.”I agree with the authors: this is what is most exciting about the Occupy movement, even in its smallest and most isolated incarnations. If the authors are right that the “regular folks” have abandoned OO, then that would be about the worst thing that’s happened to the movement (in America) so far. That’s not at all what seems to me to be happening more generally, but, as you say, it’s sometimes hard to tell if you’re not actually there.
“Socialism, Communism, whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth…will restore society.”Oscar Wilde
That’s what I said: that’s where we’re at. The defeat of the miners was of course an absolutely key event that still defines where we’re at. Words alone won’t and haven’t changed much. The crisis and the occupations and strikes are beginning to.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:First impressions. A little depressing as there is only capitalism to tinker with. There’s nothing there about communism, no hope, no relief from wage slavery.There is only capitalism to tinker with… well, yes, that’s where we’re at. There’s still no alternative. But if there’s hope, it lies with the Occupiers.
