glomper_stomper posted:my principal concern is that, as it stands, the response to brexit isn't built on marxist-leninist, or even politically stable, grounds... i believe the vote was a choice between different characters of imperialism and whether the communist movement can turn against the reactionary tide and build the support of the masses will depend almost entirely on understanding the present situation of transition from one degenerate stage of capitalism to the next.
well, yeah. agreed.
in the absence of organised ML strategy in the short term, i think british comrades could do worse than start working with existing local anti-deportation and antifa groups if they havent already. just my 2p.
stegosaurus posted:This along with that cpgb-ml thread where we decided trans issues aren't related to communist politics
Link
Edited by swampman ()
swampman posted:stegosaurus posted:This along with that cpgb-ml thread where we decided trans issues aren't related to communist politics
Link
stalin corbyn thread somewhere. idk it was bad.
stegosaurus posted:swampman posted:stegosaurus posted:This along with that cpgb-ml thread where we decided trans issues aren't related to communist politics
Link
stalin corbyn thread somewhere. idk it was bad.
You should post an actual link so that I either know where I'm going wrong, or so you can realize that you are not giving an accurate summary of the thread, bc I was pretty active in that discussion and would like to know if Im the pseudo fascist these days
stegosaurus posted:stalin corbyn thread somewhere. idk it was bad.
boy howdy was that a bad thread.
Edited by HenryKrinkle ()
babyhueypnewton posted:Like I said, all the UK communist parties across the spectrum are for Brexit
lexit was a campaign run by CPGB-ML afaik, in alliance with RESPECT and TUSC and some others
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/t6645ad-lexit
for what its worth, Revolutionary Communist Group ran an abstention campaign, but how do you abstain from yes/no without claiming exit is a bunch of racists you dont want to vote along with?
Edited by Urbandale ()
stegosaurus posted:This along with that cpgb-ml thread where we decided trans issues aren't related to communist politics is uhh putting us on a not good trajectory. The r value of these data points correlating with a downward sloping curve is .69 which is rather high.
Nice..!
HenryKrinkle posted:when the dust clears Brexit may be a perfect example of Doing The Right Thing For The Wrong Reasons. i mean, i remember a lot of paleocons/paleocon posturing helping reduce support for a NFZ in Syria in 2013. that said we should be honest about the anti-immigration thing if it was a factor.
https://www.facebook.com/sarah.leblanc.718/media_set?set=a.10101369198638985&type=3
xipe posted:https://www.facebook.com/sarah.leblanc.718/media_set?set=a.10101369198638985&type=3
very few of these scenarios couldn't have been solved with a cricket bat
Edited by Urbandale ()
ilmdge posted:FAILAIDS posted:did anyone post this
6HiptoBhy7k?t=7m28sSAM KRISS: As it happens, I would ordinarily be a-- my natural instincts would tend towards leaving the EU actually. I agree, it's a deeply undemocratic body. It exists to cement a certain form of class power, and it's to prevent individual government from doing things that might be different and might actually be better for their own people. What I find has forced me into actually supporting a remain vote is the tenor of the debate that's coming from the leave side...
Has there been any genuine communist argument for staying in the EU? At all? So far all I've seen is "I know the EU is bad BUT...". This kind of argument seems likely to drive people into the arms of the far right, as they (rightfully) see how duplicitous the moderate left is.
Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()
The countries of Northern and Western Europe, most of which are occupied by us, comprise an economic system that is closely related to our own… with largely similar social and economic structures. They are also closely related to us in terms of culture, civilization and race (sic!), which means that between Germany and these northern and western European countries there exists a common ground for a single market, for uniform levels of prices, incomes and wages. Thus a customs and currency union between these countries and Germany is not only possible but is also desirable from an economic perspective.
