Saturday, 27 December 2014

Trying to get to grips with Veganism and animal rights more.

Reply to "Free trade is fair trade".

Free Trade is Fair Trade

I will write up a proper response later....

This video is naïve. And very unsophisticated- all government regulation is wrong no matter who advocates it and for what reasons which is a very simplistic analysis.

Where's class analysis? it's very poor.

The video says state regulation is neither fair or free.   Moans that states intervene in the market. True but not always bad if it helps the oppressed and capitalism requires it that's why, capitalism is never laissez faire.

This video sounds very little different from 'Anarcho'-capitalism.Anti-tax shit sounds like Ancaps.
Lays all the blame on governments. Sounds like 'Voluntaryism' rhetoric( as long as voluntary) not anti-hierarchy anti-oppression anti-exploitation arguments made.

"If trade were 'free' the only ones people would agree to would be fair ones" That doesn't seem likely to be true.

Market forces would demand environmental degradation and consumerism. Ignores these problems.  Ignores externalities.

Free markets talk is not very sophisticated. There is still problems of money and banks.

Anarcho-communism not 'market anarchism'.

 

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

From The floodgates of anarchy - Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer.


"We can hardly declare ourselves unconditionally for unbridled freedom and then go on to lay down blueprints for the future. We are not clairvoyants to be able to predict the social and economic structure of a free society. It is not possible to lay down rules as to how affairs should be managed when the management of mankind itself is abolished. But at the same time, the rebel in this society cannot be patient enough to wait for an expression of spontaneity as if for the Messiah. He has to choose a programme of action and the road to Utopia. There may be more than one way, and we may need to shift our course, but the knowledge of where we want to get enables us to pursue a consistent course at the moment.
If our aim is the abolition of the State, it does not make good sense to think of forming a new state when the capitalist state is abolished, still less to establish a dictatorship. This, of course, was a fallacy of Lenin's "

" But with all their tolerance, the liberals will, in a crisis, betray their posts, for in times of stress they see "the floodgates of anarchy" opening. History has shown how the liberal will call in the army when things get tough, knowing that it will cause the downfall of democracy, but preferring that to revolution. General Franco was a paid Army officer on the salary list of the Republican Government he destroyed. The "impractical" Anarchist movement, the CNT-FAI (xv) called for the abolition of the Army and fought against it. The socialists and republicans preferred to bring in "reliable" Army officers, such as General Franco, with his Masonic background, replacing the monarchist officers. The Republic felt that this would save them from both fascism and the workers. The result is well-known"



"Anything was better than the "floodgates of anarchy" so far as they were concerned. So far as we are concerned, these are the gates which have to be opened. "




"It is an easy approach to libertarian thinking to express the iniquitous violence of the State, and contrast it with the complete non-violence of a non-governmental society. Yet it is dishonest to show the goods without mentioning the price, and a free society can only come about through determined resistance. It is not only a question of overthrowing a ruling class, but making it abundantly clear that no rule may exist again. The aim of the free society is not the "rejection" of the repressive organs of the State. It is their abolition.
In the realm of fiction, a revolutionary role is played by the creative writer, artist, musician. In the appreciation of their rejection of State values, the student plays a revolutionary role. But as regards the real thing, we have to consider in terms of the clash within society between those who rule and those who are ruled. It is a clash that amounts to civil war whether one calls it so or not. It is necessary to abolish imposed conquest in the realm both of the mind and of the body."

