REVOLUTION: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About

by Bob Sun Sep 06, 2009 07:24

I quote:-

"Avakian puts forth a compelling case that a revolutionary program is what contemporary America needs (if not necessarily what it desires). "

So the left once again has decided IT knows what is best for us even if we the majority do not want it.

Thank god for the ballot box where arrogant dictatorial fascist tosh like the above can be put in its place.

by Joey T Sun Sep 06, 2009 15:55

Anything that causes anybody to question the current economic economic status quo can only be a good thing, and if it gets capitalists foaming at the mouth, brilliant!

by socialist Sun Sep 06, 2009 16:08

big on the problems of capitalism, short on solutions to it beyond confusing identifying the problems with capitalism as being the same thing as an alternative to it.

This basic problem has being stamped onto the left ever since it's inception, like a watermark, forever forming a barrier to a properly formulated alternative economic way forward, and remains the basic problem on almost every thread on bim too.

by illegalsec Sun Sep 06, 2009 19:12

Never trust anyone who uses capital letters for one race, and lower case for another. Capitalising the word 'black' and leaving 'white' in lower case will not win over any racists. It is divisive, offensive, and at best makes the piece look like a badly written menu.

I've never read Mein Kampf but I wouldnt be surprised if Hitler used capitals when describing Germans, and lower case for jews.

by blurb Sun Sep 06, 2009 21:48

"I've never read Mein Kampf but I wouldnt be surprised if Hitler used capitals when describing Germans, and lower case for jews."

What a ridiculous and facetious comparison. Hitler did a lot worse in mein kampf than put the Jews down in lower case! That you can even put this forward as a serious comparison just makes you look completely silly.

Agree with 'socialist' though, Socialism/Communism/Anarchism/Environmentalism has always been lacking in what an alternative would really look like, and how we get there, and usually offers only a leap into the dark, which last time round was a complete failure.

I would loosely define myself as a socialist (oops! lower cased myself, slap myself on my mein kampf wrist for doing so!) but rarely find other socialists, etc, who are really open to debating how we get from A-B. It's just so much easier to criticise capitalism than replace it with ideas.

by Floyd Mon Sep 07, 2009 06:38

Bob Avakian was a child of the 60’s (born in 1943) when it was thought to be cool to wander around with Mao’s little red book and quoting from it thinking it was the answer to everything. It wasn’t and most realised that. But Bob carried on and now at age 66 he seems to be looking back on failure and what might have been.

And selling a few DVD’s presumably to make a few bucks – nice to see that even communists like to sell things.

I read his book in the late 80’s “Democracy – we can do better than that” (or similar title) and realised that we very much could not. His ideology is born of the cliché, and had to tag onto the far bigger issue or race in order to be taken seriously. Similarly the anti capitalists today have to tag onto the far bigger issue of environmentalism in order to survive.

The comments above state clearly the frustration of the extreme left in that the ballot box shows that the idea of giving up democracy is not attractive. Comments along the lines of “revolution is required even if people do not desire what he and his small group of outsiders wish for”, just make people realise that what we have may not be perfect but it does work. Unlike the “Failed experiment” that socialist and blurb mention.

Extreme left wing ideology is something most people grow out of – usually when they have family themselves.

And very well put blurb that all those that criticise capitalism, (and there is a hell of a lot to criticise at this point in time with the Banks Bonus system allowing individuals to make truly huge sums in bonus such that short term gain and bugger the future became the byword for banking success rather than sustainable economic well being) never seem to have any kind of alternative. Bizarrely such criticsm without analysis or alternative proposals comes from those wealthy enough to pontificate from the comforts of what a capitalist free market economy provides.

What does seem to be happening is that the capitalist free market system is coming out of recession – we in the UK are to have more of a problem than most because of the stupidity of Brown and Co. – but we will come out of it and the system will be better regulated and stronger as a result.

by Them Mon Sep 07, 2009 07:47

So, when will you be putting these ideas to the ballot box ?

Candidates at the next general election ?

by Strawman Mon Sep 07, 2009 08:08

"The anti capitalists today have to tag onto the far bigger issue of environmentalism in order to survive."

Floyd appears not to have noticed how for years, decades even, 'anti-capitalists' and 'environmentalists' could not bring themselves to do anything together, mostly because the likes of Ian Bone and a lot of 'lefties' generally - believed that only the toffs and middle-classes cared about the environment, still why should capitalist and denialists like Floyd care about such details!

It was not that long ago that one or two Trades Union officials in Bristol drove around our streets in US gas guzzlers.

Less opinions and propagandising and assumptions please Floyd, and less spin and blarney, more facts if you know of any, this is Bristol Indymedia, not your Daily Smellygraff.

Facts work, your blinkered and limited 'vision' merely bores people away, which no probably is what you are all about when you post your comments here.

by Boyd Mon Sep 07, 2009 08:29

I love the way 'you people' always say that 'we' never offer any alternative to capitalism on BIM, neatly forgetting that BIM itself IS an alternative to capitalism.

Check the events list and you'll see hundreds of events every year organised by volunteers for reasons other than profit. By definition that is not capitalism.

Go to some of the meetings where grass-roots solutions are discussed, or the theories behind why we should move away from a capitalist system are analysed.

Witness the practical effect that campaigns against climate change have had, or against animal cruelty, all taken on by 'hard left' groups.

Whether any of the above are effective, or you agree with them, or they just make you hoot with derision is not the point - you are saying that the problem with the left is that it never offers an alternative to capitalism, and that simply is not true.

Either you deliberately ignore all of these things because they don't fit your "there's no point trying" mentality or you honestly can't see the wood for the trees.

by Floyd Mon Sep 07, 2009 09:47

Meanwhile our geriatric lefty makes a few bucks by selling his DVD's!

As I say - nice to see him coming round to the free market.

As for BIM being an alternative to capitalism? - No it isn't - it is a media outlet - nothing more nothing less. Good it certainly is but as an alternative economic system?

Similarly all the "alternatives" advertised are just variations on a theme of free trade. For Boyd to try to make out that there is some bigger picture is just not the case. Tinkering with the margins is all.

by CG Mon Sep 07, 2009 09:52

Its crazy for any anti-capitalist activist to waste time debating anything with capitalists!
Communicating with capitalists is a complete waste of our time and energy, they are not capable of honest debate.
To imagine that it is even possible to get a greedy small-minded capitalist to expand their mind thru debate is a waste of our valuable thinking time.
Capitalists are the lowest form of life on the planet, they are concerned primarily with making money thru exploitation of people and planet and life itself, they have zero interest in the damage they do, except maybe if they can make money from the taxpayer to repair the damage capitalism does!
Activists have much work to do, why would any activist engage with the greedy selfish arrogant and ignorant capitalist?
What is to be gained by debating with closed minded capitalists?
Nothing.

by Floyd Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:59

Because if you do not try to "engage" with capitalists and just be rude about them, nobody of any consequence will take you seriously because you have to engage in order to discuss.

Fail to do that and you just end up with a small minded clique that simply gets annoyed when its diatribe of vilification is interrupted by reality.

Really excellent example of this phenomenon above.

by Them Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:18

Anyone who disagrees = capitalist

how convenient.....

by Piles driver. Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:30

He is living proof of the fact that revolution is needed!
BIM is a media outlet? .... WHAT?
Do you know anyone that started the thing, did you attend any of the public meetings, did you ever bother to attend a BIM meet and get to know the people?
Of course you did not, otherwise you would know that you are talking pure garbage.
But dont let reality get in the way of your same old same old blinkered spleen venting will ya!
You really really do have a problem differentiating between wood - trees - and forests mister capitalist.
You have still not understood what BIM is about and for.
Was it not you who a few months ago tried to tell us that 'anti-capitalistic lefties' had taken over BIM?
You really are very funny, but you personally need a revolution between your ears - old chap.

by Spammond Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:47

If its not profitable its irrelevant to capitalists.
The attached foto perfectly illustarates the average capitalists attitude to anything they cant exploit for profit.
They fear revolution more than anything else in the universe, no wonder they take every opportunity to trash everything and everybody interested in sustainable and radical change.
They have everything to fear because they know how angry we should all be at them.

capitalist monkeys

by socialist Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:57

i'll keep searching for fellow socialists, and others in the red/black/green spectrum interested in an adult debate about economics and how to create an economic system other than capitalism, but i've given up trying to find them here, or at many of the events posted here.

Bye.

by BIMC user Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04

Only a capitalist peering in from a very long ways away and knowing nothing could make such a silly statement!

by disgusted Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:21

"nobody of any consequence" - typical capitalist arrogance and ignorance, as if only pompous selfish money-grabbing capitalists can ever be "of any consequence" - the world needs a revolution just to eradicate such vile arrogance!

by Floyd Mon Sep 07, 2009 15:33

"About Bristol Indymedia -

Bristol Indymedia is a volunteer-run open-access news website composed of the news, views, images and videos of its readers/contributors. It is part of the global Indymedia movement, a project focused on grassroots non-commercial news written by ordinary people."

So BIM a media outlet. No amount of denial will alter this. Those who wish it to be something else clearly get angry when the reality is put before them. But the reason why they want it to be something else is because of a desire to be different, to be noticed, to be heard is what drives them. However, such is the desire for acceptance that anyone who disagrees or has another point of view is attacked. Evidence is in the posts above.

As for arrogance – if you state that nothing is to be gained from discussion and have such tunnel vision that you can only see Capitalism as “THE” problem, when the truth is that Capitalism is not something that is forced upon people it is what has evolved out of the simple expedient of one person making what someone else wants to buy.

Until a new way of distributing skills and the utility those skills provide together with the wealth generated Capitalism will always be the way the world works. It will evolve of course but basically what was set out in “I, pencil” applies

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil

So, we have the situation currently where BIM states that it is “an open access news website” but despite this some do not want it labelled a “media outlet”. Media studies not on your curriculum presumably.

Similarly – rather than debate the points raised as “socialist” wanted what we get is the cop out “no point in debating with a capitalist” – now that may be convenient for those not wanting to be challenged intellectually or otherwise, but I am interested to know exactly why those that are critical of capitalism cannot articulate exactly what they want as an alternative?

Tearing down capitalism is OK by me – especially if that means the Wunch of Bankers never see another bonus. But once you get rid of capitalism, assuming that were possible, what would you want in its place?

by Boyd Mon Sep 07, 2009 21:52

If you spare me the cod psychology I may find it easier to debate, intellectually or in the normal kind of way.

exactly what do we want as an alternative?!

Could you 'exactly' articulate what you want to see from the immortal future of capitalism? No more bonuses for bankers? You are easily pleased!

Capitalism isn't a natural state of affairs, it is a theory borne out in practice, like religion or Eugenics. Capitalism is a theory of using capital to create a surplus that can be traded and reinvested to make more capital, and more surplus. This is borne out in practice as the macho exploitation of those without capital by those who have, alongside the accidental invention of rampant consumerism to keep capital slipstreaming back to those who already have capital. The exploited are kept divided by a relative wealth class system and the aspiration to move through the classes. Not cod psychology my friend. Theory. Borne out in practice. Not based on giving people what they want. No more the natural state of affairs than feudalism, socialism or anarchism.

OK, prepare yourself, I have a confession to make. I can't see into the future. There. I've said it. I can't do it. I can't give you an 'exact' roadmap, because I don't know where we're going. It's all guesswork. But then, you don't have any idea where we're going either, so that makes me feel a little bit better.

All I've got is my beliefs, my theories about what I see and how I interpret it. I believe we would live in a better way if we at least tried to see everyone as equals whatever their difference to us, if we all gave up a little or a lot to make sure no one went without, we slowed down and thought a bit more, and that we all agree the rules of the game before we find out we're already losing it.

My theory is that these things don't happen now, not because they are pie-in-the-sky-wishful-thinking but because the people at the top don't want to be equal, and they don't want to give up a lot or even a little, unless the rest of us force them to. When you back them against the wall they give up a little, but they'll kill us all before they give up the lot. And because they always maintain a superiority of brute force, they are happy to remind us of that fact whenever the wall gets a bit too close to their backs.

You can't beat Power head on, but there are other ways, and those are the practicalities of anarchism that must be borne out, for it be called anarchism in my eyes. Taking practical action in line with a theory that is based on your beliefs.

You create your own media outlet because you have a theory that the warped reality presented by capitalist outlets is being created deliberately and with an agenda, and you believe that to be wrong.

You break into a US Air Base and decommission 'er ;-) because you have a theory that if you can make people aware of what's going on they'll help you stop it, and you believe that even one less bomb dropped makes a difference.

You give a talk about the past because you have a theory that people will realise that, in fact, it hasn't always been this way, and you believe that will make it easier for them to believe we can change things.

You volunteer at a social centre because you have a theory that the only way we're going to find out how to do it is to start doing it and see what happens, and you believe that we need our own place to do it in.

You stick up for someone getting bullied because you've got a theory that the more that goes around the more that will come around for everyone, and believe that the best way to do that is get together and organise as equals, in the workplace or in the streets, so we're stronger than the bullies.

You get my point.

by Them Tue Sep 08, 2009 06:28

So, it seems to be that if you disagree with the views of some here you are called a capitalist, but without any definition of what you have to do to qualify for the title ?

I always thought the classic definition was that you had to own the means of production, then employ a few workers & go on & exploit them ?

Or is this another case of a sloppy name-calling, like being called a fascist, without any reference to actual definitions.

Just curious.

Anyway, as a wage-slave I've got to go into work & presumably be expoited...

...but, errr,..... hang on...... oh, never mind......

by Floyd Tue Sep 08, 2009 07:24

You say

"But then, you don't have any idea where we're going either"

And that is where you are very wrong. I have a plan and a business plan that works based upon what we wanted to achieve decades ago and where we are now. It its not predicting the future but it is making plans and making your own future.

Shame to see you "having a go" Boyd at my supposed "cod psychology" (personally I prefer salmon but each to his own) and then you launch into what is very much a diatribe of just about every left wing psycholobabel cliché possible!

You say

"My theory is that these things don't happen now, not because they are pie-in-the-sky-wishful-thinking but because the people at the top don't want to be equal, and they don't want to give up a lot or even a little, unless the rest of us force them to."

So are you saying that someone who works hard and gains a senior position can expect to have what he or she has achieved taken from them because you think it unfair that they have achieved more than you have?

That is not a brave new world of equality - that is the immature shout of gimme gimme gimme. Similarly:-

"You can't beat Power head on, but there are other ways, and those are the practicalities of anarchism that must be borne out, for it be called anarchism in my eyes. Taking practical action in line with a theory that is based on your beliefs."

No - YOU can't beat what you see as "Power" head on because to do that you would need votes because the method of changing is by democratic means. You recognise that your chances of influencing people is akin to a snowball in hell so you come up with psychobabel about alternative ways and "forcing" things. If you have to force something it isn’t gonna work long term

"You create your own media outlet because you have a theory that the warped reality presented by capitalist outlets is being created deliberately and with an agenda, and you believe that to be wrong."

So at least we can agree that BIM is a media outlet - glad that is cleared up.

"You break into a US Air Base and decommission 'er ;-) because you have a theory that if you can make people aware of what's going on they'll help you stop it, and you believe that even one less bomb dropped makes a difference."

Are you really so arrogant to believe that the capitalists that you obviously despise actually support the crazy war that this government (supposedly a socialist one) has got us into? If so I can assure you that amongst the advocates of the free market that I know – not one thinks that Blair was correct in his deception of us all over the WMD. I personally do think it a good idea that we try to introduce democracy to combat the dictatorial likes of the Taliban, but seeing as you do not, to me, respect the notion of democracy, preferring “force”, I suppose I am not that surprised at your not being bothered about another country and peoples elsewhere not having the same right to vote as you do.

“You give a talk about the past because you have a theory that people will realise that, in fact, it hasn't always been this way, and you believe that will make it easier for them to believe we can change things.”

No it has not always been this way. Not that long ago people died before reaching the age of 50. Then the mortality rate moved to 60, then 70 then 80 and is still increasing thanks to the benevolent influence of a thriving market economy. Infant mortality is a fraction of what it was and thanks to the despicable money grabbing barstewards that are those awful pharmaceutical companies, the medical profession has tools to combat diseases that in the past were killers. Shocking! – take me back to the good old days when I could expect to be ill more and die earlier ;0)

“You volunteer at a social centre because you have a theory that the only way we're going to find out how to do it is to start doing it and see what happens, and you believe that we need our own place to do it in.”

Or you and your firm provide Pro Bono services and act as a resource to the likes of the CAB. Again are you so arrogant that you believe that only people with your belief care?

“You stick up for someone getting bullied because you've got a theory that the more that goes around the more that will come around for everyone, and believe that the best way to do that is get together and organise as equals, in the workplace or in the streets, so we're stronger than the bullies.”

Yes I do, but I am curious at the juxtaposition in that previously you clearly indicate that you yourself are not averse to using force - “unless the rest of us force them to” – so who would be acting as the bully here then?

“You get my point.”

No I personally don’t – because it does not stand up to scrutiny – the fractured thinking and muddleheaded logic of the extreme left/anarchist advocates never does.

As for my being able to predict the future?

I predict that the above will invoke a shitstorm of vindictive bile from those unable to debate as adults. Of that I am pretty certain

by Boyd Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:58

“And that is where you are very wrong. I have a plan and a business plan that works based upon what we wanted to achieve decades ago and where we are now. It its not predicting the future but it is making plans and making your own future.”

I'm glad to hear that you have a plan for your own business, and that you made your own future despite a global recession triggered by rapacious capitalist exploitation of the underclass in the United States, and that you have a contingency plan for the effects of global climate change.
Is this the same plan we should all be using? If so, what is that plan? More of the same? Or can't you tell us because then you will lose you competitive advantage?

“So are you saying that someone who works hard and gains a senior position can expect to have what he or she has achieved taken from them because you think it unfair that they have achieved more than you have?”

Yes I am. I don't believe that someone who gains a senior position works harder than a lettuce-picker or a call-centre worker or a nurse. I believe they gained that senior position not because they worked hard but because they played the game better than others and reminded the interview panel of themselves (hence the fact that the majority of senior positions remain in the hands of middle class white men). I would take the extra income that they spend on consumer tat and second holidays / homes / lives and use it to make better lives of those who work equally as hard but find it a little harder to follow their dreams than you.

“No - YOU can't beat what you see as "Power" head on because to do that you would need votes because the method of changing is by democratic means”
“ I personally do think it a good idea that we try to introduce democracy to combat the dictatorial likes of the Taliban, but seeing as you do not, to me, respect the notion of democracy ,preferring “force”.

Errr, I know you free market types like to look forward and not backwards, but you do remember we invaded Afghanistan by force, yes? And now we are forcing on them a system of representative democracy that is completely alien to their traditions? And that when we invaded Iraq we imposed a dictator because we didn't believe that democracy would work, as it would produce 'the wrong result'? The same as happened in Vietnam? And how we suspended democracy in Northern Ireland because it wasn't in our interest? Because we preferred to rule through the force of the army? Any of that ring a bell?
Please don't offend me by talking of the high ideals of democracy as somehow linked to capitalism, when we both now that more often than not they are in opposition.

“No it has not always been this way. Not that long ago people died before reaching the age of 50. Then the mortality rate moved to 60, then 70 then 80 and is still increasing thanks to the benevolent influence of a thriving market economy.”

The most shameful, disgusting, manipulative lie of all. The increase in life expectancy is not down to a thriving market economy, it is down to human ingenuity and ability, and that exists with or without capitalism. How do you explain the advances in human history under the Greeks, Romans, Caliphates and Soviets? And please, we're not discussing Stalin's atrocities or any other diversions you want to prop up, we're talking about advances in knowledge.

Was the invention of the telescope due to Christianity? Was the the building of the motorway due to Fascism? The Free Market is quick to claim the credit, and keep it. If you want to talk about 'benevolence', how do you explain the deliberate overpricing of drugs for the African market and then the blocking of the fabrication of copies, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands are marked for death as a result? All in the name of making sure those in 'a senior position' keep all that they have worked so hard for....

“Or you and your firm provide Pro Bono services and act as a resource to the likes of the CAB. Again are you so arrogant that you believe that only people with your belief care? “
Another straw man set up. When did I ever say that only people with my belief care? All I said is that I regard a genuine anarchist as someone who acts in line with theories based on their beliefs. Your fevered imagination produced the rest of your 'immature shout'.

“Yes I do, but I am curious at the juxtaposition in that previously you clearly indicate that you yourself are not averse to using force - “unless the rest of us force them to” – so who would be acting as the bully here then?”

Again, more fevered reasoning based on an immature reading of the situation. When did I ever say that the use of force is wrong? In the world of the 'senior position' you may think that non-violence is a way of keeping your hands clean, but in fact all you do is rely on others to do the dirty work for you. On the shop floor, the situation is a bit more direct, and needs to be dealt with directly by any tactic that works.