Asked “Why do we need a European Community?”, Dr. Schlotterer answered
Namely because we want to create a rational division of labor in agriculture and industry, because we want to achieve the lowest possible production costs within Greater Europe, which means that we must discontinue production that is not viable…
Economic integration within the New Europe was to be implemented by
business… in our view the economy of Greater Europe will be generated by the initiatives of the business community. Obviously as a State we can enter into economic agreements… but they will remain abstractions if they are not implemented by business…
After 1945, one of the first important steps toward realizing Dr. Schlotterer’s vision of a united Europe was the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1951 by France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and West Germany. It was the basis for the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community one year later. EU enthusiasts often claim that the aim of the community was to eliminate the possibility of future wars between the signatories. The real aim was to “rationalize” the Western European coal and steel industries, which were suffering from over-capacity and excessive competition that involved downward pressure on prices and profits.
In the words of Dr. Schlotterer, shareholders in these industries wanted “to achieve the lowest possible production costs… which means that we must discontinue production that is not viable…” The resulting increase in unemployment did not worry the shareholders, since such an increase normally helps to depress wage levels.
The uniform level of pan-European wages referred by Dr. Schlotterer remained a primary goal for the directors of the European Community (EC) that developed in the decades after 1945. But a number of factors made it difficult to achieve their goal. These included the strength of trade unions and Communist parties in Western Europe, and the existence of the Soviet Union and other socialist economies in the East, where working conditions, pensions and social benefits served as a benchmark.
In the early 1980s some of the leading European capitalists began to realize that the need for a Europe that was united on their terms was more urgent than ever. For a number of reasons, GDP annual growth rates in the OECD countries dropped from 5-6% in the 1950s and 1960s to 2-3% in the early 1970s, a massive decline of about 50%. Annual GDP growth has been low, or nonexistent, ever since. This is a trend, of course. Figures for specific years may vary. In other words, the capitalist system has been in stagnation for about 40 years. By the early 1980s the more prescient European capitalists began to understand that they were not facing a “normal” fluctuation in the business cycle, but a disturbing trend to stagnation that could conceivably be long-term.
During the sharp world-wide recession of the early 1980s the European Round Table (ERT) was established on the initiative of the Swede Pehr Gyllenhammar, then president of Volvo. It comprised about 15 of the leading West European industrialists. Within a short time the ERT submitted a plan to Jacques Delors, head of the EC’s European Commission. The plan was a blueprint for the subsequent Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union.
Among other things, it called for a single currency, a single market and a central bank that would be independent of the member countries, as well as a “more flexible” labor market. Job security was an obsolete concept. Job insecurity was disguised as “Learning for life”, i.e. white- as well as blue-collar workers would have to adjust to a new deregulated labor market with no job security. The report also explained that there was no time to waste. It was imperative that the union be established no later than 1992, which turned out to be the year when the Maastricht Treaty was signed. The Treaty was the beginning of the last act in the long tragicomedy known as European bourgeois democracy.
In an echo of Dr. Schlotterer’s views, the ERT currently describes itself as comprising (emphasis added):
…around 45 chief executives and chairmen of major multinational companies of European parentage covering a wide range of industrial and technological sectors… European industry cannot flourish unless it can compete in a global economy. This capacity to compete cannot be determined solely by the efforts of individual companies. The prevailing economic and social policy framework is crucially important and must be flexible enough to adapt swiftly to changes in global conditions. ERT Member Companies’ actions help to strengthen and support some of the key enabling conditions which trigger innovation and entrepreneurship elsewhere in the economy. Enabling conditions are part of the external business environment within which economic activity takes place, and are the result of actions undertaken by governments, public institutions and those in private sector (sic!).
The ERT notes that the required solution cannot be achieved by the actions of individuals, or even of “individual companies” (Professor Hayes please note).
ERT therefore advocates policies, at both national and European levels, which help create conditions necessary to improve European growth and jobs.
In other words, the ERT writes the agenda for the EU. The project for transforming the EC into a European Union did not arouse much enthusiasm among the working class in Western Europe, largely because the EC had never offered any opportunities for democratic participation in decision-making.
The EU offers less than nothing. It is a supranational organization designed to eliminate state sovereignty and the remnants of representative bourgeois democracy in Europe. It comprises a Parliament, a Council of Ministers, and a European Commission. The Parliament is one in name only, having none of the traditional parliamentary powers such as control of the budget or the right to propose legislation. It is a virtual rubber stamp for the Commission’s decisions, which are often based on input from the Council that is not available to the public.