"Backward, indeed, to the free city, with its guilds of craftsmen and groups of scholars, its folk-meeting and loose federal association. But forward to the use of technology in its proper place, at the service of man, with education helping to eradicate hatreds and not ingrain them. Backward to the natural countryside, the village not tarted up for stockbrokers to live in and the streams not polluted because of the need for profits. But forward to the liberation of the mind from the superstitions of the past, to the ending of sexual puritanism with the incursion of authority into the concerns of humanity. Backward to the society without rulers imposed by conquest. Forward to the society freed from the domination of government or the principle of exploitation. Backward to the workers' councils of the Russian and German revolutions; the free communes of Spain, Ukrainia, Mexico; the occupation of the places of work in France and Italy; the earliest aims of the British shop stewards' movement and the federalistic conceptions of the First International. Forward to the Utopia of William Morris, now well within the reach of man. "

" the authoritarian communist has fallen into the trap of talking about national liberation and forgetting about social revolution, the danger for the libertarian is to fall into reformism. Once the near-impossibility of changing the State is accepted, and it is assumed, inaccurately, that it is therefore also impossible to abolish it; or, accurately, that this cannot be done without revolution and those with pacifist ideas reject this, one is driven to the position of liberalism. The militancy with which liberal ideals might be advanced does not make them revolutionary. Revolution has to do with social and economic change. Except in the transition to capitalism (in the American Revolution, for instance), even a liberal with a gun is not a revolutionary but an armed liberal. It may be necessary under a dictatorship to fight for so elementary a "reform" as free speech, but if one does not understand exactly what the issues are, one finds oneself fighting for any political leader or nation-state that happens to use "free speech" as a slogan."

"For the storm troopers are there in reserve all right, even if some of the gruppenfuehrers are saying, not "Sieg Heil!", but "I was quite sympathetic to them until . ."


". Legitimate violence is a State monopoly, for the State makes the laws. It is not possible for the revolutionary to shift people from deliberately induced apathy, within a framework acceptable to the Metropolitan Police or the capitalist press. Nor is there any way of rebelling discreetly, of challenging public opinion though refraining from offending people's conception of good taste. Nor can one change the economic basis of society to approving nods from the judiciary"



Those who look on violence as the worst crime of the State -- because they judge everything on its degree of violence -- may be right, but it does not follow at all that if the State could rule without violence -- if the ruling class could conquer without force of arms -- this would be the same thing as freedom.


On the contrary, a samurai class which could impose its will by moral authority and gentle persuasion would not be less authoritarian than one which needed to use the sword and the whip. It might be less intolerable to live under. But there is no difference, in the compulsion they use, between a Gandhi and a Mao Tse Tung. Gandhi, by his moral persuasion, might have been the more effective dictator.

 

Sunday, 21 December 2014

I really dislike C4SS.

http://c4ss.org/content/31273- WTF is this shit."Large Corporations Will Not Come to Dominate the Economy"


or this http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/06/12/freed-market-regulation/

http://c4ss.org/content/34181


http://c4ss.org/content/33966- WTF is this. An 'anarchist' supporting privatization of the NHS. No concern for human lives. No examples. Terrible terrible shallow writing.


"Note that I say “concerned with” rather than “automatically opposed to”. As Austrian competition theory explains, freed markets allow concentrations of economic power to ebb and flow like the tide. Competition is a state of flux and dynamism, with firms, workers and entrepreneurs constantly adjusting to a changing world. It is inevitable that — in some cases — power structures will emerge."
WTF!


http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/tgif-free-market-socialism/- this is very naïve and dangerous.

"The mundane price system is a perfect if unappreciated example. Prices are critical to our well-being because they enable us to plan our day-to-day lives. They do so by providing signals to us not only as consumers but also as producers. Prices guide our decisions about what to produce for exchange, how much to produce, and by what means. The resulting profits and losses reveal successes and failures at serving consumers. Without prices we’d fly blind, as Ludwig von Mises famously showed in his demolition of central economic planning. This is the upshot of the famous socialist-calculation debate."

"When the marketplace is really free and competitive (rather than constricted by the state to protect privileged interests"- Still STILL missing the point!



I Dislike Individualist anarchism since it's too obsessed with individualism, egoism and markets to be healthy.  C4ss expresses this to bad degrees despite the fact that they sometimes make correct statements too.

'market anarchism' is soft ancap ideology. It's one clique appealing to another.



 

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Why an Independent Scotland is not enough.