Ask your free market buddies how they dealt with the miners strike, or union organising in Columbia, or migrant labour in the cleaning industry, or a peaceful climate protest, or Black Nationalism, or any other threat to the current order. I'll give you a clue - it was very violent and not at all democratic.

I've said before and I'll say it again – why do the supporters of capitalism always sound so naieve these days?Maybe it's because there's so much wrong with capitalism, even in your own eyes, with no solution other than to 'trust in the market', that its best not to think too much about things.

by Floyd Tue Sep 08, 2009 13:48

Greeks, Romans, Caliphates and Soviets?

Touched a nerve clearly.

Sadly you just repeat more of the same fractured muddled thinking. You want to protect against bullies but never said that force was wrong?

But then say that invading Afghanistan was wrong despite the fact that the coalition is trying to oust the bully boys of the Taliban.

Rather than the supporters of the free market capitalism sounding more and more naive, far from it in fact, it seems very much to me that the advocates of anarchy and left wing extremism sound ever more rabid.

Best example of this is your citing of some bizarre “experiments” of government.

The caliphate fir example was "the core political concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries but its importance rapidly dwindled as the lands of Islam grew and the practicalities of governance in vast regions turned the Caliphate into little more than an ideal concept acknowledged by some scholars but with little connection to the reality of most Muslims' lives.”

If you think such a Shari Law State is attractive then look at this:-

http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2009/01/11/remember-zarmina/

As for the soviets!!! - errrrr! – I thought they had a go at Afghanistan before we did???

And how did their alternative to the free market work? ;-

“The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country.[1] All key positions in the institutions of the state were occupied by members of the Communist Party. The state proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism ideology that restricts rights of citizens to private property. The entire population was mobilized in support of the state ideology and policies. Independent political activities were not tolerated, including the involvement of people with free labour unions, private corporations, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties. The regime maintained itself in political power in part by means of the secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics, such as political purges and persecution of specific groups of people.”

This also from Wiki

“Ethnic cleansing

Entire nations have been collectively punished by the Soviet Government for alleged collaboration with the enemy during World War II. In legal terms the word "genocide" may be appropriate[9] because specific ethnic groups were targeted. At least nine of distinct ethnic-linguistic groups, including ethnic Germans, ethnic Greeks, ethnic Poles, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Chechens, and Kalmyks, were deported to remote unpopulated areas of Siberia and Kazakhstan. The ethnicity-targeted population transfers in the Soviet Union led to millions of deaths due to the inflicted hardships.[16] Koreans and Romanians were also deported. Mass operations of the NKVD were needed to deport hundreds of thousands of people.

Then there was the use of Famine as a weaqpon by the soviets - Deaths from famines

According to some historians, "the systematic use of famine as a weapon" was a "particular feature of many Communist regimes."[17] The deaths of 5 to 7 million people during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, including the Holodomor at the Ukraine that was caused by confiscating all food from peasants and blocking the migration of starving population by the Soviet government[16], although some historians still believe that the hunger was unintentional [18] The overall number of peasants who died in 1930–1937 from hunger and repressions during collectivisation (including in Kavkaz and Kazakhstan) was at least 14.5 million, according to historian Robert Conquest.[16] The Black book of communism claims five million people died earlier during Russian famine of 1921.[17]

And then you quote the Greeks.

Which is widely quoted as being the cradle of Western Civilisation. - Bizarre!

And as for the Romans!!!

What did the Romans ever do for us??

Not sure you realise how funny this really is unless you have seen “Life of Brian”. I now have a picture of you in my mind as the character who said the above.

After all, anyone who expects others to admire the “knowledge” gained under regimes that shoots women in the back of the head, deliberately uses famine as a weapon (North Korea leaned that little trick from the Soviets) and ran various purges (and why ignore Stalin? He was not the only one guilty of Human Rights Abuses) can hardly expect your average Jo to jump on that bandwagon.

But it is not just the “unreal” belief that Capitalism is somehow more evil than the above that you seem to admire and able to dismiss the awful history of, that staggers me. It is the fact that Free Market capitalism is what most of the world works by and the rest is moving too. We in Bristol as part of the UK, EU, Free Trading Nations have Human Rights, we have the right to own property and the right to travel freely. We have freedoms the wear what we like, pretty much say what we like. Gordon Brown is a PRAT! - Say that in the past about a leader in a Soviet State and then wait for that knock on the door.

Now I admire anyone that wants to be different. But lordy lordy, I suggest you pick some better role models than the ones you quoted. Becaue the ones you seem to admire are just not that attractive to the average person in Bristol who benefits from the Free Market economy of the West.

by Them Tue Sep 08, 2009 14:13

... on what is more likely to happen first...

1) Floyd convinces Boyd to budge an inch.

2) Boyd convinces Floyd to budge an inch.

3) They both decide its's a waste of time & give it a rest.

4) The next ice age.

by Milton Keynes Tue Sep 08, 2009 15:37

Floyd's defence of the free market gets more and more comical... Defending the free market while every major political party has more or less disavowed it since the credit crunch is just ludicrous.

The free market he lauds is what is now being regulated and reformed by governments across Europe in the financial sector because the free market approach failed and resulted in the taxpayer bailing out the banks which otherwise would have collapsed. Most major financial institutions failing is not what many people consider to be a success.

Free market healthcare in the US (which isn't really a fair description as they have a medicare package for some disadvantaged people) is now under threat, and the pro-market position of a few tories and the american right wing has been enormously unpopular on this side of the Atlantic.

Free market media recently tried to take on socialised media in this country in the form of the Murdoch family vs the BBC and once again the free market solution has been shown to be immensely unpopular.

Lining yourself up alongside the Murdoch's, the republican right and banking fat cats wont do much to convince ordinary Bristolians of anything other than your own personal failings.

by Floyd Tue Sep 08, 2009 15:40

Nice one ;0)

by Boyd Tue Sep 08, 2009 15:47

OK Them, I'll give it a rest, a discussion about capitalism on an anti-capitalist 'media source' is obviously a waste of people's time.

It seems a good time to sign-off as there was nothing in Floyd's rabid foam worth replying to anyway.

One line from my previous comment is sufficient:

"And please, we're not discussing Stalin's atrocities or any other diversions you want to prop up, we're talking about advances in knowledge."

by Floyd Tue Sep 08, 2009 17:08

""And please, we're not discussing Stalin's atrocities or any other diversions you want to prop up, we're talking about advances in knowledge."

That is why I made sure that the atrocities of the Soviet Union were quoted over its whole shabby lifespan - not just Stalin’s.

A) it is interesting that you want to gloss over Stalin

B) it is equally interesting but far more illuminating that you ignore what was said about the Greeks, Romans, Caliphates and just concentrate of your "instruction" to me to ignore Stalin.

C) How anyone can label what went on in Stalin's time as a "diversion" that I might want to "prop up" is beyond me?

As for Soviet "Knowledge" - The west is cleaning up their staggering pollution, and their industry only exists now thanks to the input of those filthy disgusting capitalists. As for Soviet "Knowledge" - oh! they had academics as good as any nation. Shame of it was the so called socialist ideal of equality for all often meant that in order to gain that equality the pig thick monsters in charge often had the academics put up against a wall and shot in the name of socialism.

by blurb Tue Sep 08, 2009 17:13

But in the public's mind we are discussing stalins atrocities, we are discussing the failure of socialist nationalisation in the 70's to solve problems, we are discussing the failure of anarchism to ever really get off the ground, or be more than a stokes croft art project fetishizing banky as it's backdrop, we are discussing the failure of environmentalism to offer much more than crippling austerity as a 'solution'.

The public also know free market capitalism is flawed, support for it is weak at best, but people live with it even while the unemployment figures stack up, because they generally don't see anything in any of the above worth flocking to. At present even though all the above still exist in some form, they have been rejected and have failed to reinvent themselves in a manner which coinvinces the public that they amount to anything better than protest groups, occassionaly worth protesting alongside, but not worth giving further commitment to.

Human inventiveness should lead to the ability to reinvent the economy beyond confusing identifying the problems with capitalism, as an alternative to it. And until the left, in all it's hues, can start offering more than a leap into the dark, or crippling austerity, to the public, the public will see all the above failures, as a promise to only repeat those failures.

At present, even starting such a debate is impossible, because that debate isn't wanted by the left, because the left isn't willing to ackknowledge its failures, and remains in a deep state of denial that simply repeating what's wrong with capitalism, will somehow create a new take-off of the left. But if the left is ever going to take off, it should be now, in the midst of a capitalist crisis, but it remains a dead horse being ideologically flogged.

The public shrug and say 'yes we know capitalism is flawed, but what's your alternative?'

And the left just keep repeating what's wrong with capitalism.

And the public walk away in despair that the left keep failing to offer that alternative, beyond failed experiments from the past, that they don't want to involve themselves in the repetition of.

Even saying this will get me labelled as a 'capitalist'.

And that's the point at which the public start tearing their hair out in frustration with the left.

by people Tue Sep 08, 2009 18:01

Must say though, the only people who talk about revolution nowadays are religious nutters and Tarquins eager to find a short cut to executive power. Still at least the idea puts the willies up the ruling class- as you can see by their behaviour in countries where they've all had their heads chopped off, for instance. In France the government are afraid of the people....

by Jools Tue Sep 08, 2009 19:50

Capitalists everywhere know that their greedy man-made shit over the years is hitting the natural fan, Climate Change is merely the biggest threat facing all peoples everywhere.
Polluted air, polluted water, polluted land yeilding polluted food, extractive industries, industrial processes, fossil-fuelled transportation, etc etc etc.
Thanks to their selfish arrogant greed over many years capitalists have brought this planets natural systems into crisis.
The latest economic system breakdown is the icing on the cake, peoples all around the planet are raising awareness in their communities and creating networks for sustainable change.
Capitalists everywhere know that they will be held responsible and made accountable for their greed and arrogance, they are afraid, very afraid.
If they are not afraid, they are very stupid.
The revolution will be global.

by Boyd Tue Sep 08, 2009 21:52

I understand what you're saying totally Blurb. But i say again to say we never offer alternatives is simply not true. This website is full of suggested alternatives that have nothing to do with the failed experiments of the 70's, the horrors of 'communism in one country' and the splendid isolation of past anarchist practical theories.

You don't believe these alternatives will work, or are just middle class childishness, or are non-starters in other ways, which is your business, but to say there are no alternatives being presented is just not true.

There is a lot more than just criticising capitalism that goes on here, it's just that the slanging matches are the ones that tend to attract loads of comments, and therefore everyone's attention :-)

by blurb Tue Sep 08, 2009 23:19

thanks boyd. I'm not saying there are no alternatives, more that's what's on offer seems very incoherent, or patchy and disconnected from each other, as well as being chronically defensive of any criticism to the point that anyone who offers any criticism (constructive, questioning or otherwise) seems to be labelled a capitalist!

As someone who is a socialist (albeit somewhat lapsed), and who was steeped in all the criticisms of capitalism in earlier years, i find this tendency quite horrifying. The general public already have a lingering fear that if we ever were to have a revolution, us questioning socialists (or anarchists, or greens) who want a more fleshed out debate about how to create an alternative economy in advance, would be marched up against the wall and shot before we had a chance to utter any further words, because we've identified ourselves as been dangerously off-message.

A slightly hysterical fear maybe, but one with history showing how that indeed does happen, and some of the comments on here which label anyone, including socialists, as capitalists, instead of engaging in a debate, really makes my blood run quite cold. I'm sure that same applies to many readers who pop in inquisitively, hoping the left has changed, or are new and curious as to what is being said here, and then make a hasty exit as a result.

by Floyd Wed Sep 09, 2009 06:45

Very well put indeed Blurb.

As an ex socialist who as far as I am concerned has “seen the light” and rejected Socialism as a failure, my focus is clearly different to yours. But, in contrast to the silly name calling and histrionics of some on here – your analysis and well put words are as a breath of fresh air.

Welcome – please stay – I predict I will not agree with you on some/many things but look forward to an adult debate. Something that BIM deserves as a fantastic resource but has been sadly lacking of late.

by Floyd Wed Sep 09, 2009 07:09

Interesting that Jools belligerent post crossed with that of Blurbs.

“Capitalists everywhere know that their greedy man-made shit over the years is hitting the natural fan, Climate Change is merely the biggest threat facing all peoples everywhere.”

Again here we have the left linking climate change entirely to Capitalism when the soviet block produced far more pollution and environmental disasters than the west has. As such I believe that the “Poluter pays” legislation we have is better than the centralised government idea of the Socialist that failed so badly.

”Polluted air, polluted water, polluted land yeilding polluted food, extractive industries, industrial processes, fossil-fuelled transportation, etc etc etc.”

Again the worst pollution came from the old Socialist Block – just google it or look on Wiki if you need more proof!

”Thanks to their selfish arrogant greed over many years capitalists have brought this planets natural systems into crisis.”

Again Jools conveniently ignores the fact that the Soviet Block existed until relatively recently. Blaming Capitalism only works if you close your eyes to history.

“The latest economic system breakdown is the icing on the cake, peoples all around the planet are raising awareness in their communities and creating networks for sustainable change.”

With Germany and France out of recession now, how long do you think this tired old message about the collapse of Capitalism is going to wash? The free market is a dynamic system always changing. It has ups it has downs. It will recover and is doing so right now.

”Capitalists everywhere know that they will be held responsible and made accountable for their greed and arrogance, they are afraid, very afraid.”

And here we have the threat from the bully

I am not afraid – I laugh at your silliness Jools.

“If they are not afraid, they are very stupid.”

Again a silly childish leap, to “oh! silly me errrr! – if you could not be a lickle bit afwaid – could you be a little bit stupid? – please???

”The revolution will be global.”

Really!

With the intellectual abilities on show here – or more accurately “absent from here” – I very much doubt it. Not until a true alternative is voiced will anyone take the bully boy childish threats seriously.

Stuff of the playground, not the real world.

by blurb Wed Sep 09, 2009 09:14

Ok, i'll give a little offering of my own on alternatives, it's not a grand plan so can equally be called patchy as a solution, but i'll try and show how it is one piece that could be pulled together across the socialist/anarchist/green spectrum.

A common problem in estates is the split-incentive problem. Although people have council houses, they never really feel like they own them, and as a result commonly feel like (or are legal barred from) making improvements to their property.

Thatchers 'solution' was just to repeat the ideological divide and offer mortages on council houses, which i've since learnt that many banks won't even offer new mortages on, due to them being in 'undesirable' areas.

But is there an inbetween? What if someone in a council house wants to invest a few thousand in solar panelling? Why not allow them to buy that solar panelling, and if they move again after 10yrs, get a rebate from the council for the remaining 15yrs or so lifespan left on it, providing a long-term incentive to do just that. While also allowing them to plug any surplus back into the national grid, and have their own little electric cottage industry?

Or, in terms of gardens, the same applies. Why not reimburse gardening costs to those who have put the effort in once they move? In private ownership these things get bundled together as a general increase in house value, but in council houses there is no increase to anyone and only a cost to the council tenant. Some still love and tend their gardens, but most do not.

And if this sems a bit small potatoes, one figure i read was that if all the flora was instantaneously removed from london, everyone would suffocate within minutes, so all those blooming gardens added together make a huge and life sustaining difference.

Some socialists could say that all this should anyway be provided by the state, but given the scale of the crisis the state will anyway have a million and one things to do, and freeing up people's own energies with incentives at the grass roots level, would allow the state to concentrate on other urgent areas.

And no, just because money is involved, and people can make their extra quids through their efforts to improve where they live, doesn't make it capitalist. Money isn't uniquely capitalist. It's just a medium of exchange, and a method of pricing material inputs, and sometimes the demand for absolute equality, can just lead to a paralysis of incentives. Cuba, for example, remains socialist/communist, but has begun to offer incentives too.

How this cuts across the socialist/anarchist/green spectrum is that socialists to get their council housing saved from a mass sell off, greens get their blooming flora, and anarchists get their grassroots freedoms and incentives to act without needing the state.

PS: I appreciate the welcome floyd, and understand your frustrations, especially when others do more than hint they's shoot you did in the blink of an eye! but please pause for a moment, and reflect on how you're own approach only inflames the flaming too.

Thanks.

by Keynes Wed Sep 09, 2009 09:15

'With Germany and France out of recession now, how long do you think this tired old message about the collapse of Capitalism is going to wash? The free market is a dynamic system always changing. It has ups it has downs. It will recover and is doing so right now.'

The only reason anyone is recovering from the credit crunch is that they bailed the banks out - something which as you have already been told is absolutely not a free market strategy, as indeed are the current steps by those two countries to regulate financial services.

The free market ideology of the late 20th century known as neo-liberalism which you still espouse collapsed along with Lehman Bros, RBS and Northern Rock. Just as it proved massively unpopular first time out, when increasing numbers of essential services (health care, education, social security, pensions, fire service etc) were all judged as too important to be left to the free market and were in some way or another socialised, countries simply ignored the free market mantra of deregulate and privatise all as it became clear that pursuing this path would mean the wholesale collapse of the international financial system. Again to point out the obvious, collapse does not equate to success.

The free market is something which the world's poor have never accepted willingly, hence the financing by western governments
of the likes of Pinochet and Suharto to brutally subdue their people into accepting a system which made life worse for them. Since the credit crunch it's lost any veneer of respectability as it has been shown to be a losing strategy all round.

By all means debate the alternatives and different ways that people are experimenting and living with alternative systems, but please cut the inaccurate historical revisionism.

by Boyd Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:07

There have been articles on here about different economic theories - there was an interesting debate on Parecon theory before, the World Economy discussions analyse alternatives, and have a workshop at the Anarchist Bookfair this weekend on the world after china. There was another thread on here a month or so ago reporting back on a discussion at the Welsh Climate Camp about the necessary steps to cut global emissions by 80%.

There is also a strong representation of the idea that we need to create and control our own means of production (indymedia itself is a good example of this) that is also another theory with a relation to economics. The DIY culture of punk gigs, social centres, Radical History etc.are also examples of relations to the same thing.

As i (tried to) explain to Floyd, i don't think that there can be a blueprint that people can examine because it's an idea that has not yet been tested. What we talk about on here is not the same as the anarchism of the 1970's, the Soviet Union or any other thing of a different time or place. We are working through it as we go, basing our actions on ideas that we recognise are based on beliefs, not some mythical set of natural laws that make an outcome inevitable.

That may sound like a cop-out, but to be honest, so does standing on the sidelines waiting for someone to convince you by getting the presentation of their message right, if you catch my drift! ;-)

Lapsed Socialist indeed! Come on mate, admit it! You've still got the fire burning in your heart! ;-))

by Pro cooperation, anti capitalist. Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:48

We have to get away from the disastrously unsustainable notion that captalism was ever anything other than part of the problem.

What the whole world needs is cooperation to solve man-made climate change and environmental destruction.

Capitalists see people as workers, taxpayers and most of all as consumers, to be exploited for profit and little else.

Capitalists see the planet as a source of materials commodities and resources, all to be exploited for profit, and little else.

Capitalists are destructive selfish un-thinking oafs, blinded by their own greed and selfishness to the detriment of all life on earth.

They cannot be reasoned with, one of their basic tenets is that of "no regrets"

As in "no regrets" - when life is no longer sustainable on this planet thanks to their greedy destruction of it, move onto the next planet, while making sure of course that the worker / taxpayer / consumer pays for it of course!

by Revo Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:02

Part of our alternative future must include some kind of justice for the poor of the world who for to long have suffered because of capitalism, thru capitalist installed and supported dictatorships to environmental degradation and destruction of nature.
How should arrogant and un-repentant capitalists be 'dealt with' - do we have enough mental-hospitals?

by Floyd Wed Sep 09, 2009 13:28

I notice the debate is beyond the abilities of the anti-capitalists and they resort to the childish bullying as predicted. Shame as it shuts down debate as the adults minds weary of dealing with toddlers with dummy retention issues.

As for mental hospitals for capitalists? Again that was a Stalinist idea – if you were against what the state was doing you had to be insane.

And here we have the same corrupt logic from someone who would like to see those with a view different to theirs locked away.

Can any sensible person who wants to debate the issues of what we should be striving for honestly say that they concur with this Stalinist ideal?

Yes I am a capitalist having been a socialist and seen the light! – What I do not like about what we have now is the reliance of big business by government – I want more power in my hands not more in theirs.

Where I think blurb and I would be in agreement is that some on here of the so called anti-capitalist/socialist/anarchist persuasion have such extreme views on what they want to do to those that do not agree with them, that they easily fall into the category of being far worse that the excess’s of what they say they despise and are more than equal to the appalling dogma and human rights violations of the likes of Stalin.

