[Young Master Smeet]

I think part of that is that the critique by atheism begins and ends with 'there is no god, and Allah isn't his name.'  The materialist critique goes further and says that ideas have no independent substance and it is dangerous to reify ideologies (as both opponents and detractors would like to do).  These apparent auto-jihadists would probably find a cause to be violent even if Islam didn't exist, it just provides a map for their actions and a means to comprehend their desires.   Thorough going critical materialism is the ultimate riposte to Islamist ideologues because it essentially says that doctrine is irrelevent.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, what they got, apparently:https://theconversation.com/a-global-abomination-woolwich-and-the-politics-of-violent-images-14575

Quote:

Research on school shootings helps explain what this might mean. This work emphasises that media affect how real violence works as a symbolic phenomenon. There is a “performative” aspect to this particular form of mass murder. According to their own posthumous accounts, shooters are often acting out their rage against people and society. The promise, and even the certainty of media notoriety lends a distinct shape to their actions. Cho-Seung Hui, for example, stopped in the middle of the Virginia Tech murders to film a monologue, which he then delivered to NBC. When it comes to school shootings, the crime and the media event are often hard to separate.

This article draws interesting comparisons with the Rot Armee Faktion (RAF):https://theconversation.com/terror-on-the-streets-of-london-but-dont-jump-to-conclusions-yet-13883

Quote:

This isn’t new of course – in the 1970s the Red Army Faction claimed some of its violent bombings in West Germany were carried out on behalf of the Vietnamese people. It also justified its actions from the ideas of Karl Marx. Yet none of the group had been to Vietnam and one of the principal leaders – Andreas Baader – didn’t even read Marx until after he had been imprisoned.

Interesting is the idea of "non-negotiable, sacred beliefs" being at the core of such ideologies.I think anyone involved in fringe politics will have met at least one person with potentially violent fantasies, and dreams of being the saviour, the hero: currently global jihad is the sacred idea that spurs such people beyond fantasy into action, whereas back in the 7's the narrative was global communism, which lead to the RAF.However closely this event is linked to decentralised terrorism, I think it's more reassuring than any truly organised campaign (however horrific the actual attack is).

[Young Master Smeet]

https://theconversation.com/what-went-wrong-for-the-co-op-bank-14308This article seems to be pointing the blame at over-ambition and expansion:

Quote:

But in recent years the bank became increasingly ambitious and expansionary.This was most vividly demonstrated when it took over the Britannia Building Society in 2009. At that time, Britannia was the second biggest building society in the UK. The business plan was to build a mutual bank that could start to take on the plc banks like HSBC and Barclays. This strategy found favour with many commentators and politicians who, in the wake of the 2007/08 financial crisis, were keen to have more competition in the financial services market and to see ethical banking succeed.

Interestingly, Britannia was also a mutual organisation (so it slightly surprising that it's loan book was not transparent, unless they didn't know how based it was neither).  Upton's conclusion is telling:

Quote:

It tried to expand too quickly, and it took over an organisation without properly considering the value of the purchase. These are mistakes any business can make.

The mistakes that can cause untold misery for thousands of people.

[Young Master Smeet]

But an important part of any discussion is being clear where you're coming from.  It would be inconceivable for someone turning up to a biology conference to be attacked for thinking they know the answers.  Now, fundamental premises are divisive, but they need to be sought out early, rather than eluded and hidden.  That's one reason why I abhor consensus systems.  I have no objection to Left unity or Occupy, save to state the simple fact that to get what they want they will need to use political action to abolish market relations: it's our job to say that.  We won't try and join and demand faction rights, observer status, affiliate status (etc.) we just say we have our opinion: it is different from yours.  Hopefully, if I can find a contact in North London, my branch will try and hold a debate with Left Unity, and say that.

[Young Master Smeet]

Ed,my quotes were meant to show that Charlie & Fred tended to refer to 'Deliberate plan' or 'Common plan' not 'Planned economy' but there was clearly a juxtaposition of 'plan' to 'anarchy of individual interests' .  I held back from quoting from Engels article on communes in the states, but the sorts of society he describes there and understands by communism clearly had an element of 'elected central controllers'http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htmWe can look at Marx arguing with Bakunin to see something along the lines that they saw such positions becoming technical rather than political once common ownership was established:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

[Young Master Smeet]

I'd argue that even the current market anarchy is to a certain extent 'designed' and far from spontaneous.  I think, to resort to metaphor, I'm talking about the difference between an orchestra (with a score and conductor) compared with a jamming band, who know a few common rules, and can indicate timings and transition between themselves through readily understood means.  Orchestral socialism, or Jazz socialism?