A reply to an ally of the Radical Independence Campaign who writes  "... I still need convincing that independence is not the best thing for Scotland at the current time, as a means to a fairer society..."

backtowork


The short version of my reply is this:-

(1) the way the debate is framed is wrong. The debate asks the wrong question. Whether Scotland is ruled from Holyrood or Westminster is, beyond surface changes, irrelevant. The problems in Scottish society are not because of where it is ruled from but are merely aspects of global problems stemming from capitalism, patriarchy etc. Talking in terms of nations is not just a mistake but harmful in understanding the real sources of social problems.
(2)  There is no guarantees that things would be better. This is not an argument for the union either however. It is just a reminder that whether ruled by Westminster or Holyrood, the same problems will remain and that the creation of an independent Scotland will not change this and cannot. No government can solve the problems that exist which it exists to preserve. This is proven in theory and in practice by historical experience.
(3) Following directly from No.2,  An independent Scotland could not live up to the promises and claims made about it because of its existence in a world with capitalism, patriarchy etc.




Problem 1: The way the debate is framed- Westminister vs. Holyrood instead of oppressed vs oppressor.

Firstly, the framing of the debate is narrow. It is often claimed that the pro-independence side is not nationalist. But to reduce political debate down to an issue of nations is nationalist in the original sense of that word ( in the sense of viewing political issues in terms of nations and nation states) even if it may not be nationalist in the fascist/UKIP/BNP sense of that word.

It seems entirely clear to me that the Referendum debate is mystifying what the real problem is- capitalism and all systems of domination, exploitation and oppression- in favour of presenting the problem in Scotland as due to where the power is located. Throughout this debate there has been the pushing of ideas of 'national unity' and  'national interest'  which act to hide where the real problems and solutions lie. These ideologies further confuse and distract the oppressed from what is necessary.  Even 'benevolent' nationalism does this.

My problem with framing the debate in terms of nations is that it renders invisible the actual systems of oppression that exist. A consistent and recurring theme in the debate has been an analysis of  social problems that locates the source of  those social problems with Westminster/ the Tories/neo-liberalism instead of the more realistic targets- larger long standing systems of oppression like capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy etc. All the problems going on in Scotland are just manifestations of global problems brought about by systems of oppression and exploitation.

If you misunderstand the causes of social problems then you will seek faulty or wrong solutions to the problems which will not solve them and may infact make them worse.

Framing the issues in terms of Neo-liberalism ignores that neo-liberalism is merely a phase of capitalism and exists more or less, everywhere in industrialized nations.

Framing the issues in terms of nations masks the fact that people are ultimately divided by class not by nations.

I have personally seen the way in which the issue of independence has sucked radical activists into its orbit like a black hole diverting attention and energy to itself which would've been better spent elsewhere. We would say that the independence issue has co-opted radicalism into reformism.

I of course support reforms if gained from direct action at the grassroots. I'm not in favour of oppression sold as progress though and am opposed to reformism which means the belief that positive social change can come through working within the existing system.

 I have seen former radicals lose critical thinking to believing in independence. I have seen a Yes protester criticize a group I was involved with who were holding a pro-choice demo, a much more vital issue than independence I'm sure you'll agree. I've seen independence campaigners devote more time to independence than to pro-choice marches, anti-workfare etc. Those I'm least critical of are those who have done both together.

Ultimately, the referendum debate represents a debate between different degrees of kinds of capitalism. Most of the No side lean more towards private capitalism while those on the Yes side lean more towards state capitalism

. The problem is  not WHO is in power but that there is someone in power at all .We should not give power to rulers of any kind ever. The idea that an independent Scotland will represent massive positive social change is used to hide existing oppression and how that will not change except superficially and is used to tame and constrain resistance to oppression which sees the roots of the problems as located at a much deeper more systematic institutional level.

An independent Scotland will still have the inherent inevitable conflict of interests between capitalist class and the working class, which we call the class struggle.


....As for RIC: Far from being radical , RIC's beliefs seem to amount to little more than a re-hash of Old Labour and it's ideas on nationalization.


Problem 2.   No guarantees things will be better.