Like blurb, this too makes my blood run cold that such people can have such a supreme arrogance coupled with such ignorance of history that they innocently state that they would repeat the excess’s of the likes of Stalin.

If they ever got power – it really would be the lunatics running that asylum.

by Them Wed Sep 09, 2009 13:41

... I see the 'winning hearts & minds' brigade are out in force.

As I've asked before, when will this new & inviting future be put to the ballot box, so we the people can make our choice ...

Or is this a case of 'I know what is best for you, whether you like it or not' ??

by Joe Bloggs Wed Sep 09, 2009 14:10

Revo, your using the wrong terminology. In the world you want people who disagree with the status quo don't go to mental hospitals they go to gulags. Although in the Soviet Union one way of dealing with dissenters was to label them mentally ill and imprison them in psychiatric hospitals. It's interesting how naturally you pick up on the same methods to deal with people you don't like, must say something about your attitudes and belief systems.

Obviously, there's nowhere round here like Siberia for you to put your gulags but you could try Severn beach. ;-)

by Pie Wed Sep 09, 2009 15:42

Revo - you have taken your own leg of at the knee!!

Talk about an own goal.

I would quietly stop digging that hole if i were you

But enough of the cliches - let us all just ponder the thought process of this sad individual and the how on earth he/she thought such a silly comment was justified.

Ballot box "Them" ? - fat chance they have ;0)

by Hammond-watch Wed Sep 09, 2009 15:55

At the site of a former Dirty War detention center near Buenos Aires, ten thousand human bone fragments were found in a mass grave beneath a wall with two hundred bullet marks in it. The bodies had been doused in fuel and burned together with tires to mask the smell.

This topic is close to my heart as a scholar of Latin American Studies. For those of my reader who are not familiar with the Dirty War and of the many, many other crimes of U.S.-backed dictatorship and military juntas throughout South and Central America during the Cold War, I suggest that you look into it. The World War 4 report talks about the Mothers and Grandmother of the Plaza de Mayo in Bueno Aires, who have marched every week for decades demanding the truth about their "disappeared" children and those responsible for torture or mass executions be held accountable.

The oppression and persecution found in the West cannot compare to the experiences of students, trade unionists, Marxists, Anarchists, etc. in countries like Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Mexico. Atrocious events where police open fire on peaceful demonstrators, such as Kent State were common place during the same period of time just south of America's borders, but not beyond the reach of Yankee imperialism.

So I would just like to take time to time to honor the struggles of groups like the Mother and Grandmother of the Plaza de Mayo and H.I.J.O.S. who have not forgotten their fallen comrades and who continue their fight to this day. And also, and I am sure that this goes without saying but we must never forget crimes against humanity, no matter how far removed we are from that reality. The U.S. was/is complicit with and/or directly involved in the systematic brutalization of entire population and we must never forget that. In the U.S. groups like School of The Americas Watch are actively working to shut down the apparatus of oppression funded by our tax dollars. An easy way to support the movement is sign their petition, demanding that President-Elect Obama close the School of the Americas through executive order.

by L Baden Wed Sep 09, 2009 16:22

What is so ironic is the fact that the capitalist US shout out to anyone who cares to listen that they are defending democracy and want to spread it to the Middle East and elesewhere.

Yeah sure, what hypocracy!

Naomi Kleins book The Shock Doctrine reminds us that the US have been behind the dismantling of some 12 democracies around the world for pure economic and geopolitical self-interest.

My estimate is that most of those countries would today have been well functioning, prosperous democracies instead of poor developing nations traumatized by former cruel dictatorships installed by the US.

I don't know about the Americans, but I'm sure ready for CHANGE :O)

by Hammond watcher Wed Sep 09, 2009 16:42

Indonesia is just one example of Capitalism creating dictatorships throughout the world with all its resulting repercussions, we have to thank capitalists for Al Quaida etc.

Noam Chomsky's book, "Hegemony or Survival," presents a view of American foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the preeminent superpower of the world and Chomsky dissects with meticulous research how the United States has chosen to leverage that position to pursue an "imperial grand strategy", which will ensure itself "unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority".

What sets Chomsky's work apart from so many others who write social and political theory today is that he is equally critical of the Democratic party as he is of the Republican party. Chomsky's theory portrays America's foreign policy as being consistent across partisan lines. Democrats and Republicans for that matter appear more as two wings of a capitalist, imperialist party than the two vastly different political ideologies that are presented in the popular media.

The real meat of Chomsky's work lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of history. By examining key moments in America's history, Chomsky is able to elicit a more consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing.

Questions immediately begin to rise to the surface while Chomsky exhumes the historical record and aligns it back into context. Was the United States really concerned with democracy when it supported a viscous proxy war in Nicaragua, even though their government had been democratically elected? Is the United States government hypocritical when it condemns state sponsored terrorism when it sponsored terrorism itself against such countries as Cuba and Nicaragua. And, how does the United States rationalize the School of the Americas, which has long been understood as a training ground for Latin American neo-fascist terrorists?

Is the United States truly interested in peace in the Middle East when it denies the "Saudi Plan" set forth in early 2002, which would offer "full recognition and integration [of Israel] into the region in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders?" Why did we go to war with Iraq when no imminent threat of WMD's could be found, no connection to Al Qaida could be proven, and multiple studies were produced by leading agencies suggesting that invading Iraq would only decrease domestic security?

The answers for Chomsky are surprisingly consistent with what he feels are a foreign policy guided by imperial global expansion and military dominance. Countries must be aligned with US interest in order to ensure capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. If a country does not choose to align, then it will wind up a target of US backed aggression, or branded a terrorist state. In 1965,Indonesia expressed its intention to elder statesman Ellsworth Bunker that they wished to "'stand on their own two feet in developing their economy, free from foreign, especially Western influence'.

A National Intelligence Estimate in September 1965 warned that if the efforts of the mass-based PKI 'to energize and unite the Indonesian nation ... succeeded, Indonesia would provide a powerful example for the underdeveloped world and hence a credit to communism and a setback for Western prestige." A US backed coup ensued, killing close to 1,000,000 people, and installed the brutal dictator General Suharto. This is the cost, Chomsky highlights, of not aligning with the "master" state.

If a country does choose to align, as is the case with countries like Israel and Turkey, they become client states and are protected under the aegis of the American military, and given monetary and military aid. Although Turkey is run by an iron fisted dictator with an abysmal human rights record, the US government makes concessions for Turkey's actions, as it is a client state and performs a strategic role in the interest of the American government.This notion of the client state is why popular solutions to the Middle East crisis like the "Saudi Plan" are not accepted. Israel's role as Middle East policeman is too strategically important to deny Israel it's own expansionist desires.

by Duh Wed Sep 09, 2009 16:53

The story tells of a pirate who appeared before an emperor, asking him why he is “molesting the seas”.

“The pirate answered, How dare you molest the world? I have a small ship, so they call me a pirate. “You have a great navy, so they call you an emperor. But you’re molesting the world. “I’m doing almost nothing by comparison. That’s the way it works. The emperor is allowed to molest the world, but the pirate is considered a major criminal.”

Colombia was by far the leading recipient of US aid during the Clinton Presidency – and also had the worst human rights record in Latin America.

Palestinians held a free election in January 2006, voting “the wrong way, electing Hamas to a majority of seats in the Parliament”.

“You’re not allowed to vote the wrong way in a free election. That’s the capitalist concept of a democracy. Democracy is fine as long as you do what we say, but not if you vote for someone we don’t like, “So instantly Israel and the US instituted harsh punishments on the Palestinians . . .”

by worldwide winnie Wed Sep 09, 2009 18:40

Cheers Blurb.

Thanks for trying to have a debate about economics. Some interesting ideas you've raised about how to look at the economy differently, while trying to pull the warring factions of the red, black and greens into a common strand, which makes sense politically and economically.

If more of the same could be done across the economic board, as a starting principle, then maybe it would be possible to put an economic mandate to the public, which would win support, and make sense as a logical blueprint for how to approach these issues.

Economics isn't my bag, or i thought it wasn't, but thinking about it in this way has got me thinking.

Shame that this thread has gone the same way as most others, and more people seem to have left bim, because of the same old same old rhetoric from both the capitalist and anti-capitalist camps. Hopefully if they manage to see your comments in amongst the cut and paste rhetoric, then they'll pause before walking out the virtual door.

by Bored by capitalists. Wed Sep 09, 2009 21:51

Who would want to turn an interesting article on necessary, just and sustainable change like this into a discussion on economics?
A capitalist would, thats who.
The revolution is not about money.
Though to a capitalist, everything is about money.
And how to get their greedy hands on it.

by Chairwoman Miaow Thu Sep 10, 2009 07:31

WOW - Lets hear all about it then - we are all ears for this one!

Tell us all about how your economic theory (or opinion) is gonna bring about a fairer cleaner greener sustainably peaceful planet for all, and sort out man-made global warming as well as all our other global environmental and human-rights problems PLEASE.

by Them Thu Sep 10, 2009 08:03

... economics won't exist in the brave new world.

Tchh, silly me, how could I have imagined such a thing .....

by Duh Thu Sep 10, 2009 09:12

Get it right capitalist!
CAPITALIST economics won't exist in the brave new world
No I dont suppose you could ever imagine such a thing.

by blurb Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:55

capitalist economics

anarchist economics

socialist economics

environmental economics

That this even has to be spelled out makes bim, unfortunately, an impossible place to debate anything. I'm off to find a space where intelligent adults can debate these things without interruption from those who don't even know the basics, and are clearly intent on destroying the space that bim could be for creating alternatives to capitalism.

Even more unfortunately, those who are clearly intent on destroying bim as a space for the debating alternatives to capitalism are also the so-called 'anti-capitalists'. How ironic, but then again, that's been the problem with anti-capitalists in the form we see here, for decades.

You are also the barrier to saving the planet, along with capitalism as it stands.

It's a shame you do not see what damage you do.

by Them Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:57

Oh, goody, goody.....

does this mean I get my own means of production, & my own workers to exploit, & loads & loads of money...

Rather than having to work to keep a roof over my family's head, food on the table etc....

....& having to budget on my income (is that capitalist economics btw)

Or is this yet another case of 'you disagree with me, therefore you are a capitalist'.

Not very scientific, or accurate, or likely to convince a wage slave like me that your 'future' means anything....

But then again I'm a capitalist, because he/she who knows best says so, so I must be ignored.

btw, I keep asking when this brave new world will go to the democratic vote, via the ballot box... but get no reply.

Unless of course, elections don't count, as capitalists like me are allowed to vote. Heaven forbid that people should have a different point of view.

Off to the gulag for me then.

by blurb Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:12

There's a great need for a space where these things can be debated, and thought through by people like you who are willing to think outside the capitalist box, and how we get from a-b, to a better society, which is something most 'anti-capitalists' here won't even start, and sadly even actively try to destroy as shown again here.

The Bristol Social Forum isn't a place for debate either, as it's just for posting event notices it seems, but if i do ever feel like creating such a space (in the real world preferably) i'll post my email details there.

Goodbye, and thank you very much for providing a chink of light in reply, amongst the bleak, idea and debate paralysying comments from most others.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bristolsocialforum

by Them Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:50

Unfortunately, for some, their beliefs appear to be a near-religious experience.

There appears to be no room for doubt, there is certainly no room for dissent, and any who disagree are heretics, or capitalists to bring it up to date.

Sadly this leads to a sense that ideological purity of ideas and thought is more important than making converts, or winning hearts & minds.

Not in itself a problem, self sealing ideological ghettos means the rest of the world can get on with the need for change. However it does provide the 'citizen smith' type stereotype for the REAL capitalists to publicise.

by Mell O Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:44

No mention of sustainable economics on this thread that I can see ......

I guess this must be a pro capitalist 'media outlet' then ......

by worldwide winnie Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:50

I'm already subbed to the bsf, so will keep an eye out for you 'blurb'.

Your comments on 'the split incentive problem' have got me thinking a lot about sustainability and how to achieve it beyond wishful thinking and empty rhetotic, so will keep on thinking :)

by Us Thu Sep 10, 2009 14:08

What is the difference between the price and the value of a barrel of oil?

by economist Thu Sep 10, 2009 15:55

The initial price can be seen as the costs of extraction, the subsequent value is what is paid for it. Oil is valued by competitive bidding, so the final price can be massively higher than the original costs of extraction. The same applies to virtually all commodities which are sold to the highest bidder, within capitalism.

by economist Thu Sep 10, 2009 16:15

ps: there's also lot more to it than the above, which is a simplification in many cases, but in general oil is valued in futures markets, where everyone who wants to get hold of it bids. So even if the same people who are extracting it, are also selling it at the pumps, the final price you pay at the pumps is set by the price everyone else in the world is bidding it up to.

So in that case they get to reap all the difference between the initial costs of extraction, and the price its being bidded up to on world futures markets, while claiming they're only innocently charging 'market' prices.

by Us Thu Sep 10, 2009 16:58

But I wonder, what is the cost of a barrel of oil, within capitalism of course?

by Mell O Thu Sep 10, 2009 17:12

While we are talking economics towards radical sustainable change (revolution) this kind of stuff will need to be taken into account.

The 'World Economic and Social Survey 2009', published by the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs and released last week, estimates that between 500 billion and 600 billion dollars would be needed annually to address some of the problems caused by climate change, which will be on the agenda of a major international conference in Copenhagen (COP15) in December.

Who should pay these moneys?

The rich?

The poor?

The taxpayers of the world?

Or should the polluter pay?

Get your free copy of The World Economic and Social Survey 2009 - from the link attached to this posting.

by economist Thu Sep 10, 2009 18:21

"But I wonder, what is the cost of a barrel of oil, within capitalism of course?"

There is no one cost (which currently excludes external costs such as pollution), each oilfield will have a different cost. But most oil which could be extracted for around $10 a barrel (the price it fell to for much of the 90's) has gone, and new or existing fields are generally considered viable at around an extraction cost of $40 per barrel. But as the price rises, to say above $100, oil fields which were put out of use, or considered unviable, become viable again.

So the costs of extraction keep on changing according to what they consider viable to extract.

The simplistic story many capitalists will tell you (at least those who don't fully understand the complex and limitations of the very system they defend) is that this is all rosy, because while it may be unpleasant to keep paying higher prices for oil, the higher the price, the more oilfields with higher extraction costs become viable, so the supply will rise as a result.

This does function up to a point, but there's a point which can't be passed, known as the 'energy crunch'. The 'energy crunch' is the point at which it costs more in terms of energy to extract the oil, than you get energy from the oil itself.

To show how the 'energy crunch' is a real and growing problem, during the U.S oil bonanza of the 1950's oilfields were commonly providing 20 units of energy, for every unit of energy to put in to extract it. Modern oilfields are lucky to get 4 units of enegy out, for every unit put in, and many barely manage 2 units out for every 1 unit in. As the 'energy crunch' tightens, the price becomes irrelevant. Many oilfields are already abandoned, or never exploited because the energy costs of extraction have exceeded the energy which the oil privides.

However, an area where the 'energy crunch' can be temporarily suspended, in a sense, is if renewable energy is increasingly used to extract the oil. Energy costs will still exceed energy out, but as the energy in is 'free' to an extent (after their own energy costs to build the renewables) you aren't burning more oil, or other fossil fuels, than you get oil out.

Using renewable energy to extract oil after the 'energy crunch' is passed may be a vital means of keeping 7billion people fed using fertilisers (which are roughly 80% oil) during the long slog to convert the world's farms to organic, which may take generations.

But this is one of those areas which often leave fundamentalist environmentalists fuming, because they seem to see oil as the devils work, and don't want it used for anything under any circumstances. But as long as we don't burn it, oil will remain a vital resource for averting a mass die off of humanity in the medium to longer term.

A long answer I know, with some of my own opinion thrown in, but oil and its ever changing costs is a very complicated picture in reality.

by CH4 Fri Sep 11, 2009 06:58

The problem of oil and any “crunch” coming is not a short term issue. The price of oil is based upon the parameters broadly outlined above. But that is not the real issue – it is the price to the consumer that most individuals are concerned about and with petrol/diesel for example having c.65% tax applied and then VAT applied on the total price including the fuel duty then that equates to about 80% tax on fuel here in the UK.

So oil in reality is still cheap. There is enough to go round, so governments just treat it as a cash cow. But it is a finite resource unless you like the idea of ripping down whole eco systems in the name of “Climate Change” so that you can grow palm oil for bio fuels.

The opportunity cost of the scaremongering is having a dire effect on the planet. Shell have just announced a new oil field find and as the price goes up difficult fields held in reserve simply become viable.

As for the future it will possibly be from the extraction of methane from Methyl hydrates of which there is conservatively estimated to be more available that all the oil reserves that were ever on the planet, in other words more that the oil we have already used as well as that that we have yet to use.

The Chinese are already well advanced in extraction research and will be forging ahead in this technology thanks to their embracing the ideas and concepts of the western free market economies and ditching the sterile control freakery of communism. They still call themselves “Communist” but hey! – Tony Blair called himself a socialist.

As the oil runs out other technologies will be developed and step up to take the load. It was ever thus. Those that witter on about “crunch” and everything running out are just doomporn mongers who need a scare fix every day.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005785.html

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

Those that like to pour doom and gloom and predict one catastrophe after another (usually after each and every prediction is systematically shown to be false) should be listened to politely and then asked to prove how their rather myopic view of the world fits with the facts such as exactly how much Methyl hydrate is available to us as a future energy source.

by Floyd Fri Sep 11, 2009 08:12

Sorry to see you go and very much wish you would stay.

Your insight and views are challenging and a true breath of fresh.

Please reconsider.

by Us Fri Sep 11, 2009 09:10

Wherever oil is found, there is massive moneys to be made, oil attracts the very worst kind of greedy capitalist types.

Whenever capitalists talk about oil, about its price, about its value, they never ever like to talk about the true costs of a barrel of oil.

Here is just one example, Nigeria: (but there are of course thousands of others).

.
Human Rights Violations in the Niger Delta

Oil giants Shell and Chevron have been operating in the Niger Delta for decades. While the region is one of the world’s most productive oil fields, the local communities are among the world’s poorest. The indigenous peoples of the Niger Delta suffer from pollution, destruction of the mangrove forests and depletion of fish stocks that sustained them. The companies operate with support of the oppressive Nigerian dictatorship and military– spurring violent and deadly backlash against activists who oppose them.

Activist and writer Ken Saro-Wiwa led an international, nonviolent campaign targeting Shell. For his commitment, Saro-Wiwa was arrested by the Nigerian dictatorship, subjected to a sham trial and hanged with eight other Ogoni activists in 1995. In 1998 over a hundred people occupied the Chevron-owned oil platform to demand compensation and jobs for the environmental damage caused by Chevron’s drilling. The Nigerian military shot and killed two unarmed protesters and wounded several others. Eleven of the protesters were arrested and reportedly tortured in the prison.

These incidents became the centerpiece to two landmark trials that came before courts in the United States. Over a decade after the killings, Chevron was cleared of responsibility by a federal jury in San Francisco. In June of 2009, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell agreed to pay a $15.5 million dollar settlement.

Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill traveled to Nigeria in 1998, where they produced their award-winning documentary, “Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship” (watch below)

June 09, 2009: Shell To Pay Out $15.5 Million To Settle Landmark Lawsuit Over Death of Nigerian Activist Ken Saro-Wiwa
The oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay a $15.5 million dollar settlement to avoid a trial over its alleged involvement in human rights violations in the Niger Delta. The case was brought on behalf of ten plaintiffs who accused Shell of complicity in the 1995 executions of Nigerian writer and environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others. We speak to Ken Wiwa, the son of Ken Saro-Wiwa, and attorney Judith Brown Chomsky.

May 26, 2009: Shell on Trial: Landmark Trial Set to Begin Over Shell’s Role in 1995 Execution of Nigerian Human Rights Activist Ken Saro-Wiwa
Fourteen years after the widely condemned execution of the acclaimed Nigerian writer and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, the court will hear allegations that Shell was complicit in his torture and execution.

May 26, 2009: Antonia Juhasz on ‘The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report’
Now Chevron’s annual report reports that 2008 was the company’s most profitable year in history. Just ahead of Chevron’s shareholder meeting, a new report released today tells shareholders more about the hidden and underreported costs of these profits. The alternative annual report is called “The True Cost of Chevron.” It brings together stories from communities across the world—Angola, Burma, Canada, Chad, Cameroon, Ecuador, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, the Philippines and the United States—all directly affected by and in struggle against Chevron’s operations.

May 21, 2009: Massive Casualties Feared in Nigerian Military Attack on Niger Delta Villages
The Nigerian military has been accused of killing hundreds, maybe thousands, of civilians in the oil-rich Niger Delta. The military offensive began eight days ago but has received little international attention. We go to Nigeria to speak with Denzil Amagbe Kentebe of the Ijaw National Congress. We’re also joined by Sandy Cioffi, director of the new documentary Sweet Crude about the Niger Delta. The village of Oporoza, where much of the film was shot, has just been burned down.