The European Union is run by and for large privately owned companies. It serves as an arena within which the major industrial and banking corporations of Europe can resolve any differences that may arise between them, and at the same time ensure that Europe as a whole offers what is euphemistically known as “a favorable investment climate”, i.e. a region in which profits can be maximized.
The citizens of the EU member countries have no insight into the deliberations or the decision-making processes of the Council and the Commission. Their own ministers are not permitted to make such information public. On repeated occasions journalists have tried to gain access to documentation, without success. “Democracy deficit” is the EU’s term for the denial of citizen insight into the organization that governs them.
The European Central Bank (ECB) is tasked with implementing a financial policy that has one and only one aim – “price stability”. The rest is silence. As if that weren’t enough, the agreement specifies that it is absolutely forbidden for anyone in the government of a member state to attempt to influence the bank’s policies or even contact the bank (Maastricht Treaty, Protocol on the ECB, Chapter III, Article 7). That privilege is implicitly reserved for the privately owned banks of Europe.
The Treaty has no provisions for dealing with the difficult problem of persistent and increasing unemployment. In the winter of 1993-1994 the EU released a White Paper on unemployment which stated that it had doubled within Western Europe over the preceding 20 years, and admitted that no solution had been proposed or was under development. The trend for unemployment has continued upward since then, for reasons which are discussed later in this chapter. The EU has never proposed a solution to the problem.
The anti-democratic nature of the EU is clearly demonstrated by the procedures for ratifying a proposed constitution and the subsequent Lisbon agreement. In 2005 the leaders of the Union wanted a new constitution to be adopted. Many people understood that it was an instrument for further centralization of power and erosion of national sovereignty. Among other things, the EU would have common foreign and security policies, which would make it impossible for the member nations to decide on their own such policies.
According to the Maastricht Treaty, the constitution had to be ratified by all the member nations in order to become valid. National referendums were to be held in several countries. Sweden was not among them. In line with its devotion to democracy, the government of Sweden announced that there would be no referendum, for three reasons according to the Swedish Foreign Minister. She was obviously inspired by an old Brooklyn joke about a man named Cohen whose daughter would soon celebrate her Sweet Sixteen birthday.
Cohen had very little money, so he asked his wealthy friend Bernstein if he could borrow a few things to decorate his apartment for a party on his daughter’s birthday. Bernstein agreed. The borrowed decorations included a Ming vase. After the party Cohen returned everything. Bernstein phoned the next day to complain that the vase was cracked. Cohen was mystified. One word led to another, and the two men wound up in court.
Cohen’s lawyer announced that the defense of his client would be based on three simple facts: 1) Mr. Cohen had never borrowed the vase, 2) when he borrowed the vase it was already cracked, 3) when he returned the vase it was in perfect condition.
In justification of the decision not to allow a popular referendum on the constitution, the Swedish Foreign Minister explained that 1) The Swedes had already ratified the constitution when they voted to join the EU ten years earlier, in 1994, 2) the changes relative to the Maastricht Treaty were so minor that they were not worth debating, 3) the issues involved were so complex that ordinary people would not be able to understand them.
Referendums were held in France and The Netherlands, where large majorities voted No. The constitution was dead.
But there was no need for the rulers of Europe to worry. After a decent 2-year interval, they proposed the Treaty of Lisbon, a warmed-over and cosmeticized version of the dead constitution. The heads of the member states were instructed not to take chances with popular referendums. The treaty was to be ratified by domestic parliaments, where party whips could ensure compliance, because the rulers of the EU understood that allowing popular referendums would kill the Lisbon Treaty.
The only exception was Ireland, whose own constitution requires popular approval of such a treaty. The Irish voted No. The Lisbon Treaty was dead. Margot Wallström, a Swedish politician (social democrat) who at the time was a member of the European Commission (2004 – 2010), blurted out that the Irish refusal “doesn’t make any difference”, which it nevertheless did, according to the EU’s own rules. Other, less volatile members of the EU’s higher bureaucracy exhibited discreet disappointment.