[Young Master Smeet]

Actually, I think there is more mileage nowadays in talking about a 'designed' economy, to make clear that we're not talking about everyone being subordinated to some master chart mapping out every hour of their day, regulating life down to the last rivet, but rather that we mean that we'll know how branches of production relate to one another.  If we design how things are going to work in advance, and then just leave them to get on with it.

[Young Master Smeet]

I also missed 'definite plan', again, from principles of Communism:

Fred wrote:

hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Fred wrote:

In communist society it will be easy to be informed about both production and consumption. Since we know how much, on the average, a person needs, it is easy to calculate how much is needed by a given number of individuals, and since production is no longer in the hands of private producers but in those of the community and its administrative bodies, it is a trifling matter to regulate production according to needs.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/02/15.htm

[Young Master Smeet]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Fred wrote:

What will this new social order have to be like?Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

Charlie & Fred tend to talk about common plan than 'planned economy'http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

Charlie wrote:

If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Fred wrote:

In the trusts, freedom of competition changes into its very opposite — into monopoly; and the production without any definite plan of capitalistic society capitulates to the production upon a definite plan of the invading socialistic society

There's a few more choice quotes, I can't recall the precise terms I'd need to look for them, and the book I need is at home…

[Young Master Smeet]

Stuart,when I saw some of the comments, my thought was that you haven't changed, but you've just changed club, and while some of us want to keep on trying with the same old 5-Iron, you prefer to experiment with the odd sand-wedge. That seems fair enough to me.

[Young Master Smeet]

http://leftunity.org/left-unitys-first-national-meeting-a-report/A report of their first meeting, from an author we'd recognise (late of this parish); note the vituperative comments below from the sects at the decision not to give them a formal presence in the organisation (I'm sure they'll try and use the space for debate to get themselves embedded structurally).

[Young Master Smeet]

The blurb from the book:

Blurb wrote:

The neoliberalism that has dominated economic thinking since Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan first came to power is now seen to have serious flaws, and Progressive Capitalism seeks to replace it with a new, Progressive political economy. This is based on an analysis of why the growth rates of countries differ, and what firms have to do to achieve competitive advantage in today s global economy. The cornerstone of the political economy of Progressive Capitalism is a belief in capitalism. But it also incorporates the three defining beliefs of Progressive thinking. These are: the crucial role of institutions the need for the state to be involved in their design because conflicting interests have to be resolved and the use of social justice as an important measure of a country s economic performance. Social justice, defined as fairness, is used as a measure of performance in addition to the rate of economic growth and liberty. Progressive Capitalism shows how this new, Progressive political economy can be used by politicians and policymakers to produce a programme of economic reform for a country. It does this by analysing and proposing reforms for the UK s equity markets, its system of corporate governance, its national system of innovation and its education and training system. Finally, Progressive Capitalism describes the role the state should play in the economy, which it sees as an enabling one rather than the command-and-control stance of traditional socialism or the minimalist role of neoliberalism.

http://tinyurl.com/ckso6glIt certainly enabled Sainsbury to buy a peerage and make millions of pounds

[Young Master Smeet]

The KLF got there first:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid

[Young Master Smeet]

The significant thing is that the bad debts appear to be securitised on property, so even foreclosing on the building value won't cover the losses (which means the property market must still be floundering).

[Young Master Smeet]

Slightly worrying news about the Co-op bank:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22507937

Quote:

Here is what stood out for me. At the end of 2011, the Co-op Bank had £1.45bn of corporate loans on its "watchlist". In other words, it thought that £1.45bn of lending to companies – much of it property lending – could go bad….The point is that in the subsequent year, many of the companies with loans on the Co-op's watchlist did in fact default. Corporate loans in default at the Co-op jumped from £922m to just under £2bn….And that rise in defaults was a big contributor to the colossal £674m loss that the Co-op incurred in 2012….At the end of 2012, the Co-op had £3.7bn of commercial loans, home loans and personal loans that it classified as impaired or bad. Against that, it was holding a provision for potential losses on these loans of £643m….In other words the Co-op believes it will ultimately lose just 17% of these bad loans….At the same time, the Co-op has loss-absorbing equity capital of £1.6bn…Or to put it another way, impaired loans minus provisions for losses as a percentage of loss-absorbing capital is 194%.

So, things to absorb. The Co-op is a small relatively conservatively run bank, not a bunch of profiteering spivs, and a large tranche of it's loan book is going bad.  So the problem isn't with the bank, it is just a symptom of flailing in the wider economy. Secondly, this just shows that co-operatives are not a genuine alternative to the capitalist system, and are certainly not immune from its economic woes.  Thirdly, banks really, really, cannot just create credit a the stroke of a pen, otherwise it wouldn't be in this mess.

[Author]

Posts