December 02, 2008: Chevron Cleared in 1998 Shooting Deaths of Protesters in Niger Delta
A federal jury in San Francisco has just cleared oil giant Chevron of any responsibility for the May 1998 shooting and killing of protesters in the oil-rich Niger Delta. A decade ago, over 100 protesters had occupied a Chevron-owned oil platform to demand compensation and jobs for the environmental damage caused by Chevron’s drilling. The Nigerian military shot and killed two unarmed protesters and wounded several others.

October 28, 2008: Drilling and Killing: Landmark Trial Against Chevron Begins Over Its Role in the Niger Delta
A landmark trial has begun against the oil giant Chevron. A San Francisco district court is hearing a case brought by Nigerian plaintiffs who accuse Chevron of recruiting and supplying Nigerian military forces involved in the May 1998 shooting and killing of protesters in the oil-rich Niger Delta. The protesters were occupying a Chevron-owned oil platform called the Parabe, demanding jobs and compensation for environmental damage to their communities. We play an excerpt of Democracy Now!‘s award-winning documentary, Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship, and we speak with two activists.

May 09, 2008: "Free from Nigerian Military Custody, ‘Sweet Crude’ Director Sandy Cioffi on Oil Politics in the Niger Delta
The Nigerian government, along with foreign oil companies, have reaped enormous profits over the years from the sale of oil and gas reserves, while the residents of the Niger Delta live in abject poverty. We speak to Sandy Cioffi, director of the the upcoming documentary Sweet Crude. She was recently arrested by the Nigerian military and held for a week before being released following international pressure.

May 17, 2007: ‘Untapped: The Scramble for Africa’s Oil’
Historian and Journalist John Ghazvinian discusses his recent trip to Nigeria and the African oil boom. The U.S. now imports more oil from African nations than from Saudi Arabia.

December 26, 2006: As Hundreds Die in an Oil Pipeline Explosion in Lagos, A Look At the Fight Over Nigeria’s Natural Resources
Sandy Cioffi, the director of the film “Sweet Crude.” joins us in New York just hours after she returned from Nigeria. She talks about how the popular resistance movement in the Niger Delta continues to fight multinational oil companies for control of the country’s natural wealth.

March 10, 2006: The Next Gulf: London, Washington & the Oil Conflict in Nigeria
In recent months, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta—MEND—has intensified its conflict with the Nigerian government and its largest commercial partner, the oil giant Shell. Government forces have bombarded villages and oil rigs in its attacks on MEND’s ethnic Ijaw rebels. We speak with James Marriot, author of “The Next Gulf.”

September 20, 2005: Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai and Son of Executed Nigerian Activist Ken Wiwa Discuss Oil and the Environment
We take a look at oil and the environment with Ken Wiwa–the son of Ken Saro Wiwa who was executed in 1995 by the Nigerian military dictatorship and Nobel Peace prize-winner and leading environmentalist Wangari Maathai.

July 11, 2003: Drilling and Killing: As President Bush Meets with the CEO of Chevron Texaco in Nigeria, a Look at Chevron’s Role in the Killing of Two Nigerian Villagers
President Bush arrives in Nigeria today. As he wraps up his five-day Africa tour, he is accompanied by a large entourage of corporate executives. Front and center are the oil executives. Bush is set to meet with Chevron Texaco CEO and chairman Dave O’Reilly. Other transnational corporations attending include Exxon-Mobil and Shell Petroleum.
July 11, 2003: Transcript of Drilling and Killing Documentary
Produced by Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill. Mixed and engineered by Dred Scott Keyes

July 23, 2002: U.S. Oil Giant Chevrontexaco Suspends Some of Its Exports After Lightening Strikes and Women Stage An Unprecedented, Peaceful, 10-Day Occupation
The US oil giant ChevronTexaco has been forced to suspend exports from its main Nigerian terminal following fire and protest.

July 19, 2002: 150 Nigerian Women End Their Unprecedented Peaceful Protest Against Chevron, Winning Major Concessions
Over 150 Nigerian women ended their peaceful protest against Chevron in Escravos today. Fifteen women were arrested.

August 27, 2001: Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship: A One Hour Documentary
Almost as regularly as the US bombs oil-rich Iraq, an oil pipeline of one multinational or other bursts somewhere in the Niger Delta of Nigeria. President Clinton has just returned from Africa’s most populous country.

September 04, 2000: Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship
Democracy Now! documents for the first time Chevron’s role in the killing of two Nigerian activists. The San Francisco-based oil company helped facilitate an attack by the feared Nigerian Navy and notorious Mobile Police (MOPOL). In an interview with Democracy Now!, a company spokesperson acknowledged that on May 28, 1998, the company transported Nigerian soldiers to their Parabe oil platform and barge in the Niger Delta, which dozens of community activists had occupied. The protesters were demanding that Chevron contribute more to the development of the impoverished oil region where they live.

August 25, 2000: The Niger Delta–Clinton’s Trip to Nigeria
President Clinton kicks off his second trip to Africa tomorrow with a high profile visit to Nigeria which he pointedly avoided in a 1998 trip to Africa. Then longtime dictator Sani Abacha was still in power. He was backed by the US throughout Clinton’s Administration. Well, at issue on this trip are a variety of issues including military aid, oil and debt reduction.

July 12, 2000: Niger Delta Oil Explosion
As US consumers worry about the rising cost of gas, Nigerians are paying a much heavier price. A pipeline explosion in the Niger Delta yesterday killed an estimated 250 villagers near the southern Nigerian town Warri. This explosion occurred just miles from the Niger Delta town of Jesse, where about 1,000 people died in a similar explosion in 1998.

April 25, 2000: Thousands Attend Funeral of Ken Saro Wiwa in Nigeria
Nigeria’s Niger Delta yesterday, thousands attended the funeral of Ogoni environmental activist Ken Saro Wiwa, who was executed by the Nigerian Government of Sani Abacha almost five years ago.

May 10, 1999: Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship Wins Project Censored Award, As Chevron Talks of Merging with Texaco
Democracy Now! won a Project Censored award this year for its documentary “Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship.”

April 29, 1999: Democracy Now! Confronts Chevron CEO Ken Derr
Tonight, Project Censored honors some of the most censored stories from this past year–and one of those selected for an award was “Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship,” Democracy Now!’s expose on the role that the San Francisco-based oil giant played in the killing of two Nigerian activists last May 28.

February 24, 1999: Chevron Linked to Violence in Nigeria
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is close to making a decision on whether to approve the introduction of a Chevron shareholders’ resolution. The resolution calls for a review of Chevron’s code of business conduct, which would include an explicit commitment to human rights, social justice and environmental responsibility.

February 24, 1999: Nigeria Human Rights Watch
In a new report released this week, Human Rights Watch is charging that oil companies operating in the Niger Delta are directly benefiting from human rights abuses and repression by the Nigerian military. The report says that the companies have failed to respond adequately to serious human rights abuses in the region.

February 11, 1999: Chevron Under Fire for Nigerian Killings
Royal Dutch Shell and the U.S. multinational Chevron are under fire for their roles in the recent killings of Nigerian activists. A U.S. Congressman is pressing for hearings to determine the precise role that U.S. multinationals play in facilitating and encouraging human rights violations abroad.

February 02, 1999: Death in the Niger Delta
At least 19 people were killed and another 10 were seriously injured in the Niger Delta this weekend when Nigerian military forces opened fire on a group of protesters at a Shell oil facility. Community activists had come to the Forcados oil terminal, located about 150 miles southeast of Lagos, to protest the oil giant’s continued devastation of their land.

January 27, 1999: Chevron and Nigeria
Throughout the year, the Niger Delta has been the scene of conflict between local people and the oil multinationals. Big oil companies are responsible for widespread environmental destruction in the Delta region. Residents in the Delta who have been outspoken against the oil companies have been the victims of extreme repression at the hands of the Nigerian government.

January 05, 1999: Bloodbath in the Niger Delta
Activists say Nigerian soldiers have killed between 26 and 200 people since December 30. Ijaw youth set that day as the deadline for multinational oil companies to leave the country. Demonstrations are still illegal although the military regime says it is no longer imposing martial law.

November 26, 1998: "Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship
Democracy Now! documents for the first time Chevron’s role in the killing of two Nigerian activists. The San Francisco-based oil company helped facilitate an attack by the feared Nigerian Navy and notorious Mobile Police (MOPOL). In an interview with Democracy Now!, a company spokesperson acknowledged that on May 28, 1998, the company transported Nigerian soldiers to their Parabe oil platform and barge in the Niger Delta, which dozens of community activists had occupied.

November 20, 1998: Nigerian Attorney Demands Meeting with Chevron
On May 28, 1998, the company transported Nigerian soldiers to an offshore drilling platform in the Atlantic Ocean. There, dozens of community activists had peacefully occupied the Parabe oil platform and barge demanding that Chevron contribute more to development of the impoverished oil region of the Niger Delta.

November 10, 1998: Execution Anniversary of Nigerian Activist Ken Saro-Wiwa
This week, President Clinton’s special envoy to Africa, Jesse Jackson, is visiting Ogoniland. Owens Wiwa, brother of Nigerian environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni leaders are calling on Jackson to demand that Ken’s body be turned over to the Ogoni for a proper burial.

October 13, 1998: Nigerian Activists Plan to Sue Chevron for Nigerian human rights activists are preparing to file a lawsuit in the United States against the Chevron Corporation, alleging that the U.S. oil giant was complicit in the deaths of two protesters who were killed on a Chevron oil barge in the Niger Delta in May.

October 01, 1998: Voices From Nigeria’s Resistance—Nigeria’s Democratic Transition
Nigeria’s military junta ordered all senior government administrators and ministers to disclose their personal assets in a crackdown on corruption. Meanwhile, groups continue to organize against the so-called democratic transition program of Nigeria’s military ruler General Abdulsalam Abubakar.

October 01, 1998: Resistance in the Niger Delta
Democracy Now! documents for the first time Chevron’s role in the killing of two Nigerian activists. The San Francisco-based oil company helped facilitate an attack by the feared Nigerian Navy and notorious Mobile Police (MOPOL).

September 30, 1998: Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship
In an interview with Democracy Now!, a company spokesperson acknowledged that on May 28, 1998, the company transported Nigerian soldiers to their Parabe oil platform and barge in the Niger Delta, which dozens of community activists had occupied.

August 14, 1998: Shell Oil Lawsuit Continues Despite New Image
Earlier this month, the Washington Post ran a story called “Shell’s New Worldview” which was ostensibly a profile of Mark Moody-Stuart the new head of Royal Dutch Shell.

by Us Fri Sep 11, 2009 09:20

84 indigenous people massacred in Peru’s “oil war”

At least 84 indigenous people have been killed fighting to defend their traditional territories from oil exploration. As part of a free trade agreement with the US, Peru has altered their constitution and implemented new laws stripping indigenous tribes of their land rights and opening their lands to oil companies. In response there has been a massive uprising for the past month with tribes around the country shutting down major highways, rivers, oil installations, trains, and other critical infrastructure. To put it bluntly these new laws are a death sentence for the indigenous of the Peruvian Amazon.

It is often easy to get caught up in the abstractions of climate change, with our parts per millions and international treaties. This is not an abstraction. This is life and death for thousands of people. And may I add it is death being fueled by our addiction to oil. If we are serious about climate justice we need to provide solidarity to those resisting genocide in Peru.

by More of us. Fri Sep 11, 2009 09:26

There is an alarming record of human rights abuses by governments and corporations associated with fossil fuel operations, resulting in forced relocation, and the brutal and sometimes deadly suppression of critics.

Oil Change International has a long history of working with many of these front line communities - particularly those in Nigeria.

Scholars have examined the relationship between corruption, authoritarian governments, governance, conflict, and extractive industries, and have found strong evidence for a ‘repression effect’, which holds that resource wealth retards democratisation by enabling the government to better fund the apparatus of repression.

Citizens in Chad and Cameroon voiced loud concerns to the World Bank that the financing and revenues for the Chad-Cameroon oil project would fuel an ongoing civil war and intimidation of citizens in affected communities. These fears were justified when it was revealed that the President of Chad spent millions of dollars of the first instalment of project funds on weapons - and more recently as the Government of Chad is attempting to divert more oil money away from its people.

Dependence on oil is also associated with a higher risk of civil war. World Bank analyst Paul Collier has demonstrated that countries that depend on resource exports run a risk of civil war that is forty times greater than countries with no resource exports. This is attributable to a variety of factors, including struggles among various factions for control of the resources and the grievances of groups impacted by poorly managed resource extraction.

A well-documented instance of corporate collusion in human rights abuses is Burma. The Yadana and Yetagun pipelines built by Unocal and Halliburton (US), Premier Oil (UK) and TotalFinaElf (France/Belgium) are the largest foreign investment projects in Burma. In response to a lawsuit initiated in 2000 by local villagers, with the support of EarthRights International and the Center for Constitutional Rights, a US federal judge found that there was:

“evidence demonstrating that before joining the Project, Unocal knew that the military had a record of committing human rights abuses; that the Project hired the military to provide security for the Project, a military that forced villagers to work and entire villages to relocate for the benefit of the Project; that the military, while forcing villagers to work and relocate, committed numerous acts of violence; and that Unocal knew or should have known that the military did commit, was committing, and would continue to commit these [abuses].”

by Plenty of us, all around the world. Fri Sep 11, 2009 09:29

Oil is not cheap at all. It involves huge costs, only that they are not included in the price paid by the final consumers.

The high cost of cheap oil

The prevailing development model is to a large extent based on oil, which has been imposed as one of the main energy sources for most human activities (industry, transportation, heating, cooking, etc.). However destructive its extraction and use may be, the main reason for its success is its cheapness. Because it is cheap, its continued use is enhanced and because its use increases, so does its extraction. In theory, oil companies should be extracting less oil to achieve a higher price and hence more profits. However -as happened during the past oil crises- a more expensive oil opens up opportunities for other sources of energy (e.g. solar, wind, biomass) to become economically competitive. And this is something oil companies fear very much.

This would explain why Occidental Petroleum, for instance, insists on trying to drill oil out of the U'wa indigenous peoples' territory in Colombia, in spite of their opposition and the ensuing damaging publicity this is entailing for the company. It would also explain why Shell and other multinationals continue active in the Ogoni territory in Nigeria in spite of the international outcry following the legal murder of Ken Saro Wiwa and the blatant human rights abuses linked to oil in that country. For oil to be cheap, the extraction rate must never diminish and new oil wells need to be identified and explored.

But oil is not cheap at all. It involves huge costs, only that they are not included in the price paid by the final consumers.

The major cost is of course human. In the tropics, oil extraction is carried out in areas inhabited by people. The rights of those peoples are disregarded and their territories are taken over and given in concession by the government to the oil companies. In many cases this leads to struggles against the companies and to official and unofficial repression and human rights abuses.

All the resources which since time immemorial had served to meet the needs of local indigenous peoples are degraded. Drinking water is poisoned. The air becomes polluted. Wildlife becomes scarce. Forests disappear. All this impacts on the health and livelihoods of local people.

Oil extraction at the same time affects the health of the forest ecosystem. Firstly, oil exploration and extraction are direct causes of the deforestation of large areas of tropical forests and of the degradation of the forest as a whole through its impacts on water, air, wildlife and plants. Secondly, the oil activity constitutes an underlying cause of deforestation and forest degradation because it opens up the forest and thus creates the possibility for logging and forest conversion to agriculture and cattle raising.

In sum, local people and local ecosystems are the main -though by no means the only- victims of oil activities. They are not even able to receive the "benefit" of using cheap oil for their cars to carry them around, since they can't afford -and probably never will- to own a car!

At the global level, it is a well-known fact that oil is one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect and is therefore also threatening humanity as a whole. But the predominant economically-oriented model only seems to accept "economically-feasible" -even if socially and environmentally disastrous- solutions. This explains why the establishment is so keen on the "carbon shop" approach: more fossil fuel use and tree plantations to "offset" the resulting CO2 emissions. Never mind the impacts that those plantations will have on people and the environment and never mind that this "solution" will solve nothing: it makes -for them- economic sense.

Within such scenario, there are a large number of entry points for action by people who are really concerned about the future of humanity and about the rights of local peoples. But perhaps one of the major issues is to achieve a moratorium of new oil exploration and extraction, particularly in the tropics. A more scarce oil will increase prices and other energy sources -clean, low-impact, renewable- will be able to make "economic sense". The struggle to this end has already started and the U'wa and the Ogoni are perhaps the more well known- though by no means the only- cases of trying to impose such moratorium in a very concrete way within their territories. Support to such local cases of resistance is therefore essential, both from a local and global perspectives. The cost of cheap oil has become too high to bear.

by Hossein Askari Fri Sep 11, 2009 09:40

In its quest to control global oil and gas reserves, the U.S. has forgotten its noble heritage and is endangering its future by supporting dictators abroad.

While the Middle East's resources are a tempting prize, the continuing alienation of its people and the likelihood of wider confrontations are a recipe for disaster.

To reach its goal, the U.S. has relied principally on supporting malleable strongmen and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign countries.

Most recently the U.S. has resorted to military intervention.

Washington initiated the policy of interference and support for dictators in 1953 when, along with Britain, it overthrew the elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and reinstalled the shah.

Unfortunately, the U.S. learned nothing from the events of the ensuing years.

The Iranian Revolution was as much about jettisoning U.S. control of internal Iranian affairs as it was about overthrowing the shah and establishing an elected government. With the loss of Iran, the U.S. focused on Arab countries ruled by corrupt families.

To my mind, the extent of the corruption in the Persian Gulf is unprecedented in the history of man.

Just ask yourself a simple question: How is it that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are so rich?

Is it because all the roughly 20,000 family members are so very intelligent?

Is it because they are so hardworking? The answer is simple. The Saudi monarchy has taken brazen corruptness to a level never seen before.

The Saud family is plundering the birthright of all present and future citizens of Saudi Arabia.

They are in on every big government contract, and their commissions can sometimes run into the billions of dollars.

For example, the commission paid to Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud on the al-Yamamah military contract (with BAE Systems) in the UK has allegedly exceeded well over $2 billion, with many more billions expected to follow.

In 2006 the British government stopped all investigations into the widely reported commission and rescued this "royal" middleman by resorting to an "in the interest of national security" argument.

As expected, in 2007 another large Saudi military contract, more wasteful military expenditures, and more commissions, all to the detriment of Saudi citizens, rewarded Britain's complicity.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The late King Fahd's palace in Jeddah, just one of many, reportedly cost well over $1 billion.

This is the same King Fahd whose favorite title was the "Custodian of theTwo Holy Mosques"!

The senior members of the Saud family take from the state treasury at will, robbing the citizens of Saudi Arabia without hindrance.

Once depleted and plundered, the trillions in oil and gas assets will be lost to all generation of citizens, present and future.

Although corruption and lavish lifestyles are forbidden in Islam, the Western media's confusion persists: it is not a matter of Islam condoning corruption, but rather of regional dictators who are supported and protected by the U.S.

How can the U.S. believe that its support for these rulers and their policies will "win the hearts and minds" of Muslims?

As if these sad legacies of Washington's drive for control of Persian Gulf petroleum were not enough, the U.S. has encouraged regional conflict.

The Iran-Iraq war could have been stopped at the very moment Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. Instead the United Nations, with implicit U.S. backing, took no action, and the U.S., along with its European allies, supplied Saddam Hussein with all sorts of weaponry, including outlawed chemical and biological weapons.

The U.S. also supplied Iraq with battlefield intelligence.

The cost of this war to Iraq exceeded the country's total oil revenues over the entire period from the creation of Iraq to 1988 (the year the war ended); the cost to Iran exceeded Iran's oil revenues from 1945 to 1988.

The U.S. encouraged the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to shower their Arab brother, Saddam Hussein, the supposed Arab protector, with cash in an effort to protect their shaky regimes.

Later, the U.S. did less than it could have to discourage Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Instead, the U.S. led a coalition of mercenary allies to reinstall the Kuwaiti monarchy, thereby winning sweetheart deals from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates for favored oil companies, engineering firms, and arms manufacturers.

Then came the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a war motivated in part by a desire to control the oil of Iraq and its neighbors and to render Iran more malleable.

Iran was labeled a supporter of terrorism and a member of an "axis of evil," while Arab dictators were praised as "moderates."

The Iraq war continues today with higher costs than any previous war in the Persian Gulf and with no end in sight.

Oil, greed, and aggression go hand in hand and bring out the worst in men and in governments.

Can anyone expect the people of the Persian Gulf region to welcome U.S. support for regimes that rob them of their freedom, plunder their resources, and subjugate them?