Scottish Independence offers no guarantees of things getting better and no guarantee they won't get worse. All it offers is the promise, the potential. All it offers is possibility of reforms but only the possibility to make some things  slightly better. And given what we know about the state, about politicians, it's highly likely we'll be disappointed. We can't trust any politician ever.

 It's by no means obvious that having the state closer to home will make it any more democratic. As The Glasgow Anarchist Federation has argued, "having the political class closer to home doesn’t necessarily make replacing them any more difficult. If anything, the intensification of the nationalist project championed by all apparently ‘progressive’ opinion could have a significant effect in mystifying power and class relations and undermining the self-organisation of the working class in favour of its passivity and support for new forms of failed ideas".

It seems quite apparent to me that this is what has happened.
The idea that the closer the government is to the people the more democratic it will be, ignores where the real power lies.Power is not exercised by governments but through them. This is not to suggest that governments do not have power but to remind people that governments serve their masters, the capitalist class and that the state exists solely to preserve the long term existence of the capitalist system and all other interconnected systems of oppression. 

The real power lies with the capitalist class (domestic and international) - with bosses, with bankers, with multinational corporations, with landlords, with the WTO, with the IMF and  with the world bank. Independence in a globalized economy is pretty much meaningless unless you favour autarky.
Unless there is direct democracy there will not be a more democratic society.  An actual direct democracy instead of a sham one will not exist in a society with patriarchy, capitalist, the state etc. It will not be allowed to.

Ultimately the Pro-Independence side offers the false hope and promise of "this time it'll be different" which is what politicians and political parties always say to revive hope in the dying belief in representative democracy.

With an  independent Scotland ,there is very real danger of   buying into the mythology of a socialist Scotland, of being misled to think we'll  finally get 'democratic government', to be conned into the belief  that elections are useful tools for social change etc.

There can be no such thing as a democratic government. The people will not be in charge of their own lives.  A government always consists of a minority who rule a majority by propaganda and if that fails, by force so there will still be a distinction between ruled and rulers no matter how 'democratic' the state claims itself to be.

 The state exists to protect and preserve capitalism and all of the other interconnected systems of oppression by any means necessary. That is its sole purpose. Anyone elected who aims to change that will either be diverted into working within a narrow framework, will be ignored or will be killed(e.g. Salvador Allende)

Problem 3:  Some ways in which it won't be better.



As the Anarchist Federation of Scotland write,  "An independent Scotland would in most respects have resembled the Scotland of the UK, a patriarchal, capitalist, environmentally destructive society. A country with the most unequal land ownership in the developed world – where 50% of the land is owned by just 432 individuals. A country dependent on North Sea oil for much of its exports – oil that must be left in the ground to prevent climate catastrophe. A country with huge poverty and huge wealth and little in the way of organised working class action to change that dynamic. And in so continuing to uphold the same institutions, the same structures of power, the same business interests, and the same political configuration, our fight against the state, capital and oppression continues."


RIC seems to believe that an independent Scotland will be unlike any other previous state. This is not true. An independent Scottish state will not be more honest/less corrupt, more democratic, more green, anti-capitalist, feminist etc.  We will not and cannot have a more just, more sustainable, less oppressive society merely by having a government at Holyrood instead of one at Westminster.


An Independent Scotland would not be fairer- an independent Scotland would need to pander to business to boost it's economy so it would be pro-big business if not neo-liberal. It would still indulge in lowered corporation tax, tax breaks and dodgy dealings of banks. It would still be capitalist. And an independent Scotland would still fall under the sway of all conquering institutions like the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

Contrary to those like RIC, Nationalization is not socialism, it is state capitalism.It turns the state into a collective capitalist. At it's most extreme, this is extremely totalitarian and repressive for example in the Soviet Union.

An independent Scotland would not be more green- an independent Scotland could not help but utilise North Sea oil with so much money and jobs invested in it and would be reliant on it most likely. To combat climate change, We need to move to renewables as quickly as possible and we need the end of consumerism which is a central driving force of environmental degradation. An independent Scotland could not do that and would have no reason to do that.