The rulers of Europe then decided to apply the rain-dance principle. When water is in short supply, the members of the tribe do a dance that will induce rain to fall. If no rain is forthcoming within a few days, the chief tells them “You didn’t do the dance right”. They keep repeating the dance, until the rain comes. Then he tells them “This time you did it right”.
It was decided that the Irish would have to vote on the treaty a second time, because they had not received the proper information and were therefore confused. After copious applications of bullying, bribes, misinformation and false promises the Irish finally did it right and voted Yes. The Lisbon Treaty is now in force. The European Union is free to continue its march toward Dr. Schlotterer’s vision of a pan-European state that is centrally managed in the interests of big business, with “uniform levels of prices, incomes and wages” that will help maximize profits for those who are entitled to them.
Chthonic_Goat_666 posted:yeah liberal tears is crazy even here in Aus. still a strong affinity for the motherland i suppose.
turns out most of these types in straya are upset that this might make their plans to backpack around europe more expensive
EmanuelaBrolandi posted:I read ur post as argument against the EU not argument for MS, my bad.
I think that the EU is a utopian liberal project and was always doomed to fail, supporting such a project would be unwise for communists. I'm willing to hear arguments from communists/leftists who think otherwise but so far it's been mostly "I know the EU is bad BUT exiting now will strengthen the right". To me, that's not really an argument for Remain, that's a sign that the left has been unwilling/unable to articulate a real opposition to EU policies, leading to reactionaries being able to court people who might be otherwise sympathetic to our position. That says something about the state of leftist politics in the UK over the last 45 years. Back in the 70s it was common even on the moderate left (Labour) to express Eurosceptic views. Now this moderate left has been so thoroughly tamed by finance capital that its Eurosceptic leader doesn't dare speak his actual views (lol).
"The countries of Northern and Western Europe, most of which are occupied by us, comprise an economic system that is closely related to our own… with largely similar social and economic structures. They are also closely related to us in terms of culture, civilization and race, which means that between Germany and these northern and western European countries there exists a common ground for a single market, for uniform levels of prices, incomes and wages. Thus a customs and currency union between these countries and Germany is not only possible but is also desirable from an economic perspective."
Asked “Why do we need a European Community?”, Dr. Schlotterer answered:
"Namely because we want to create a rational division of labor in agriculture and industry, because we want to achieve the lowest possible production costs within Greater Europe, which means that we must discontinue production that is not viable… Economic integration within the New Europe was to be implemented by business… in our view the economy of Greater Europe will be generated by the initiatives of the business community. Obviously as a State we can enter into economic agreements… but they will remain abstractions if they are not implemented by business…"
The businessmen were impressed at the thought of the profits they could extract from a vast pan-European working class. They praised Dr Schlotterer eagerly, exclaiming "Fantastic! Genius! And what shall we call the United business Community of this New Europe?"
Dr Schlotterer smirked aryanly, and answered: "The Aristocrats."
tpaine posted:it's really a predecessor to american psycho
you should watch Society (1989) tpaine. like Vampires Kiss its better if you don't know anything about it going in
EmanuelaBrolandi posted:The only exception was Ireland, whose own constitution requires popular approval of such a treaty. The Irish voted No. The Lisbon Treaty was dead. Margot Wallström, a Swedish politician (social democrat) who at the time was a member of the European Commission (2004 – 2010), blurted out that the Irish refusal “doesn’t make any difference”, which it nevertheless did, according to the EU’s own rules. Other, less volatile members of the EU’s higher bureaucracy exhibited discreet disappointment.
The rulers of Europe then decided to apply the rain-dance principle. When water is in short supply, the members of the tribe do a dance that will induce rain to fall. If no rain is forthcoming within a few days, the chief tells them “You didn’t do the dance right”. They keep repeating the dance, until the rain comes. Then he tells them “This time you did it right”.
It was decided that the Irish would have to vote on the treaty a second time, because they had not received the proper information and were therefore confused. After copious applications of bullying, bribes, misinformation and false promises the Irish finally did it right and voted Yes.
lol.