An Iranian-style revolution, but on a much wider scale, cannot be avoided if the U.S. continues on its present course.

While Persian Gulf rulers have wrapped themselves in Islam, they are anything but Islamic.

The fundamental principle of Islam is economic and social justice.

Pious Muslims the world over are repulsed by impious rulers and those who support them.

This is one of the chief causes of anti-Americanism in the Muslim World.

Sadly, in its efforts to dominate the Middle East, the United States has forgotten its own heritage.

The U.S. has chosen to side with dictators at the expense of the people of the region.

The U.S. no longer even promotes free elections, as recent elections have not produced the results Washington wished for; given Muslim mistrust of Washington's record in the Middle East, those allied with the U.S. are unlikely to be elected anywhere in the Muslim world.

The U.S. has become a willing accomplice to the subjugation of millions of Muslims.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has used the terror card to shore up Musharraf, Mubarak, and the House of Saud and their deplorable policies.

This is the same United States that produced the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. How long does the U.S. think it will get away with this transparent double standard?

The U.S. government's double standard for favored regimes was evident recently when the White House was asked for a statement on the doubling of the sentence handed out to a Shia girl (not from the majority Sunni sect of Saudi Arabia) who was the victim of a gang rape: she dared to question Saudi injustice when her rapists were given relatively lenient sentences while she received 90 lashes for "allowing" herself to be raped.

The same government now occupying Iraq initially responded that Saudi Arabia was a sovereign country with its own judicial system!

Let's connect the dots.

The masses in the Middle East and much of the wider Muslim world are disenfranchised.

If the disenfranchised try to overthrow their governments, they are called terrorists by the U.S.

There is little opportunity to affect change peacefully.

Increasingly, these people see their misery as connected to the U.S. government's policies. I cannot help but repeat something that I have said for many years: the reason the U.S. is surprisingly popular with many in Iran is that the U.S. has not imposed the current regime on the people of Iran.

It's that simple.

The Middle East is ready for an explosion like none seen before.

At the same time, America's growing control of the region's resources threatens China.

China will be increasingly daring in its support of anti-American elements in the region and around the world, as it has little choice but to thwart U.S. domination of the Persian Gulf.

Any hostile act against U.S. interests could trigger a massive U.S. response, which could in turn fuel widespread uprisings against American allies and interests.

A world war could erupt because the U.S. pursues hegemony through corrupt, unelected proxies at the political, social, and economic expense of millions of innocent people.

How can Americans, whose ancestors fought for their own independence, be accomplices to rulers who deprive millions of people in the Middle East of their rights?

How can America not see the folly of its imperial ways? How can America be blind to the catastrophe that is sure to follow.

How can Brits go along with this long slow destruction of people and planet?

by Peter Symonds Fri Sep 11, 2009 09:55

Loadsa oil, loadsa money, loadsa profit for capitalists, loadsa deaths for local peoples.

Government leaders paid tribute to Indonesia’s former dictator Suharto when he died in 2008.

The death of former Indonesian dictator Suharto 2008 at the age of 86 has elicited a stream of tributes from world leaders and in the international press.

There is something both disturbing and ominous about praise for a man who was responsible for the murder of at least half a million people in the 1965 coup that brought him to power and the deaths of another 200,000 following the 1975 Indonesian annexation of East Timor.

Suharto’s funeral, with full military honours, took place on Monday in the central Javan city of Solo.

While he was forced to step down in 1998, the regime that Suharto established remains largely intact, despite its more recent democratic trappings.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, himself a Suharto-era general, presided over the lavish ceremony, hailing the dead dictator as “a loyal fighter, a true soldier and a respected statesman”.

While no prominent US official attended, a White House spokesman announced that President Bush had sent “his condolences to the people of Indonesia on the loss of their former president”.

Two of South East Asia’s longstanding autocrats—former Malaysia Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Singapore’s elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew—flew to Indonesia to pay their last respects to the military strongman.

Such was the scale of Suharto’s crimes that the media could not completely ignore the brutality and corruption of his regime.

But the coverage has been at pains to emphasise his “positive contribution” and urge a “balanced approach” to his legacy.

A comment in the Wall Street Journal, for instance, hailed Suharto for transforming Indonesia from “an economic basket case and a trouble maker in the region” under previous President Sukarno into one of Asia’s tiger economies. “For all his flaws, Suharto deserves to be remembered as one of Asia’s greatest leaders,” it declared.

The most open defence of Suharto’s record has come from the Australian establishment.

Leaders, past and present and across the political spectrum, have recorded their debt of gratitude to the former dictator for “stabilising” the country by physically eliminating the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and serving as a key ally in Asia for more than three decades.

Former Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating, who attended the funeral with Attorney General Robert McClelland, told the Australian that he warmly remembered Suharto as an old friend.

He dismissed the attention given to Suharto’s record on human rights and corruption as “missing the point”, adding as an aside that “the only point where that’s an issue is on [East] Timor and on the PKI.”

If Suharto had not been president, Keating declared, “We [Australia] wouldn’t have been spending 2 percent of GDP on defence—it would have been more like 8 or 9 percent.”

Keating’s remarks echo his comment as prime minister in 1994 when he declared that no country was more important to Australia than Indonesia.

He described the emergence of Suharto’s New Order government as “the single most beneficial strategic development to have affected Australia and its region in the past 30 years.”

The following year, the Keating Labor government signed a security treaty formalising Canberra’s close military ties with the Indonesian dictatorship.

These apologetics are politically telling.

For those who lived through this period or have studied it, Suharto’s atrocities rank among the worst of the century.

Just over a year ago, Saddam Hussein was found guilty in a rigged trial in US-occupied Iraq and executed for crimes that pale beside the bloodletting carried out by Suharto in the 1965 coup.

The widow of ousted President Sukarno said of Suharto’s legacy: “He was Indonesia’s Pol Pot”

For 32 years, the Suharto dictatorship served as the critical linchpin for US imperialism and its junior partner, Australia, in suppressing revolutionary struggles throughout the region and containing the influence of the Soviet Union and China.

In the 1960s, as it was becoming more deeply embroiled in the war in Vietnam, Washington was increasingly antagonistic to Indonesia’s President Sukarno, a bourgeois nationalist, whose response to deepening social unrest at home was to posture, with the PKI’s assistance, as an “anti-imperialist” and to present his limited reforms as “socialist” measures.

THE OUSTING OF SUKARNO WAS ONE OF THE CIA's SUCCESS STORIES.

In one blow, it entrenched a military regime that was loyal to Washington, fiercely anti-communist and ruthless in its suppression of any political opposition.

The pretext for the Indonesian coup was the kidnapping and murder of six top generals on September 30, 1965, allegedly at the PKI’s instigation. General Suharto promptly established his firm control over Jakarta, sidelined Sukarno and, exploiting the deaths of his rivals, whipped up a carefully orchestrated campaign of violence against the PKI, its supporters and anyone suspected of socialist sympathies.

US diplomats and CIA officers, led by the US ambassador to Indonesia, Marshall Green, were intimately involved in the slaughter that followed, supplying “shooting lists” of top PKI officials to the Indonesian military for interrogation and murder.

What was involved was the physical destruction of a party with a membership numbering in the millions.

Lacking enough death squads, the military turned to right-wing Muslim organisations, which willingly participated in the elimination of a party that was seen as a threat to traditional landowners and other vested religious interests.

Reliable estimates put the final death toll at between half a million and a million.

To cite just one contemporary article, Time magazine reported: “The killings have been on such a scale that the disposal of corpses has created a serious sanitation problem in northern Sumatra where the humid air bears the reek of decaying flesh.

Travellers from these areas tell us small rivers and streams have been literally clogged with bodies.

River transportation has become seriously impeded.”

The Stalinist PKI, which was based on the “peaceful road to socialism”, not revolutionary politics, made no attempt to mobilise against the military.

Its entire orientation was to subordinate the working class and peasant masses to Sukarno.

Even as the military was murdering its members, the PKI leaders insisted that the party should do nothing to alienate Sukarno. Sukarno, however, was incapable of seriously challenging the US-supported military.

After temporising for months, he formally handed over power to Suharto in March 1966.

The New Order regime that emerged from the carnage borrowed from the corporatist outlook of European fascism.

Every aspect of society—from government administration, the police and judiciary to the media, trade unions and peasant organisations—was subordinated to the state and Suharto’s military high command, in particular.

All forms of dissent were systematically crushed. Hundreds of thousands of PKI members and supporters were detained in concentration camps into the late 1970s.

Suharto’s much vaunted economic miracle was heavily dependent in the first instance on large amounts of American aid, then from the early 1970s on the increased income produced by the quadrupling of prices for Indonesian oil exports.

Particularly sensitive to the danger of rural unrest, Suharto took some limited steps to subsidise farmers.

But the country’s staggering social inequality was nowhere more evident than in the corporate empire built up by Suharto, his family and close business cronies through state monopolies and patronage on a vast scale.

A UN report last year estimated that Suharto had siphoned off $35 billion. In the end, having loyally served his purpose as a Cold War ally, Suharto became an obstacle in the era of globalised capital to the opening up of the Indonesian economy and was summarily cast aside by Washington in the midst of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.

For successive US administrations, the Suharto regime was an important ally in Asia.

However, for Australian governments, as Keating explained, the Indonesian junta remained “the single most beneficial strategic development” in the region.

Successive prime ministers—Labor and Coalition—cultivated the closest of relations with the dictator.

In 1972, shortly after being elected, the new Labor government welcomed Suharto in Canberra on the first of two trips to Australia.

The following year Prime Minister Gough Whitlam declared: “I have found that fundamentally, the Indonesian and Australian governments have similar views.”

The Whitlam government along with the Ford administration in Washington gave the green light for the 1975 Indonesian invasion of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor.

Having just suffered a devastating strategic defeat in Vietnam, the US and Australian governments feared that the fledging Timorese independence movement was a potential catalyst for unrest in Indonesia and across the region.

For two decades, successive Australian and US governments solidly backed Indonesia’s bloody suppression of Timorese resistance, at the cost of 200,000 lives.

One factor in Canberra’s support for the Indonesian invasion was always the lucrative oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea.

Australia became the only country in the world to formally recognise Indonesia’s annexation of East Timor—in return for a border agreement and the lion’s share of the seabed resources.

In the wake of the turmoil following Suharto’s fall in 1998, the government of Liberal Party leader John Howard—determined to preempt rival powers, Portugal in particular—made a tactical shift to support Timorese independence.

Its military interventions in 1999 and 2006 were to install a regime favourable to Australian interests and, above all, to retain control of the Timor Sea oil and gas.

Australia’s intimate relationship with the Indonesian dictatorship and its successors goes well beyond the immediate issue of Timor’s energy reserves.

Suharto was not only an insurance against political instability in Indonesia, and more generally Asia, but also opened diplomatic and economic doors in South East Asia for Australian governments and corporations.

Even after his political fall from grace in 1998, Suharto continued to enjoy the tacit protection of the powers that be, not only in Indonesia, but in Washington, Canberra and internationally.

He was never prosecuted for his bloody crimes against the Indonesian people.

Attempts to put him on trial on charges of corruption were shelved using the pretext of his ill health.

The readiness of governments to embrace the dead dictator signifies that the lack of any genuine commitment to democratic rights in the political establishments of any of these countries.

Their willingness to brush aside Suharto’s atrocities and praise the achievements of his New Order regime is a chilling warning that mass murder is regarded in ruling circles as a legitimate instrument of foreign and domestic policy.

by Ed Pilkington Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:05

The village at the tip of the iceberg - Newtok in Alaska, where global warming is forcing the entire community to relocate.

For more than 2,000 years the Yup'ik Eskimos have carved out a subsistence living on the frozen wastes of southwest Alaska. But now the ice is melting the village is having to move to a new site, and the world's first climate-change refugees face an uncertain future.

Peter John has known for years that the change was coming. The elders had foretold it. As a young Eskimo boy he would sit at the feet of his father and grandfather, uncles and great uncles as they arranged themselves in a circle in the qasgiq, the house built of sods dug deep into the tundra and reserved only for the men. Outside, snow would lay thick on the ground and the sea would be a single block of ice. Inside, the heat of the men's bodies would keep young Peter warm. An elder would be chosen to lead the discussion and would sometimes speak uninterrupted for an entire day.

It was during these conversations in the dark Alaskan winters that Peter learned about the change coming. A great reversal would happen. The seasons would be turned upside down. The Eskimos from his village and all along the coast of the Bering Sea would never see the winter again. The snow would disappear.

The elders were observant, and they formed their predictions by watching the land and sea, not for hours, not for days, but for months and years. And they passed their knowledge down by word of mouth in the village qasgiq.

Peter is 72 now, an elder himself. Though he has lost the sight in one eye, he is no less observant than his father and grandfather before him. He has watched the change they foretold come true. In the old days the snow would be piled so high it would reach the top of the schoolhouse in Newtok, his village on the Alaskan coast. Children would use it as a snow ladder to climb on to the roof. Not any more. Most years the snow would lie thick on the ground well into June. Now it can be gone by April, bringing in flocks of geese from the south months before they are due.

In the old days he would take the dog teams out in January or February across the pack ice to catch sticklebacks, digging holes through a layer of ice 6ft thick or more. Now it is less than 4ft thick. Then the cold was biting, but there was little wind and the sour dog plant would be covered in frosty icicles. Now the wind blows so fierce the plant is bare. And, most noticeable of all, the land itself is being swallowed up. Years ago, all he could see from his window was land stretching far into the distance. Now the water is at the village edge, moving closer and closer to Peter's house, eating away at the earth. Soon it will be Newtok's turn to disappear.

When Peter was a child the elders told him the change was coming. Now Peter is an elder, he tells the children the change is here.

The journey to America's first community of global-warming refugees involves a series of stages, each one more bone-rattling than the last. First comes a flight into Anchorage, Alaska's largest town, passing over the humbling magnificence of the Chugach Mountains, whose 10,000ft pinnacles have been smoothed over by glaciers like whitewash over the stones of an old farmhouse. A second flight takes us to Bethel, a regional hub of 5,000 people. It's clear we are getting somewhere now: instead of the usual glossy magazines, the counter at Bethel airport offers waiting travellers a well-thumbed book called The AR-15: Complete Assembly Guide to the Assault Rifle, Volume 2

The last stage is a harrowing ride in a Cessna single-propeller plane, the sort that slithers through the air like a puck in a game of ice hockey. It's no comfort that before boarding you are required to tell the pilot how much you weigh. The flight covers hundreds of miles of tundra formed by the Yukon and Kuskokwim estuaries that run into the Bering Sea. In summer, thousands of thaw lakes interconnect with sloughs and streams, producing the pattern of syrup drizzled over a pancake.

With a sudden jolt, we land along a gravel strip that sits barely above the water line. There to welcome us is a group of scraggily dressed children playing beside a notice that reads: 'No kids, no bikers, no swimming, no ATV riding allowed at the airport'.

We have arrived in Newtok, a village of about 320 people on the southwest coast of Alaska - a location about as remote as can be found. The nearest connecting road is 400 miles away. Without the arrival of the daily plane, the villagers would be almost entirely cut off from so-called civilisation, though that would hardly bother them, as they lead a largely subsistence existence, as had their forebears for 2,000 years.

They are Yup'ik Eskimos (not to be confused with the more northern Inuit, who are not Eskimos) and they form the largest group of native Alaskans. Yup'ik means real - and you see why when confronted by the harshness and rawness of their lives. A walk through the village reveals an extraordinary confluence of ancient ways and modernity. Peter John, for instance, lives in a wooden house raised on stilts. Now that he no longer goes out to fish and hunt, he spends his days in an armchair in his neat sitting room. From his window he can see wooden sheds where supplies of herring and salmon are drying for the winter, just as they would have been 1,000 years ago. Scattered about the village are the hides of musk ox and the skulls of walrus and moose, some with antlers 8ft across. Yet parked alongside them are hulking snowmobiles and the ubiquitous ATV quadbikes that roar between the houses.

To add to the incongruity, Newtok's 60 houses and communal buildings are sinking and tilting at odd angles. Many are tipping downwards on their southern flank, as though they are kneeling and paying obeisance to the muddy earth. A rickety gap-toothed boardwalk connects the homes, and it too is sinking and bending in great undulations.

Peter John's house is about 15 buildings in from the edge of the village. Walk on a further 150ft or so and you come to the Ninglick River, a wide waterway that flows out to the Bering Sea. It is here, at the edge of the water, that the vague sense of things being out of kilter forms itself into a vision of imminent disaster. In front of us a slab of land, not much smaller than Peter John's house, has collapsed and keeled over into the sea, leaving a crevice several feet wide and about 10ft deep between it and the mainland.

I jump down into the hole and start scratching around in the mud for an explanation. About 6ft below the surface level of the tumbled earth is a layer of ice, hard to the touch, glistening faintly in the daylight. It looks unassuming, but it tells a story of monumental significance. It is permafrost, and it has been there beneath thousands of miles of Alaska, Canada, Russia and beyond for thousands of years, acting as a solid wall that holds the sea at bay and maintaining the integrity of the land. It also acts as foundations for the roads and buildings that sit upon it, Peter John's house included.

But that glistening is ominous. The permafrost is melting. The layer of ice in the crevice in which I stand is weeping, shedding large teardrops that are quickly soaked up by the soggy earth lower down. I can see too what is left behind when the ice melts - nothing but friable soil, as soft and spongy as rum baba.

It is this layer of melting ice that has turned Newtok into what one observer described as the Ground Zero of global warming. According to Nasa, temperatures in Alaska have risen more than any other place on the planet in the past 50 years - by some 4F on average, and up to 10F in winter. The Arctic in general has experienced a rate of warming that is double the earth's average, in part as a result of what is known as positive feedback. The brilliant white surface of ice and snow normally reflects most radiation from the sun back into space. But once the ice starts to melt through warming temperatures, the exposed land absorbs the radiation, thus causing further warming and melting. The vicious cycle set in train melts the frozen segment of tundra that forms the permafrost. Reports suggest it is thinning by more than an inch a year, turning a once rock-solid fortress into floppy gunge.

It doesn't take much imagination to conceive of the impact on the 90,000 Alaskans who live on top of the permafrost, most of them Eskimos or Inuit. The few roads that exist are now cracking and caving in, like Newtok's undulating boardwalk. Of the state's 213 Alaska Native villages, 184 are severely affected by erosion and flooding. Six have been classed in need of immediate help, and of those Newtok is top of the list.

The village has felt the impact in so many ways. The piles on which houses like Peter John's are built used to be driven 8ft down; now they have to go 12ft - and even that isn't enough. As the permafrost melts, so the buildings sink, hence the odd angles. Every year villagers prop up their houses using hydraulic jacks in a futile attempt to level them. The reason the houses are all bowing down to the south now becomes clear: the warmth of the southern sunlight causes a disproportionate melting of the permafrost.

The greatest threat comes from the water. The land on which Newtok is built is being swallowed up at an astonishing pace. With no permafrost as buttress, the tundra is as defenceless against the pounding waves as a sandcastle is to the rising tide. In Newtok's case, the waves do most damage in late summer, when they are whipped up in fierce storms that each year seem to grow more angry - a further symptom of global warming caused by changing weather patterns further north. The water undercuts the topsoil until it topples over in enormous clumps like the one I am standing beside. As a result, the sea is marching in the direction of the village at a rate of up to 90ft a year. It has already swallowed up a barge landing where the villagers used to moor their boats. Within two years, the first houses on the outskirts of the community are likely to be consumed, and Peter John's and all the rest will follow suit within a year or two of that.

Stanley Tom, the village administrator, the modern equivalent of tribal leader, is spearheading the effort to relocate the entire community to a new home across the water. On the second morning of our visit he takes us out in his aluminium fishing boat to the new site - an island about nine miles to the south.

It is here on Nelson Island that America's first global-warming refugee camp is being built. Three houses, neatly arranged on stilts in the style of Peter John's home back in Newtok, are already nearing completion. The villagers built them themselves, with the help of government grants, on land that is high enough up the hillside to be safe from the dangers of climate change - rising sea levels, flash flooding, erosion - for decades, if not centuries, to come. The first three homes have been assigned to village elders, including Stanley's father, Nick Tom. As Stanley shows us around the new houses, with their wood-burning stoves and mail-order catalogue kitchens, he talks of his huge relief that the move has begun. 'The elders are our advisers; they are our resources. We owe it to them to provide them with a life without trouble and worry. I can sleep at night now, knowing my father will be safe.'