As Anarchist Federation(AFED) say, "An independent Scotland would have relied heavily on fossil fuels – not least to maintain currency reserves and a positive balance of trade. The extraction of North Sea oil will instead continue to prop up the UK’s trade deficit. "

Conclusion.

RIC seems generally concerned with electoral politics and elections. But this will not end oppression just change it's form. One split off group from RIC is the Scottish Left Project which seeks to form something akin to a left unity political party.

Representative democracy is neither representative nor democratic and cannot be made so. So parliamentary means are pointless.No politician cares about us. Direct democracy is the wave of the future.

We must use direct action, taking grassroots action ourselves  and not seek to appeal to governments or politicians. We must forget parliaments and politicians and work to build a grassroots expansive radical movement which seeks to overturn the foundations of oppression and replace it with directly democratic society . That  is it's true,  a longer and harder task for sure but a more worthwhile one.

Resources:-

http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism

http://foranewleftliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/post-referendum-what-next-for-scottish.html

http://foranewleftliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/afed-scotland-on-scottish-referendum.html

http://foranewleftliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/anarchist-thoughts-on-scottish.html

 http://foranewleftliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/post-referendum-thoughts.html

http://foranewleftliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/a-cynical-view-of-scottish-independence.html

Some quick thoughts on Scottish independence


Beyond the Scottish referendum by Mike Sabot.
Independent and Free? A Glasgow anarchist’s take on Scottish Independence

Rhetoric of disempowerment

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/tag/radical-independence-conference/

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/tag/independence/

 

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

To those white folk protesting as part of #BlackLivesMatter.

"White people can and should be talking about and thinking critically about Whiteness. This is so important, and the first person each White person needs to be critical of is themselves"