Also palpable is Tom's excitement about the natural abundance that he sees all around. The new village will be called Mertarvik, meaning 'getting water from a spring' - a reference to the ample supply of drinking water on the island. Wild musk ox have been spotted on the island and in the surrounding waters there is ample summer fishing of white fish, herring and halibut. The hillside on which the houses are rising is covered with bushes bearing berries that form an essential part of the Eskimos' diet. In late July or August they gather nagoonberries, cranberries, crowberries, blue-, black- and red-berries. They mix them with oil rendered from seal blubber and sugar to make akutaq - berry ice cream that is the centrepiece in winter festivities which help to while away the long, dark months. On our way back to Tom's boat he suddenly drops to his knees among a patch of salmonberries and declares them almost ripe and ready to pick. 'Oh man! These are really plump and nice,' he exclaims. 'These are the best! Better than shopping in a grocery store.'

Back in Newtok, his excitement at the natural riches of the new village slumps into frustration as he relates the difficulties of organising the evacuation. The relocation of even such a small community has proved a massive undertaking, involving liaison with countless different government bodies and agencies. Tom has clearly had his fill of dealing with bureaucrats. 'There's a lot of pressure on me. The federal agencies are so slow, and I get stressed out. We're stuck in the middle: the old village is crumbling, because no one wants to spend money on a place that is about to move, but the new village isn't ready either.'

We are talking over lunch in Tom's house at the far end of the village. Nearby you can still make out the outline of the old qasgiq, where the young Peter John used to sit at the feet of the elders. Tom serves a stew made from wild emperor geese shot by his sons, washed down with tundra tea, an infusion of a local bush that looks like rosemary. The feast fails to improve our host's mood. The worst thing, he says, has been the frequent remarks from outsiders that the villagers should all move to Bethel or Anchorage, or co-locate to one of the neighbouring villages that haven't been so affected by global warming. 'That will never happen. They wanted to move us to a barbed-wire camp in Anchorage, but we can't live the urban life. We are not used to it,' he says.

At best, Newtok can expect only ambivalent support from the state authorities in Juneau, 1,000 miles away. Alaska's new lipstick-wearing pitbull megastar, Sarah Palin, is intellectually challenged when it comes to global warming. Soon after she was thrown into the spotlight as John McCain's presidential running mate she said: 'A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.' A few days later she tried to retract her statement, but her sentiments as a global-warming denier were crystal clear.

The villagers have at least found in one official a powerful advocate. Sally Cox, an Alaska state planner, has rebutted the idea of paying the villagers to move into the cities. 'Often people say: why can't they just relocate, to another village or a town, to spare the government the huge cost of moving Newtok? But they have lived along this coast for millennia; their whole identity is embedded in their surroundings,' she tells me when we meet in Anchorage.

Astonishing figures have been put on the cost of moving Newtok. One estimate put the total expense at $130m. Across the state of Alaska, the current bill to repair damage to infrastructure caused by global warming is already put at $3bn, and this could rise, according to some estimates, to $80bn by 2080. Looked at this way, the option of plonking the villagers of Newtok in some urban condo starts to appear more desirable. But Cox dismisses such thinking as alarmist. 'The figures are misleading. We are going to show in Newtok that it's not going to cost anything like as much.'

Stanley Tom's point about the villagers being unprepared for urban life is spelled out the night his cousin Margaret Nickerson pays us a visit. She has decided to treat us to a classic Eskimo dinner. She pulls out a plastic bag and empties out an assortment of dried fish - herring, salmon, blackfish, pike, sheefish. She shows us how to eat it, dipping each piece in a bowl of clear yellowy liquid that turns out to be seal oil. As a final delicacy she produces a lump of black shrivelled flesh that resembles beef jerky. It is the dried ribs of a seal.

As I chew gingerly on the meat, she tells me that the villagers go hunting for maklak - the bearded seal - every spring. The first catch of the year is marked by a great party where they celebrate by eating the seal's raw liver dipped in seal oil. She goes on to explain that the life of the village is arranged around the seasons. Yup'ik names for the months follow the pattern of hunting. April is Tengmiirvik or When the Birds Come, in reference to the five species of geese as well as tundra swans, ducks and seabirds that they hunt. March is Nayirciq - Birth of Seals. The ice-free summer is a time of fishing and berry-picking, and the autumn of tracking moose and caribou. In late September, before the ice sets in again, there is time to go after the berry-fattened fowl.

It is remarkable how much of the traditional Eskimo way of life has survived the wave after wave of outside intervention that has tried to eradicate it. The first wave, from the 1700s, brought Russian fur hunters in search of beavers. Their legacy is still incorporated into the native language. The Yup'ik for white person is Kass'aq, a derivative of Cossack.

Russian Orthodox priests gave way to Jesuit missionaries, who left an even greater impression, not least in the diseases they brought. A flu epidemic in 1900 halved the native Alaskan population in just three months. The old church we are using as a dormitory is lined with books on Jesuit theocracy. Local names, like Peter John, Stanley Tom, Margaret Nickerson, are all Jesuit impositions that now take preference over their native Yup'ik names (Peter John's traditional name is Miisaaq, but he rarely uses it). Other artefacts of the Jesuits are the Bible on Peter John's table and his Hohner Special 20 harmonica. He was given the instrument and taught how to use it by the missionaries. He plays it for us, starting with hymn music and then segueing into the Forties classic 'You Are My Sunshine'.

There was one other legacy of the Jesuits. They abolished the qasgiq where he used to listen to the elders impart their wisdom. The missionaries considered the communal living quarters an affront to the nuclear family and had it torn down.

After religion came education. The Yup'ik people were nomadic until the Seventies, travelling between summer and winter camps. But from 1976 Newtok became a sedentary community under instruction from the education authorities so that their children could benefit from year-round classes. They were taught in English from set texts written thousands of miles away in the big cities of America. Margaret says she remembers having her hands whipped at school because she was heard speaking Yup'ik. 'I used to look up at the teacher as he beat me and think to myself: "Wait till I'm grown up, then it won't be your turn any more. It will be my turn."'

Russians, Jesuits, pedagogues. The residents of Newtok are now feeling the impact of a fourth wave of outside interference. Only this time it is invisible: molecules of CO2 pumped into the air from the heavy industrial centres of continental America.

It is a cruel irony that the Yup'ik people are among the first US citizens to feel the lash of climate change, as their way of life is deeply ingrained with respect for nature. As children, they are taught that they will be punished if they abuse the animals they hunt. 'Seals, birds, fish - they know what kind of person you are,' says Margaret. 'If they see you are the kind who will make good use of their meat, then they will make themselves available to you to be caught. But if they see you are the kind to waste it and leave it to rot, then they will hide and you will go hungry.'

Peter John, sitting in his armchair, says that he was taught similar beliefs by the elders in the qasgiq. 'They would tell me: "If you come across a sick or dying animal, you must care for it, put it somewhere dry. If you mistreat that animal, it will give you less and less."'

It is true that the villagers are not blameless innocents in their relationship with the environment. On our way out of Newtok, back at Bethel airport, I notice a poster with a photograph of a magnificent bird soaring over the tundra. 'Help us save the emperor goose,' the poster says. 'It is endangered. Don't hunt it.' Then I remember the feast Stanley Tom cooked for us... emperor goose stew.

It is true, too, that Eskimos have enjoyed the spoils of a fossil-fuel economy along with the rest of us. They have traded in their kayaks for motor boats. They have retired their huskies and replaced them with snowmobiles, saving themselves the labour of fishing for sticklebacks to feed the dogs. The combustion engine has allowed them to travel much greater distances over the pack ice in search of seals or caribou, while every week the plane brings in boxes of Cossack food - baked beans, chocolate, Coke - to spice up the repetitive winter diet.

But none of that alters the fact that these first American refugees from global warming have been dealt a very poor hand. Most of the greenhouse gases responsible for the melting of the permafrost were pumped into the air not in Alaska itself, but in the industrialised regions of continental America, the 48 contiguous states that the Eskimos call 'lower 48ers'. Alaska is a major oil producer, but you won't find much of the black gold consumed in Newtok. 'Lower 48ers are doing most of the polluting that causes climate change,' says Stanley Tom. 'Compared with them, we are a little tiny scratch on the surface.'

There is a wider lesson here for America. If the richest nation on earth cannot cope easily with relocating even such a minuscule community faced with imminent destruction from global warming, what hope is there when climate change really starts to bite? What happens to the 15m people living on the coast of Florida at risk from rising sea levels? Or the millions more in the desert across the American southwest facing devastating droughts?

At least there are signs of hope for the residents of Newtok. The state of Alaska has just pledged $3m to build a barge landing and road up to the new site, and once those are in place the heavy work of building the new village can truly begin. The US army corps of engineers and the Marines have both promised to help. Things are finally on the move.

Sally Cox is confident that they might be able to meet the target of transferring all Newtok's 320 residents to their new homes by 2012. It will be none too soon, judging by the relentless march of the water. 'If all the pieces fit together, I think we could do it,' she says.

Just before we fly out of Newtok a beaming Stanley Tom calls us into his office and says he wants to show us something. He opens a box that has just arrived on the Cessna, and pulls from it a plan of Mertarvik. The map shows the prospective barge landing and a spanking new road curling up the hillside. The new village itself is shown on top of the hill, shaped like a boomerang. In the middle will be the communal buildings: a school, of course, a church certainly, and (whisper it) a communal building imbued with some of the spirit of the old qasgiq. The map shows three small icons like tiny crosses on the edge of the village. These will be the wind turbines they hope will meet most of the community's energy needs; unlike Mephistopheles the villagers have no desire to inflict their grief on others.

One other feature of the plan stands out. There, on the hillside beneath the new houses, is an area marked on the map with cross hatches. It has a word stamped over it: Naunnaviit. I ask Stanley Tom what the word means. He replies: 'Berry patches'.

by Us Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:07

Inuit people seeing major impacts resulting from climate warming.

Climate change is still a hot issue with talk of negotiations and reductions of emissions in greenhouse gases in advance of the Copenhagen summit in December. But how is climate change affecting us in our daily lives? Here in the UK, I would be hard pushed to see the effects of climate change unless you count a news report I saw yesterday that stated that English apples are already in the shops some weeks early.

However, communities living in the northern polar regions have been seeing the effects of climate change all around them, and it has been affecting their daily lives for the last 20 years. Some 160,000 Inuit live in northern Canada, Greenland, Alaska and Chukotka, Russia and until a few years ago they used eight different seasons to describe the variations in the climate. Today they need only four.

Some of these changes resulting from global warming include increased snowfall, longer sea ice-free seasons, emerging or invasive species of birds, fish and insects (barn owls, mallard, pin-tailed ducks and salmon), declining lemming populations and general warming trends which have been affecting the permafrost causing beach slumping and lake erosion. Recent work has shown that reductions in lemming numbers, which are an important prey species for the Arctic fox) are due to decreased snow cover. Lemmings forage in the space between the snowpack and the soil surface, and without the snow they are exposed to predators which has led to a significant reduction in populations.

Patricia Cochrane is a Inupiat native of Nome, Alaska and she revealed that Inuit people in the region are reverting to traditional dogsleds instead of snow machines.

"People go out on their snow machines, fall through the ice and are never seen again," she said. "But our sled dogs will tell you when the ice is not safe...and they're a lot easier to feed than (to pay) the gas prices that we have, $10 a gallon in many of our villages."

Thawing permafrost is causing major problems with roads and stilt houses prone to collapse. The Alaskan village of Newtok is the first casualty of climate change and intensified river flows and melting permafrost are forcing the 320 residents to relocate to higher ground 9 miles away. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers, around 26 other Alaskan villages are in immediate danger with 60 others under threat in the next decade.

The Inuit have adjusted to social, cultural and economic changes over the last 40-50 years with the exploitation of their lands for oil and gas. It remains to be seen whether the Inuit can continue to constantly adapt to this rapidly changing environment, and keep their culture and traditions intact.

CABI's newest internet resource Environmental Impact has a wide range of information on climate change and other environmental impacts not just in the polar regions but globally.

by Cut Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:57

I see the cut and paste brigade (or is it just one individual) are at it again!

Little wonder those with a desire for adult discussion leave BIM in despair

by Them Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:23

I'm sure that some of the info in the cut n'paste tomes that have just gone up is interesting, but who ever reads these ???

If you can't put across what you want to say in a few hundred words, with links if needs be for those who want to read some more, then I'd suggest that you're wasting your time.

I don't believe that most people's attention span is under a minute, but there is a limit.

by Us to! Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:41

THREE DECADES AGO, while in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil.

Later, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration played out their script for global dominance.

In the geopolitical vision driving current US policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals.

To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time, it must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil.

by economist Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:45

You can't readily use methyl hydrate as a fertiliser. There is no real substitute to oil as a mass fertiliser to feed 7billion people with. This is the point i was making if you had bothered to read to the end, and respond in a balanced way. My finishing points were in fact highly critical of some of the more fundamentalist environmentalists.

While most farming can eventually be turned organic, there is broadly an initial collapse in yields once you remove oil based fertilisers, but over many years the soil can recover, and yields from organic can rise to accetable levels if well managed, and crop rotation is reintroduced.

You can indeed find many ways of closing the energy gap with other sources other than oil, but the fertiliser gap in farming is a very desperate one, and is a reason why saving the oil for fertiliser is a sensible stragetic way forward, as organic is reintroduced in a careful and balanced way so that global yields remain broadly steady over a number of generations.

But in amongst those screaming 'Doommonger Porn' without reading properly what has in fact been written, and those trashing these threads with mountains of cut and paste as a way of squeezing out what they don't like to hear (in this case me decribing fundamentalist environmentalists as seeing oil as the devils work also seems to be something to squeeze out) there is no space for a sensible debate.

So i'm off too.

Cheerio.

by Only one Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:10

I like learning how to see thru capitalists opinons and assumptions and lies and spin and propaganda and bullshit and distraction and disinformation and and and etc.

Especially on the true costs of capitalism.

It all aids raising awareness towards radical and sustainable change, or revolution, which after all is what this thread is supposed to be about is it not?

Educate yourself!

by Them Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:50

I think the key factor with the US is the control over the use of gulf oil, so they can leave their own fields in reserve, for use later on.

by Floyd Fri Sep 11, 2009 13:51

Economist - I am sure CH4, blurb myself and all the other original thinkers - (as opposed to the regurgitating cut and paste "follow that trend" trendies) could have a sensible discussion.

But only if we stay and ignore the "dedicated followers of fashion" so that a good honest debate can take place .

So please stay.

Or at least let me know where you are debating so that I can leave the siliness that BIM seems to welcome despite its self description. ;-)

by amelia Fri Sep 11, 2009 13:53

I'm pretty tired of every thread going the same way too. It seems bim is losing those who know how to debate, and shrinking back into an activist ghetto where capitalist and anti-capitalist extremes just scream at each other with straw man arguments and cut and paste tirades.

Such a macho environment, with women behaving exactly the same as men behave.

Sad to see this happen, and the future of the planet and bim is being compromised as a result, because the same extremes stifle the debate everywhere, and the search for solutions get lost.

by She Fri Sep 11, 2009 14:09

I have no problem with reading long-ish posts as long as they are interesting, on-topic and pertinent, and the fact that the poster takes the trouble to add the body of content saves me time, so alls good as far as I'm concerned.

Longish factual posts are far better than a few lines of somebodys 'opinion', especially when that opinion is sarcastic, patronising or condescending, as all too many are.

Anybody that does not want to read the post does not have to.

by Dear me! Fri Sep 11, 2009 16:52

Things have certainly changed at Bristol Indymedia this week, .......... apparently.

I have just read a comment posted earlier this week telling us that BIM is now a 'Media Outlet'

And according to Amelia, BIM is now a 'Forum' ............ and dying a 'slow death'.

Personally I have not seen BIMs web-stats, so I shall have to bow to Amelias superior knowledge on that one.

But I would have thought that with Anti-Capitalist sentiments slowly rising all around the world, and with growing international awareness about the dangers and threats associated with man-made Climate Change, (and other Environmental 'issues') ......... IMC's generally and BIM specifically can only grow and become busier surely, perhaps a BIMVOL would care to comment on Amelias ............ 'view'?

I have no doubt however that capitalists would love IMC's everywhere to become 'blander' and more 'banal' and less critical of capitalism, (fat chance).

BIM can only grow, and it will ............ and I would like now to thank all the BIMVOL's past and present, and Tekkies and supporters making it happen, along with all other anti-capitalists that contribute to and use and support this 'space' ........... which is Bristol.Indymedia.org

by imcvol Fri Sep 11, 2009 18:29

A lot of this thread would probably have been hidden had someone kept a closer eye on it. There has been a lot of childish name calling on both sides of this debate.

As for stats... Well the first eight months of 2009 have been the busiest yet on this site... And we have plans to roll out some new features our techs have been beavering away at soon... Some vols have been away helping out with Indymedia coverage of climate camp... And some vols will be running a room at the anarchist bookfair tomorrow which will host workshops films and discussions on a variety of topics from the Diggers to citizen journalism to how to make your own digital videos.

So we may be busy but we aren't dead (yet). As ever if people want to get involved, then use the contact form, or come and speak to any of us at a filmnight or at the bookfair tomorrow.

by communist Fri Sep 11, 2009 19:53

There's a very big difference between being busy and being ideologically coherent, and bar the comments from blurb and economist, nothing on here comes close to being an economically coherent set of principles. Communism, is at root an economic theory, which requires a coherent set of organising principles and a fully fledged and intricately woven economic road map for how to organise society.

It takes years to become a communist.

It only takes a minute to become a wolfie smith.

The reality is that given the depth of the economic crisis, spaces such as BIM should be far more than a bit more busy than before. The reality is, that there has barely been any groundswell of support for the various broken shards of the left in the 2 years since the economic crisis began.

Any decent activist, would be asking why. The few who have here, have been screamed down and abused with crass and mindless screams of revolution which embarrases any true revolutionary, who studies economics, in all it's various forms, as a necessary precursor to becoming a true revolutionary.

Asking how to break out of that malaise, and develop a serious revolutionary agenda which could cogently convince the public that it has the economic wherewithal to keep 7 billion souls alive, while simulataneously shifting humanity onto a sustainable course, is at the core of what it must nowadays mean to be a communist, and through that to truly win widespread support.

The overwhelming majority of Bristol and the world don't know about BIM, or the IMC's, and have passed us by. Congratulations BIM, and all the Volunteers who work hard to keep this space open. But, most of the contributors to it will wither on the activist vine, whose own green shoots of activist recovery are as weak, incoherent, and anaemic in their recovery as the capitalist economic one.

Revolution, is clearly not something those who preach it here have the first clue about. If a global revoultion were to somehow occur at the hands of those here - who laughably castigate a comprehension of economics as somehow being non-revolutionary - within a year billions would be on the cusp of mass starvation as what remains of the capitalist economic system spiralled into complete dissary with economcally illiterate 'revolutionaries' at the helm.

Communist Economic Revolution - YES.

Activist Economic illiteracy - NO.

by Boyd Fri Sep 11, 2009 22:35

I am not economically illiterate. In fact I have an A level in Economics. Not a degree. Not a doctorate. I don't work for the IMF or Chase Bank but - not illiterate.

Having an A level in economics does not stop me from believing that economic theory is as much use as astrology. The reason i haven't set out a cogent economic theory of how to achieve economic enlightenment is that i don't believe one exists.

Communism or planned economics is certainly not the answer - the problem of price setting without a market mechanism has proved an immovable object in the path of communist economic perfection, just as externalisation and the creation of 'imperfect markets' have proved an unstoppable force in Capitalism. Both theories have utterly failed.

The anarchist economic model is based on the idea of plurality and 'best fit' - it will be created and adapted due to practical experience. Ideas such as Freecycle, Participatory Economics and Open Source are experiments to test the theories that underpin them. Time is offered voluntarily to community projects, or directly to each other in ideas like Freeconomy. All these examples are rejected by people on this thread as 'no example' or 'not exact enough'. Fine. Your choice. But please don't start congratulating each other that you are the only ones interested in debate when you choose to ignore all the evidence put in front of you.

Freecycle is dogged by furniture dealers who use text alerts to reply to offers almost instantly, collect free goods and then sell them on cheaply at a profit. Is this abuse an inevitable part of a voluntary economy? Or is it inevitable when the voluntary economy tries to thrive under a capitalist system? The people involved with Freecycle will no doubt be considering this problem and working out a way to deal with it, but they couldn't have told you what that was before the project was set up, because they didn't know it was going to happen.

This is my point: is Freecycle a bad idea? No. Is it a perfect theory? No. It is developed through practical application, but with a set of guiding beliefs: we don't need money to trade goods. We can have a 'win-win' scenario and life doesn't always have to be ruled by The Prisoners Dilemma.

I tried to explain this idea of practice based on a theory guided by beliefs but then got crucified as apologising for Stalin or not engaging in debate, or in not framing my arguments in a way that people would accept. Fine. But don't say that i never tried to explain what i thought, or just launched attacks on what i disagreed with.

I think BIM is great, the fact that Bristol has it's own is a godsend. I've been reading it for 5 years now, and have learnt loads.The comments are an interesting diversion, and can contain some gems amongst the troll-spoors, but the real interest is in the calendar - thats where the real ideas are, the real experiments in creating a new future.

I won't accept all the moral self-congratulation from the critics on this site until i actually SEE the better alternative site you're always talking about creating, until I SEE this perfect project that doesn't turn some people off, and you open yourselves up to the same criticism that those of us who do experiment with alternatives have to deal with from you, and deal with it in an unemotional rational way.

I've got a funny feeling I'm in for a long wait.

by not communist socialist anarchist or capitali Fri Sep 11, 2009 22:53

"If a global revoultion were to somehow occur at the hands of those here - who laughably castigate a comprehension of economics as somehow being non-revolutionary - within a year billions would be on the cusp of mass starvation as what remains of the capitalist economic system spiralled into complete dissary with economcally illiterate 'revolutionaries' at the helm."

This is my fear exactly. "Economist" has grasped this, and it's good to see a Communist being receptive to the views of other economists and "blurb", and give what they've written some worthwhile credit, instead of doing the usual Communist thing of harking back to past problems of past centuries, and instead getting up to speed on the mammoth current one.

The elephant in the room is how we feed 7 billion and rising people.

I don't see anything in what anyone else has written which would amount to anything other than sitting back and watching a beyond biblical population correction, in a way which would be the biggest crime against humanity ever possible.

It's also why the global public will never give them any major support, unless they do address it as the biggest issue there is.

by communist Sat Sep 12, 2009 00:02

If it's any consolation i nearly included you in the roll call of people with something worth saying, but didn't because you've done what anarchists always seem to do, which is to painfully skirt around the issue of how exactly 7 billion people are going to be kept alive and fed under anarchism. Instead I gave some sideways credit via blurb, who quite rightly sees the immense value in freeing up as much energy as possible on the grassroots level.

Economist gives some very astute planned examples of how they would be fed, and on a macro level, it's something communists could adopt also. Whether Economist is a communist or not is immaterial to me, the important thing is it's an idea in the present, and ideas are what we need right now, wherever they are from.

But lets face it, freecycle isn't an anarchist project. You're likely going to have a good few thousand Cameroonite's on Bristol Freecycle who have adopted their glorious leaders message and recycled with a zealous glee. It's a worthwhile project, and in economic terms has to be an important part of reducing our waste, and improving the efficiency with which we use materials. But it's something that could exist in any economic system.

Although, in a Stalinist economic system freecyclers would probably have been marched off to the Gulag's too! Seriously, they would have almost certainly have been seen as a threat to the centre. And those on here threatening capitalists and socialists like blurb - who they have decided in true stalinist style that they are capitalists too - with mental hospitals and heavy hints that they would kill them, historically would have rounded up all the anarchists too.

Anarchists aren't my enemy. Anarchism has much to offer on the grassroots level, but i don't trust it to keep humanity fed, simply because it always sidesteps how that would be done, and no, it can't just be left to bubble up organically (excuse the expression) because it's simply too big an issue to be left to unplanned chance.

Communism failed disastrously yes, for many many reasons, but one was certainly due to it's paranoia and refusal to accept the power of grassroots actions and projects. This was also an abandonment of communism, and it's long term intent to return power to the grassroots, through workers cooperatives from the bottom up.

The global public won't accept communism again, but as a communist I can accept the need to both plan on the macro level, and keep a healthy distance on the micro level of the community. And those who would want to lock anyone up in mental hospitals, or line them up against a wall for being anarchist in the name of revolution, would no doubt put a bullet in my head too.

Many communists were murderd in this way by other communists, and I would have been one of them.

There, you didn't have to wait very long at all, did you :)

by communist Sat Sep 12, 2009 02:36

To further add detail to how exactly the U.K may be fed in a situation where oil prices have risen to the point where food becomes a luxury item, here's some planned ideas - For over 1 billion elswhere this is already an approaching reality given that $1 a day earnings meant a 50% cut in food when oil prices rose to $150 a barrel - Here in the U.K far too many people are already stepping down to nutritionally deficient branded Tesco items, etc.,

On the grassroots level - the number who want allotment exceeds availabilty, so sorry to those who like playing golf at ashton court, but that would be ploughed up for a start. Ashton court, for example is not so distant as to be unworkable as an allotment area for those who can cycle. Other dilapidated green areas inside the city would be turned into allotments so that demand meets supply. Priority would be given to those in blocks of flats, with no gardens at all. Tools would be subsidised or provided free to the poorest.

On a national level - no I wouldn't immediately bring all farms under national control, but certain changes would be mandated. A ridiculous situation is developing where exotic foods are increasingly grown under glass houses, using so much heat and energy that it often has a bigger carbon footprint that flying it in by plane from countries with a climate more suited to exotics. This also means - although it flies in the face of much environmentalist dogma - that it makes more sense to bring many exotics in by plane or ship, although the supply would be reduced, and rationed on a equal basis, as long as the total carbon footprint remains significantly lower than growing exotics under glasshouse in the U.K.

Further on a national level - and bringing some of Economists ideas into play. The bizarre situation has developed, where as air quality has improved in recent decades - although it doesn't feel like it when cycling in traffic - a consequence has been that the drop off in sulphur has had a marked - and sometimes disastrous collapse in yields - A by product of oil is sulphur, which is already increasingly been poured on our fields to keep yields up. While not all farms would be bought under national control, farms which are struggling to stay in business, would be provided with fertilisers such as sulphur from the centre - a centre as described above, which would have strictly limited mandates.

Further still - Companies such as Tescos would be a difficult issue. They would certainly be forced to accept massively lower profits, reducing them effectively to cooperatives, where profits are ploughed back into the business in a socially beneficial way. Much of their centralised depots, which create ludicrously huge food miles, would be dismantled, and they would be compelled to accept predominantly local produce. Plastic packaging would be forced to a minimum. Plastic packing made from plant oils would be banned outright.

Regarding Organic Farms - These would be stepped up, and to increase the supply, under national control, with guaranteed inputs, and those currently independent would be given preferential shelter by the state to keep them running. Again, bringing Economists ideas into play, the speed with which farms were converted to farming would be dependent on the overall yields being achieved nationally - Many farms would be given a semi-organic status, where oil fertilisers are no-longer use, but oil based pesticides (with strict safety controls) would remain in use, so as to protect against devastating spreads of disease. Other organic farms - mainly existing ones - would retain full organic status.

Back to a grassroots level - If yields were staying dangerously below necessary, as organic farms were increased, it would become necessary to mandate that all people must use their gardens to grow food. This would begin to interfere with individual autonomy at the household and grassroots level, so would be held in reserve as a mandated requirement only if total national food yields were struggling to stay up, as oil inputs were phased out, due to their cost - as orginally stated - pushing food prices up to the level of luxury items.

So, the initial situation wouldn't be a blanket nationalisation of farms, and the destruction of small holdings, but all farming would come under variable forms of monitoring and intervention so as to keep yields steady, organic growing, and prices as low as possible. Exotic foods would be available from abroad, and would be the only item rationed, as far as the success of other projects allows.

A strong centre - which allows small holdings and some minor private profit in medium term so as to give room to incentivise people - would be able to achieve these goals. In the longer term the profit motive in food would be phased out, but in tandem with a general acceptance that food is the priority not profit, so as not to trigger a mass rebellion of farmers - as was the case in the Soviet Union - for example.

More and more detail could be added of course - but this is the comments section and not a place to write entire essays - But hey, at least i've written every word myself, and not just dumped a load of cut n paste on the thread ;) The general idea is to show that i'm not just a robot communist, with a robotic insistence that everyone acts like a robot according to central demands, because history shows, that neither does robotic instruction incentivise people, or even guarantee to feed people.

Without wanting to seem like i'm poking anarchism in the eye either, can anarchist really say they could begin to formulate a plan which could take on board the difficulties of feeding 60 billion consistently, let alone 7 billion? Although anarchist energies will certainly be a vital part of the puzzle at the grassroots level, as outlined above.

I'll leave it there.

by communist Sat Sep 12, 2009 03:01

Because I know how people scan read, and have knee jerk reactions before getting to the end. The end is about the phasing out of profit in food, so as not to trigger a farmers/business rebellion at the outset, and to retain some incentives in the medium term. Those who know the history of the Soviet Union, for example, will know that getting this wrong at the outset, with an excessively heavy hand, can be disastrous.

The growth of farmers markets, it should be said, will also go hand in hand with all of the above.

by wolfy smith me Sat Sep 12, 2009 06:04

Communist Economic Revolution? .............. really?
'Communist' has hardly mentioned anything at all about wealth - power - land, why is that?
Its all very well bleating on about feeding the 7 billion, and turning Ashton Court into allotments, but what about the massive land-holdings which has for centuries been in the hands of a few families only?
What are the stats? ............ is it still 1% of the people in the UK owning - OWNING - 52% of the land?
What about 'wealth'? ............. is it still 15% of the planets population controlling 85% of the worlds wealth?
The vast majority of the worlds fertile land is in roughly 10% of the peoples hands.
Call me illiterate if you like, but as long as both capitalists and communists are decades away from where the 'sustainable planet' as a whole needs them to be, 'illiterate' is just another 4 syllable word in a little plastic box down their very large mental cul-de-sac.
Get real, get really real.

by communist Sat Sep 12, 2009 07:24

Is the kind of unbelievably cold statement which earns environmentalism the label of 'environmental fascism' amongst many.

But, you can anyway take it as read the the phasing out of profit for food is all part and parcel of breaking the stranglehold of the minority of who own the world's land. But as also stated, if you know your history, whether a communist or not, the history is that trying to break this hold head on, leads to war in the countryside and the risk of famine in the cities.

The 7 billion people 'bleat' on about are not in a position to be thankful for some of that land being taken by force, when it is from the beyond an unimaginable number of graves. How would you go about keeping 7 billion fed? Or is your version of sustainability to see the world's population crash to 3 or 4 billion in the name of sustainability? 3 to 4 billion would be sustainable within capitalism, and is the figure many environmentlists parade in the most sinister of ways.

Many within capitalism see 1 or 2 billion who live in and around slums, who have no land, as being entirely expendable. How many of the 7 billion that people 'bleat' on about are expendable in your eyes? Either we find a way to feed them, or we commit the darkest of sins ever in human history, and become complicit in a mass die of of humanity, as those inevitable oil price rises make basic food a luxury.

'Bleating' over.

by wolfy smith Sat Sep 12, 2009 08:41

Loads of assumptions in your last 'communist', and there was I thinking that assuming and opining was what capitalists did here.
When communicating with people you do not know, it might be useful all round if you assumed less and kept an open mind on just who you might be 'communicating' with.
This planet could probably 'sustain' more than 9 or 10 billion even, who really knows? (that was not a rhetorical question by the way)
What needs to change is not population numbers, but consumption and consumption patterns, and equality of consumption, or is that no longer a priority in communism?
There is enough on this planet to meet everybodys needs and then some.
There is not enough on this planet to meet the wants, or greed, of anybody sustainably.

by economist Sat Sep 12, 2009 08:55

I never thought I'd hear a Communist talking about modern ideas of how we overcome the eventual shortage of oil and fertlisers, alongside issues of sustainability, not only that but calling for it to be the cornerstone of what Communism should be in the present!

You're not going to convert me, and I don't think you intend to. Maybe if you could convert other Communists, and continue down a path of clearly and unshamedly putting down what Communism has been, as I'm sure you would have been done away with by Stalinism if you has been around then, then maybe ideas will be able to spread across the political spectrum.

This has been a very interesting turn of events, especially as the opening article is from the Revolutionary Communist Party, and that you are the first Communist to knowingly comment on this thread, and may I say again, in a way that has left me gobsmacked!

by I am Wolfy Smith Sat Sep 12, 2009 08:56

The worlds poorest 20% consume 1.5% in terms of private consumption.
The worlds middle 60% consume 21.9% in terms of private consumption.
The worlds richest 20% consume 76.6% in terms of private consumption.
The above stats are obviously unsustainable in any way shape or form.
How will the communists change these numbers exactly?

by communist Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:06

Good, I'm very, very, pleased you're not from the population controlling/culling branch of enviromentalism. Population controls are insidious, even when not ever intended as a cull. In China for example, well over 1 million female babies have statistically vanished. This is not culturally unique to China. The world over has cultures which are likely to see women bear the brunt of population controls. Women still bear the brunt of most things everywhere.

But how do we get there? This is the question. I'm asking questions, because i'm seeking answers, not specificially from you, but from all of us collectively, and from inside myself, as a result of sharing ideas, knowledge and histories.

Do we try to muster a full frontal revolution? History suggests that if we do the we will not find equality. We will find that Capitalism mounts attempted coup after coup, direct military invasion, crippling sanctions, and civil war. The gates of hell open, and even if the revolution is finally augmented (a non communist one is fine by me) what is usually left is a shattered country, and any concept of achieving sustainabilty set back decades.

Do we go for reformism? Labourite reformism which tinkers meakly at the margins until it is finally coopted in the face of Blair? or Chavez style reformism which seizes control of assets, but remains dependent on oil to fund it's reforms, which although progressive, are doomed to eventual collapse because it is tied so directly still to oil dependency?

Do we go for morality? And keep pleading with people for equality through conscience. This probably has the longest history of failure. People have being holding up placards saying 'money/greed is the root of all evil' for 2,000 yrs, as is probably the most lonely, marginal and ineffective approach of them all.

Do we go for anarchism? Which i appreciate says that why should we wait for the revolution, let's start it now, where we live, in our communities. But for me the major flaw in this is that capitalism, if that approach ever gets very far off the ground, will smash it as brutally in practice as any communist revolution is crushed and broken.

What I have instead outlined above is not the grand solution, it is the searching for an approach which is neither mere reformism of the meekest kind, is neither the opening up of a full frontal war with capitalism, is neither oil dependent in the longer term, and is neither the pleading for a better morality from people. It is an attempt to outline an approach which pushes the boundaries of reformism farther than they have ever been pushed, without allowing capitalism the overt excuse to smash it for being a full frontal revolution.

I was once a Wolfie Smith, I was once a staunch Communist rooted in dead dogma.

I am now searching for ideas, and still use the label 'Communist'.

And it is only those who would wish to cull humanity, either directly or by default, or wish to see billions kept in a state of crippling hunger, alive but hovering just above being dead, who are my enemies. Everyone else I wish to have a dialogue with, despite my own occassionaly cutting assumptions, which everyone is prone to, especially on issues as critical as the future of humanity, and all other life on earth.

That and being up all night on coffee, originally trying to do some service to Boyd's requests for answers. I have now written enough for now. I hope this will be read, not for my benefit, but because these are all the ideas and questions I have to offer to the debate on how we get there, with 7 billion or more people still alive, along with the planet.

by wolfy smith Sat Sep 12, 2009 13:09

full frontal revolution? - reformism? - morality? - anarchism?
None of the afore-mentioned 'ways' communist.
But lets take a look at just exactly what is needed shall we?
For starters it will only work if its global in scope and reach.
That obviously means we need an over-whelming global majority of people acting in unison.
Simple really.

by communist Sat Sep 12, 2009 14:34

Good luck with that. Let us know when you've when you've worked out how to get the over-whelming global majority of people acting in unison. You might like to make a start on all the various sections of the left to begin with, and see in you can get them all sitting in a room together without immediately pulling in 20 different directions.

Then try the rest of humanity.

The odd Jesus type comes along every millenia or so, utters a handful of words such as yours, and manages the odd billion, which should be more than enough, even if not quite the over-whelming global majority. The over-whelming global majority of people acting in unison, has been an elusive prize since the dawn of time, but I have every faith in you.

by Wilfy smith Sat Sep 12, 2009 18:44

Its not like that 'commy' really its not.
If you look at it the other way around, and think simpler, its obvious.
The overwhelming majority of people on this planet would prefer to live in a fairer cleaner greener sustainably peaceful world.
A seriously large number of people on the planet go to bed hungry and cannot rely on even having basic needs met, food, water, shelter, or even air.
Large numbers methinks.
Just at the time when radical change is necessary in the world as a whole, so it is possible, thanks to modern communications technology.
If you look at the planet as a whole, and not just in terms of right left and centre, and just connect with the 'best' people on the planet.
Over time, anything is possible.
And there was never a better time.

by communist Sat Sep 12, 2009 20:04

Ok Wolfie. If I wake up tomorrow and find the Zapatistas have marched on Mexico, and that this thriggers through modern communication, an uprising of indigenous people's throughout the world, and suddenly we all find ourselves on the cusp of something which sweeps across the planet in an unstoppable wave, i'll be out on the streets, on the internet, pouring out the message as far and wide as possible along with everyone else.

Although commies hate to admit it, and wrap it up in economic language, the emergence of a global human consciousness, also sits at the heart of communist theory, but it feels a bit too hippy dippy at times, for commies, ironically to tap fully into that sentiment.

But I get you. I feel it.

But that unstoppable wave and the elation that comes with it, will be met by capitalism furious for blood, dripping in fury, and bulging with cash to pay millions with guns to shoot that unstoppable wave dead, until it drops bleeding in agony on the global floor. A moment may emerge where capitalism is caught off guard, without time to react. Charismastic leaders with semi-messianic qualities (something Chavez oddly had with his army) may cause those paid to hold those guns, to pause, turn and instead join us.

But viscious bloody global war may instead be unleashed.

But as a communist, also dripping in origin in the need for actual revolution, engaging ourselves in that moment, and putting ourselves on that line, would instinctively also suit me, but once the dust has settled, and all the blood dripped dry, we may not have won.

But lifes a gamble.

And if I'm going to put my faith in anyone, in that moment...

It's the indigenous people's who retain the skills to feed the world.

Most go to bed now.

Will hope that in the morning the Zapatistas have marched on Mexico. In the meantime, we still need other options, and new economic ideas on the table, also able to demonstrate to capitalism that in the end we are unstoppable, even it's a longer term economic project, as i've tried to outline, which more slowly winkles them out of their entrenched positions.

by wolfy smith Sun Sep 13, 2009 08:07

Really commy, I am honestly nothing special I promise you.
There are millions of people all around the planet who want it even more than we do, really, and very seriously!
Thats what I meant earlier when I mentioned 'the best people' they are desperate for folk in the northern hemisphere to cooperate with.
It is NOT just the Zapatistas, they though have got comms and networking very sussed, many other equally commited 'revolutionary' types less so, you can help them, and they us.
And with man made climate change more and more millions of peoples everywhere are seriously angry at everything from capitalism to consumerism to pollution to globalisation to unfair trade to ......... you get my drift I'm sure.
Make the best friends all over world, communicate, unite with them, learn from them how to do much more with less, help them any way you can, ask them questions, talk with them, not too them, and listen.
Its happening everywhere Commy, you just need to get better connected internationally.
Much better than getting 20 'activists / lefties' together in a room in this country I promise you.
Even all over Europe there are loadsa seriously active groups and networks of folk all working for radical change.
Yopu have many more friends 'out there' than you can possibly imagine Commy.
Try it.
Please.

by i am also wolfy smith Sun Sep 13, 2009 09:17

there is work to be done before the revolution happens.
waiting for somebody else to get you out onto the streets is not good enough.
you create global unity thru communication and by growing awareness everywhere, that takes work.
the revolution is not what somebody else does then you applaud.
it needs a lot of people working at it for years, not something first world acivists are very good at.
they need to learn from more serious peoples elsewhere before they can change anything here.
too many activists and lefties here just do what they want to do, and call themselves part of the Revo.
when they learn how to do what needs to be done the way it needs doing, then we can win.
first world activists / lefties are lazy and lacking commitment when compared to activists from poor and indigenous 'communities'
first world activists are comfortable and complacent, and have no sense of urgency when it comes to changing anything.
but - activists in rich countries like this do know how to party.
so thats alright then.

by communist Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:58

yes, there is much work to be done before the revolution happens, which is why i'm not pulling in a different direction to you. More a parallel track, which is deeply concerned with putting a floor under global food yields (a truly global task, which i gave only a u.k example of), which in the long run is very much about eventually restoring all agriculture to organic, with the profit motive stripped out, and even if those minority who own the land are initially not confronted directly, they slowly find that they make no money on 'their' land anymore, and bit by bit, are cajooled into abandoning what is anyway not theirs, and has always been the people's.

Many first world activists are lazy, and know how to party. I always found the free party scene to be taking the piss, quite franky, when describing it self as a political movement. Sometimes I think the police only raid the free party scene to create a false impression to those blitzed on drugs that they are a threat, so that they will take even more drugs, and become even more out of it and ineffective. The sad thing is that many people i know who are the type of people who should be active, are wasting away on heroine from afghanistan. Getting the masses to waste away of drugs, and calling it a movement, has been a policy of global capitalism for over 150yrs.