Dear White Protestors

As I walked through the streets of Berkeley tonight listening to the overwhelmingly white crowd chant things like “Whose streets? Our streets!” and “This is what democracy looks like!” I felt uncomfortable. I passed white people holding signs that said “I can’t breathe” and I felt uncomfortable. Then, when we were instructed to sit down in the middle of the main street that runs through downtown Berkeley and were made to listen to a white person on a bullhorn declare “All lives matter!” I felt invisible. Ignored. Forgotten.
Dear white protestors, this is NOT about you. 
"Whose streets?" As a Black person in this country, I am well aware that the streets belong to white people. I am not empowered or made more safe by hundreds of white people chanting that the streets belong to them. The street in Ferguson where Mike Brown was murdered and lay dead for 4.5 hours should have belonged to him, but it didn’t. He’s dead. He’s not coming back. That’s because the streets belong to white people.
Dear white protestors, this is NOT about you. 
"This is what democracy looks like?" You’re right. Democracy has always meant that (for reasons you’re well aware of but like to pretend you don’t remember or don’t matter anymore) black people are a consistent minority in this country and thus must petition white people for our basic human rights. Democracy means voter ID laws and poll taxes. Democracy in America is a white majority dictating whose voice matters. Democracy is white liberals telling black folks to calm down and go the polls (and vote for Democrat) as if Bob McCulloch isn’t a "democrat." As if Jay Nixon isn’t a democrat. As if our president isn’t Black and it hasn’t done shit to lower the ever mounting body count of Black people gunned down in the streets by police and vigilantes. As if any Black politicians in a non-majority Black district can get elected, much less reelected, without catering to white people’s feelings. I know what democracy looks like and it hasn’t done very much for people who look like me.
Dear white protestors, this is NOT about you. 
"All lives matter?" NO THEY DON’T AND THAT’S THE FUCKING POINT! Black people’s lives don’t matter, that’s why I’m out in the streets, to get people to realize that my life has worth. I have to protest to get people to even think about the possibility that if the police or some vigilante gun me down, it’s not because the genetic defects believed inherent in my blackness finally manifested and I had to be put down before I became more of a threat to white america. White america doesn’t need a reminder that "all lives matter," it needs to be made to recognize and respect that Black lives matter.
It’s Black bodies that are bleeding and dying in the streets. It’s Black bodies that can’t breathe. It’s Black bodies that are seen and treated as threats to whiteness as we shop in Wal-Mart, play in parks outside our homes, walk home with a pack of Skittles, sleep in our beds. It’s Black bodies that have hung like strange fruit from the trees of this nation for centuries.
Dear white protestors, this is NOT about you. 
Stop whitewashing our movement. Stop pretending that “All lives matter” means anything other than “HEY ME TOO! WHAT ABOUT MY WHITE FEELINGS! DISREGARD THE ACTUAL REALITY OF BLEEDING AND DYING BLACK PEOPLE AND CATER TO THE HYPOTHETICAL AND EXTREMELY RARE POSSIBILITY THAT POLICE OR VIGILANTES WOULD BE ABLE TO EXTRAJUDICIALLY MURDER A WHITE PERSON AND FACE NO CONSEQUENCES!” Black people know our lives don’t matter because white people’s hypotheticals matter more than Black people’s reality.
Dear white protestors, this is NOT about you. 
Stop cannibalizing our movements with hashtags about every other life but ours. Stop plagiarizing Black people’s actual struggles for fictionalized white pain (I’m looking at you Hunger Games, with your whitewashed protagonist. “The Hanging Tree?” For real?). Stop scrambling to stand atop the growing pile of dead Black bodies to use it as your makeshift platform to secure more privileges and status for yourself. Stop using protests that should be about Black lives to exercise your white angst, break shit under the cover of darkness, and then bask in the bright light of white privilege while Black lives are declared to be worth less than the windows you broke.
Dear white protestors, this is NOT about you. This IS about making Black Lives Matter.  
Our streets shouldn’t be burial grounds for Black people. Black people’s rights shouldn’t be put to a vote. Black people should be allowed to breathe, walk, exist, without fear.
So, if you’re actually here for making Black Lives Matter, put down your “I can’t breathe” signs (because you can, and that’s the point) and pick up one that declares Black Lives Matter (because right now they don’t, and that’s the point). Get off the ground and stand in solidarity as Black people “die-in” (because it’s not white bodies lying dead on our nation’s streets, and that’s the point). Hand over the bullhorn to a Black person (because your voice doesn’t need a bullhorn to be heard, and that’s the point).
And please, stop saying #AllLivesMatter…until they actually do.

Thursday, 4 December 2014

What's wrong with Radical Independence Campaign(RIC)?

I of course support reforms if gained from direct action at the grassroots. I'm not in favour of oppression sold as progress though and am opposed to reformism.


It's reformist:  It locates the source of social problems with Westminster/ the tories/neo-liberal instead of systems of oppression like capitalism,patriarchy etc. It views these problems through the lens of Scottish independence and the referendum. While this is not nationalist in the sense of fascism it does view issues through the perspective of nations which is very limited.

"this time it'll be different" type thinking. 

Neo-liberalism is a phase of capitalism and exists more or less, everywhere in industrialized nations.

RIC seems to believe that an independent scotland will be unlike any other previous state. This is not true.

Not truly radical: RIC seems generally concerned with electoral politics and elections. But this will not end oppression just change it's form. One split off group from RIC is the Scottish Left Project which seeks to form something akin to a left unity political party.
The class struggle will remain in an independence Scotland therefore RIC does not appear to even be anti-capitalist truly.

RIC has co-opted radicals into devoting their energy to it and to diluting their politics into reformism.

I've seen independence campaigners devote more time to independence than to pro-choice marches, anti-workfare etc. Those I'm least critical of are those who have done both together.


At most RIC favours old labour nationalization. http://radicalindependence.org/2014/11/23/the-peoples-vow/



Talking in terms of nations masks other kinds of social divisions e.g. class and hides class struggle, patriarchy, white supremacy and other systems of oppression. It is not useful or positive.


How radical or independent could an independent scotland be?

It's debatable how independence an independent Scotland could be with the existence of WTO , IMF, World Bank, US government etc. The answer is really, not independent!

An independent Scotland would need to pander to business to boost it's economy so it would be pro-big business if not neo-liberal.

An independent Scotland could not help but utilise North Sea oil and be reliant on it most likely.

SNP are hardly a radical party but more like Tartan Tories.


Anarchist viewpoints have been dismissed, ignored or left out(purposely or unconsciously not considered)

RIC seems to hate the anarchist federation.



Important quotes to consider:-

"The decision-making power of the Scottish state itself will always be subject to the vagaries of global capital, the movement of transnationals, the bullying of London and controlling eye of the EU and IMF. More importantly, having a smaller nation state won’t lead to ever smaller democratic units and it won’t replace representative democracy with participative, direct democracy. To suggest otherwise is simply naïve, and misunderstands that working class people can only gain power for themselves through struggle."

"The democratic myth is a large part of leftists’ justification for supporting an independent state. The Scottish Socialist Party sees it as a means for rejuvenating their brand of parliamentary socialism which, relying as it does on electioneering and the state, is basically a vision of Old Labour in a Scottish context: nationalization, progressive taxation etc. Capitalism, as always, isn’t actually threatened, it’s accepted with the hope of greater state intervention and welfare."

"Simply put, there is no reason to believe that in an independent Scotland libertarian socialist organizing would be in real terms any easier or that because of its existence we would see an upsurge in class struggle."

"If anything, the intensification of the nationalist project championed by all apparently ‘progressive’ opinion could have a significant effect in mystifying power and class relations and undermining the self-organisation of the working class in favour of its passivity and support for new forms of failed ideas. "- which is what we've seen happen.


"
An independent Scotland would in most respects have resembled the Scotland of the UK, a patriarchal, capitalist, environmentally destructive society. A country with the most unequal land ownership in the developed world – where 50% of the land is owned by just 432 individuals. A country dependent on North Sea oil for much of its exports – oil that must be left in the ground to prevent climate catastrophe. A country with huge poverty and huge wealth and little in the way of organised working class action to change that dynamic.
And in so continuing to uphold the same institutions, the same structures of power, the same business interests, and the same political configuration, our fight against the state, capital and oppression continues.

Similiar viewpoints here:- 

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/tactical-critique-of-the-radical-independence-conference-2012/

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/dont-mourn-organise-edinburgh-anarchist-statement-on-the-referendum-result/

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/referendum-rant-from-an-immigrant/

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/beyond-the-scottish-referendum/

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/rhetoric-of-disempowerment/

http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/independent-and-free-a-glasgow-anarchists-take-on-scottish-independence/


Monday, 1 December 2014

AFed against the SNP.

AFed Scotland:-

Nicola Sturgeon insists she does "not intend on waging a class war" and that she will be a "very strong ally" to Scottish companies.
The SNP are of course very much part of the on-going class struggle. Neoliberal capitalism is alive and well in Scotland, and the job of the ruling party is to ensure not just that that remains the case but that Scottish capital can intensify the competition against its rivals. Many people are complaining that the ‪#‎SmithCommission‬ powers likely to be devolved will lead to a downward spiral of tightened budgets and more cuts. Too often though, the implication is that Independence would be a fix to neoliberalism/austerity - which would mean that Scotland is somehow different from every other northern European country. And that we should rally behind the SNP as a mass party against Westminster and/or a new left electoralism. This is to argue that we unite with the very political managers, who are or would be exploiting us!
The point isn't to "hold Westminster's feet to the fire", it's to make every boss run scared of a militant organised working class. Which side are you on?
As the ‪#‎YesToAction‬ statement argues:
"Despite its claim to seek a better deal for Scottish people, the SNP-controlled Scottish Goverment is implementing austerity. It has already made cuts to further education – Edinburgh College workers struck against worse conditions. It has understaffed the NHS, while cuts to council funding are leading to disabled people paying for their own care. The SNP/Labour council in Edinburgh plans to slash £22 million from local services.
The devolution of new powers will not stop the cuts, and whether they come from local government, Holyrood or Westminster they are an attack on working class people."