I wouldn't mind if those 20 1st world activists in a room together, were pulling in 20 different new directions, with 20 new ideas, which could be woven together into something new, but the fact is I could get 20 people off the street, give them each a set of quotes to read from books 150yrs old, and they would be saying almost exactly the same things. Talking at each others from fixed positions from the past. The past has a relevance, but those 20 activists tend to repeat the arguments of dusty old books, which have been repeated endlessly. I could even just get 20 ipods, with prerecords quotes, put the ipods on 20 chairs, set them running, and leave the room, and it would be about as effective as 20 real activists talking.

That said, I am very grateful to those who run BIM for giving us a space to say these things.

They certainly are not lazy.

by sing when you're winning Sun Sep 13, 2009 13:35

Hmmm, sounds like you're describing what happened with the Bristol Social Forum. I think I've guessed who you are, but i'm not going to tell, lol. I think you and Wolfy have hit some very big nails on their impotent activist heads.

by Shiny Sun Sep 13, 2009 15:48

Do you have any idea what a seriously committed southern hemisphere activist or group could do with what 20 Ipods cost? - Can you imagine? - Local revolutions have been started with less.

by communist Sun Sep 13, 2009 17:01

Well, i feel like i've been outed, but it's not about me is it. The BSF made me ill, and every meeting i went to i said 'i'm not the leader' but everyone kept treating me like the piggy in the middle while they talked over each other, expecting me to arbritrate or something.

That's how i felt anyway. The one other person I felt who felt the same frustrations as me was an anarchist, so not everything was lost, some personal bridges were built i guess. What I mainly gained from it was the realisation, that while activists are useful as pressure groups, what most anarchists, socialists and communists have in common is the dogmatic belief that they are the one and only solution, and i don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

If I could afford 20 ipods, I certainly wouldn't pour that money into the left anymore.

Thinking and acting beyond the left is the next step for me. And given my origins, using the label 'communist' is sometimes useful, just to show people, especially other communists, that robotic attachments to 19th century dogma are the problem, not the solution.

by Zoe Sun Sep 13, 2009 17:01

Seems like the only time we get serious debates about serious stuff on here is when the capitalist goes away for the weekend

I only wish the Bim-vols would remember that this is supposed to be an anti-capitalist space, not a fukkin media-outlet or a fukkin forum.

Agree with Wolfy and communist that its got to be global, and that we all need to do much more newtworking with serious people everywhere.

Bim needs to encourage more of the global anti-capitalist linking and thinking here, and less from the local capitalist that only comes here to wind people up and trash every thread they post too, I live in an activist shared house of 8, and they all think Bim has gone downhill since a certain Alpha capitalist first started abusing and boring everybody to death.

But it would be so much better if we could eliminate most if not all of the capitalist propaganda that mister we-all-know-who ruins this space with.

Come on Bim-vols, clean up the capitalist crap why dont you?

by communist Sun Sep 13, 2009 18:10

I see your point zoe, although it's mainly me and wolfy nattering on the last 48hrs, i really feel like we've got somewhere, which would have been more difficult if the thread had continued how it was. I was once an active mod, but nolonger am. As an imcvol said earlier, nobody seems to have been watching this thread, and more abuse would have been hidden if they had.

Mainly stuff gets hidden for abuse, and if there's enough mods on hand, it might not suit everyone, but threads don't get quite so out of hand when and if a mod is actively on the case. I would seriously suggest that 1 of those 8 join the collective and become a mod, and then they would have the power to hide stuff and have influence to shift collective policies directly .

Just a quick further note of the BSF, there was more to it than what i've written, it's just one side of the story after all, but i was out of my head on pain and painkillers for most of those meetings, a lot of it is a blur in restrospect, but it's certainly just my opinion still.

by Mell O Mon Sep 14, 2009 08:46

What a treat it was to read the weekends offerings on this thread this morning, 'Wolfy Smith' and 'Communist' have expressed some important points and sentiments eloquently, most inspiring!

Thank you both!

by Floyd Mon Sep 14, 2009 23:09

OK so the thread is very interesting indeed but the overall view seems to be that what went before as an alternative to Capitalism is the wrong road and a failure.

So as a past committed socialist myself who saw nothing but failure and the realisation that wherever you are in the world only the rich nations can afford the luxury of criticising the methodology of a farmer growing crops for profit or the mechanic repairing things for profit. Socialism, communism and anarchism are luxuries born of excess, not hunger.

Your average third world farmer wants a good crop to make a profit so he can send ALL his kids to school. A bush mechanic wants to be able to repair more cars/tractors/ploughs/machines as this means his local economy thrives and does not die. Kenyan farmers want to export their crops to the west as this makes them more profit. Profit pays for things. Rhetoric does not.

Nobody is interested in subsistence living despite their skills so that the State can take the excess. Nobody wants the State to own everything so that they own nothing and are disenfranchised.

When I say “nobody” of course I ignore those that are Anti-Capitalist here on BIM. And for once I agree totally with Mell-O (a fact that, strangely I feel I should apologise to him/her as from past experience I doubt they will appreciate that fact) in that the above is really interesting stuff.

But still nobody has come up with any concept or any idea whatsoever as to how to convince the real world, as it exists now with the old Soviet States dismantled and the Chinese becoming more “rabidly” Capitalist every year, that a better way exists than the average guy in the street, on the farm, in the workshop charging more for the service/product that they offer/produce so that they can better their family, plan for ill health, retirement, kids weddings etc.

These are basic needs that the rhetoric above, tho’ interesting totally ignores.

As such the average Jo is not bothered about Boyd saying that there are examples of other ways of doing things because these “other ways” are not ways that benefits them. Boyd gets a benefit that he/she values but that is as far as it goes.

So sorry Boyd but you are still existing within a Capitalist environment and dependent upon it.

Similarly Zoe whilst still wanting to trash anything that is not Anti capitalist and hurls abuse at anything that does not fit what he/she sees as there own space invaded by people with differing ideas :-

“I only wish the Bim-vols would remember that this is supposed to be an anti-capitalist space, not a fukkin media-outlet or a fukkin forum.

...expects the world to support his/her free speech whilst he/she wants to restrict the free speech of others.

Having some Kibbutz experience also makes me suspicious of those that profess to have "ideas" in that their ideas generally meant everyone else doing all the work whilst they sat around doing very little. The upshot was that the "doers" buggered off and went and ran their own business whilst those with the "ideas" became politicians or any other "job" that paid them to do nothing but talk.

So, well I am sorry Zoe but nowhere in BIM statements does it say it is anti anything. And frankly if you cannot deal with people challenging your views and ideas here what on earth are you going to say to the African Farmer who asks why his produce cannot be flown to Bristol to be sold because someone decided that it was wrong to fly Kenyan produce to new markets as flying is now a sin in the eyes of some here in the West. So the Kenyan Farmer loses his livelihood - or does he? - because China (a communist state (at least in name) is happy to buy).

Having been a sofa sitting socialist re-planning the world and then actually going out to try and achieve change, I for one realised that, having been one, the armchair pundits who want change but want to restrict the views and cut of the voices of those that have differing ideas are sadly missing the point of what life is all about. I had to have that explained to me by a farmer in Kenya who has never seen “Mother Nature” as a benevolent matriarch nurturing her family at the bountiful teat. He saw “nature” as a concept that required constant battle and if you lost you died.

And PLEASE – before you anti capitalists jump on the Climate Change bandwagon and say this is all due to the west destroying the farmers habitat – please note that I was there for the first time when it was thought that the world was going to end from Global Cooling and DDT poisoning. And despite all the lies and spin of late that tries to marginalise this "embarrasing" fact of history, Global Cooling WAS seen to be a real threat, and there were calls for action but then it got warmer. And now it gets cooler again. DDT banishment meant that crop yield went down until Western technology produced disease resistant crops, the father of which and a Nobel Prize winner has just died this week. Sadly he was no friend of some extreme environmentalists but he was estimated to have saved millions. Isn't technology wonderful?

Cutting and Pasting others ideology in marked contrast is simply a cop out. No teacher, lecturer professor would stand for it but up until recently cutting and pasting to swamp others views was a tactic condoned by BIM. But which meant that BIM itself was cheapened by such antics. At last that message seems to have sunk in.

There is some really good stuff here and I have enjoyed reading it – it is thought provoking and very well written. Let’s have more from all sides.

And if anyone feels the need to say something along the lines of “We don’t need F***** capitalists on here", well I have similar views on Socialists (Who need the likes of Blair and Brown to gain power!) Communists (Who nobody trusts after being given a chance and made a right mess of things) or Anarchists (Who hate government and authority so much that a P*** up in a brewery would present deep organisational problems for them), BUT - I would never wish to silence anyone. (Nor do i think people who think difereingly to me belong in a mental institution, something that Stalin actually did and that the Anti Capitalists here on BIM suggested. Not much in your Brave New World to look forward to then?)

As for Capitalists? - Bit of a curate’s egg. The excess’s of the banking system needs drastic action to be sure. But that is not all, so I am certainly not that easily pleased Boyd ;0) – far from it.

But I come back to my original point. Who can put into words and alternative to a guy out there who invents a widget that people want – how else would that idea get off the ground to be researched, developed and then distributed to those that wanted or needed it?

It has been capitalism that produced the major life saving drugs of the last century, name one that was produced under the communists? – I think Cuba produced a few but mainly derivations of western compounds

It was capitalism that produced the clockwork radio that has been such a success in Africa.

Western cars were more efficient, safer and lasted longer. The list is prettymuch endless and now the West bails out the old communist states.

So to simply say that capitalism is bad because it exists is a bit like saying Chocolate is bad because it can make you fat. Take away the chocolate and people will simply find an alternative. So I am challenging anybody to come up with that alternative.

Because it is starvation that is the killer. The Anti capitalists want to take away the method of feeding those billions of people mentioned above whilst thinking that they themselves will only have to give up the chocolate. The Wolfy Smith character was all about this dicotomy.

And until that bigger picture is seen, the mind set of trying to silence other views and having restrictive "media outlets" seems to be the only way forward for those Anti capitalists. But it is a self-limiting exercise. No future outside of a small mutual admiration society.

I know my views upset some, but please not I have not been rude or sworn at anyone. But I am being challenging. As, thankfully, so have others.

by communist Tue Sep 15, 2009 06:55

"I had to have that explained to me by a farmer in Kenya who has never seen “Mother Nature” as a benevolent matriarch nurturing her family at the bountiful teat. He saw “nature” as a concept that required constant battle and if you lost you died."

Indeed, and if that Kenyan farmer finds that they can no-longer afford the oil based fertilisers to make a profit (though a difference exists between profit and private renumeration to exist on, profit is generally considered to be some point above that), and can't just step down to organic because the effect is usually an initial collapse in yields, as the soils needs time to recover. They are caught in a desperate bind, usually resulting in that land being sold to one of the massive corporate landowners, and the family losing their land and going to live in the nearest slum, where they earn a pittance from trawling through rubbish tips.

If that Kenyan farmer is already growing organic, and the carbon footprint of exporting it to the u.k is lower than growing exotic under heated glasshouse in the u.k, then logic says that they stay in business. This is a blind spot within environmentism, which is unforunately resulting in a blind eye being turned to the illogical reality of more and more exotic foods being grown in glasshouse in the u.k, at greater cost to the environment, and small farmers throughout the developing world.

Doing all that can be done to protect and nuture that kenyan farmer, and many millions (even billions) like them in other countries, above the profits of massive corporate landowners, who are happy to see them done out of a livelihood, with the intricate ecosystems they intricately support also torn up, destroyed, and converted into vast soulless monocrops, has to be a priority, if a life of misery living off rubbish tips is to be avoided, and reversed (unless instead genuine worthwhile jobs can be found for them in the cities.)

There is something bleakly similar in those vast soulless corporate plantations, and the collectivisation of farms under communisnm. Neither of which has historically done a very good job at averting the growth of slums, as small holder farmers are, in one way or another, forced off their land, and swallowed up in the precarious existence of slums, which are growing and growing, and will also be the first to be plunged into famine (or food aid, which developed countries are increasingly reluctant to provide as their surpluses instead get ploughed into biofuels), as the capitalist economy recovers, and oil prices go back above $150 per barrel.

Anyway, I'm away for awhile now, so have fun with this thread (if fun can ever be had with such a topic, but trying to keep a lightness of spirit, sometimes helps to also keep a clear head to think through these problems).

by nickleberry Tue Sep 15, 2009 08:52

@Zoe wrote:

I only wish the Bim-vols would remember that this is supposed to be an anti-capitalist space, not a fukkin media-outlet or a fukkin forum.

Bim needs to encourage more of the global anti-capitalist linking and thinking here, and less from the local capitalist that only comes here to wind people up and trash every thread they post too, I live in an activist shared house of 8, and they all think Bim has gone downhill since a certain Alpha capitalist first started abusing and boring everybody to death.


I don't want to hijack this thread, but I think the above is worth responding to... Zoe, it would be great if you (and your housemates) would contact the Bristol IndyMedia Collective to tell us your thoughts about moderation. Use the http://bristol.indymedia.org/contact or email imc-bristol[at] lists[dot]indymedia[dot]org .

I'm a member of the BIMC. We are quite aware that the way we run various aspects of the project can be problematic. We would really appreciate your constructive feed back. If you believe that BIMC has gone downhill, please tell us! We can take it! If you could accompany it with well thought out solutions, or alternative ways forward, that is even better.

If you can come to our meetings - http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/689536 - then please do!

Now, let the debate continue. I don't want to encourage people to turn this thread into a discussion of BIMC moderation - that's a debate that needs its own article, or needs to happen at Collective meetings...

by lux Tue Sep 15, 2009 09:30

"There is something bleakly similar in those vast soulless corporate plantations, and the collectivisation of farms under communisnm. Neither of which has historically done a very good job at averting the growth of slums, as small holder farmers are, in one way or another, forced off their land, and swallowed up in the precarious existence of slums, which are growing and growing, and will also be the first to be plunged into famine (or food aid, which developed countries are increasingly reluctant to provide as their surpluses instead get ploughed into biofuels), as the capitalist economy recovers, and oil prices go back above $150 per barrel."

Very well put! You're the nicest, up to date, and knowledgedable communist I've ever come across! Shame to see you leaving this thread, as it's being a breath of enlightening fresh air to read what you've written. Don't normally bother with these threads once they've got this long, but this one has got me very interested, and even hopeful, for a change!

by Zoe Tue Sep 15, 2009 14:00

I also realise who you must be now 'Commy' - hope you get to feeling loads better very soon, take good care of yourself. x

by communist Tue Sep 15, 2009 15:30

Thanks Zoe, and others. I am having to pull myself away from this thread, because you're right i'm still not well. I need to spend time quietly resting in a quiet room where i try to empty my mind of things a little. It's nice to know i'm liked, because it's not like i really hold back on my views, but somehow (i don't quite know how) i seem to manage to do it without annoying people to the point that they can't tolerate me anymore (although i do push it).

Regarding floyd, and others on the same tack, i'm inclined to believe that they are ex-socialists, etc. It might just be a tactic to disorientate people, but i'm inclined to believe it because ex-socialists when talking to them face to face tend to have the same complicated frustrations. I doubt if a real, blue water, tory, would ever give someone like me going under the label of 'communist' any credit at all, even of the sideways variety. I usually go under the label 'socialist' because it's less laden with baggage, but as this thread began on a communist theme, it seemed suitable to revisit an earlier incarnation of me.

In a way, it's useful to see them in a similar way to people paid at nightclubs to start dancing :) so that others start dancing too, and these threads certainly are set dancing. I understand if people can't see value in floyd's contributions, but if both floyd and everyone else, step back a little from overtly confrontational stances - not something i've perfected, and often fail in, but then come back, i think, and acknowledge when i've made wrong assumptions - then maybe having these threads set dancing isn't always a bad thing.

I really must pull myself away now, but if this thread continues, i'll pop back in in a few days to see if there's anything people want me personally to try and clarify, or if there's anything more i can contribute. I certainly don't have anything close to all those answers, and through all the froth and anger of these threads, i do find them useful to help me think.

Take care all :)

by Floyd Tue Sep 15, 2009 15:38

If as Zoe suggests you may be ill (?) i wish you well, but would take issue on your assumption that Kenyan farmers use "oil based fertilizer" - they don't. in fact Fertilizer is not oil based.

The macronutrients required by plants are N (Nitrogen), K (Potassium) and P (Phosphorus). Oil is hydrocarbon, made from H (Hydrogen) and C (Carbon). There are no plant nutrients in oil.

Nitrogen fertilizer (N) is made from ammonia, which in turn is usually manufactured from natural gas, not oil. Natural gas is not peaking, but when it does, fertilizer can be produced from coal, as is done in China today.

Even when coal runs out, there will still be plenty of ammonia available because vast quantities of it are produced daily in the form of human and animal urine which, ideally, we should be using for fertilizer right now.

Finally, potassium (K) comes from potash, and phosphorus (P) comes from phosphate. Both are mined minerals in plentiful supply.

Thus oil prices pose no threat whatsoever to the global supply of fertilizer and in any event, East African farmers harvest their own natural fertilizer in the main.

by communist Tue Sep 15, 2009 17:22

Before I go an rest in a dark room, i'll just address this, as it's come up so soon, and before i finally disappear for awhile.

Thanks for the details on Kenya and East African Farmers. The type of economics i deal in is mainly macro economics, so there's always going to be micro and local exceptions to this. If I am ever writing anything, or speaking i always like to have a micro economist on hand, because the two areas intricately overlap, but are also specialised, so nothing wrong with having someone on hand to correct you with micro issues. So I am grateful to you for the detail and correction.

You're quite right, it's predominatly pesticides which are oil based, not fertilisers. That i'm making such mistakes is because my brain is starting to fog over, and has been for days. It is a common misconception that has been spread that fertilisers are oil based, and one i usually in fact correct myself, because these muddled truths are common amongst the left, and a big reason people eye it so suspicously. Best to get facts as accurate as possible. I initially was going to take a break before i started commenting, but seemed like such a huge thread, i just had to interverne, but you'll just have to take my word on that.

But, oil prices rises are still very much behind the rises in food prices, which rise in tandem with the rise in oil prices. At the farmers end due to pesticide costs, and due to oil inherently used in running the machinery of agriculture, and also mining and extraction of other raw materials to make other non-oil based fertlisers, as well as oil used transporting it around (but that's not a cost borne much at the farmers end, but instead at the consumers end).

We all know there are alternatives to most things in the long run, but the problem of food prices being pushed up to a level where a good billion or two can nolonger afford to eat is hitting the poorest now, and an irony is, that the recession, and the collapse in oil prices for now, has temporaily reduced that as a problem, but will return with economic recovery.

The main exception for oil based fertilizers (not pesticides) is sulphur, which as mentioned earlier has come as a surprise to farmers who never considered sulphur as a fertlizer, but has been revealed as being so with improvements in air quality, and the drop off in yields which left farmers scratching their heads as to the cause, before identifying sulphur.

Sulphur is not strictly a product from oil, but a by product, which they scrub most out of before it becomes fuel, but remains embedded in it. There's a lot of more oil which isn't currently usuable, although cheap to get out of the ground, because the embedded suplhur content is so high and curently very expensive to get out. We could use it, yes, but it would make life a living hell. Even capitalism has limits to what it will inflict on us sometimes.

So thanks for the correction, it would have been quite wrong to let such a mistake stand.

I may well find a few more which others haven't spotted when my brain fog clears ;)

by Zoe Tue Sep 15, 2009 19:52

What pisses me off about Bristol Indymedia is just one thing really, but its a big thing.

"REVOLUTION: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About" .......... Thats what this thread is supposed to be about.

"Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible", a couple of really good questions I thought.

Though how the countless millions of people/s all around the planet who need radical and sustainable change in the world NOW will ever benefit from 'debates' like this one here is beyond me.

The people who really REALLY need radical sustainable change in the world, (or revolution if you like to call it that) are not very well served by first world voices if this 'debate' is anything to go by, I am sickened to my stomach, seriously.

I hate to think what the poorest most opressed / repressed / suppressed and depressed peoples of the world would think of this thread and one or two of its pro capitalism 'contributors'.

Maybe the best way for the world to change to quickly would be to send all the worlds capitalists to the poorest places in the world, with no money, no way home, no phones, and no contact with anybody but the local people for 20 years or so.

If anybody wants to start an approriate fund to send capitalists off to live poverty lifestyles in devastated environments for 20 years, I'll happily donate a tenner.

by gender Tue Sep 15, 2009 20:34

Given your earlier comments about ineffective ipod activists forever talking, i can sense your frustration at even having these debates. I don't want to get into psychobabble, but maybe that conflict you feel is also making you feel ill with it too? But you've done a good job here, given loads of really good info and insights, set some records straight, and shown that communist revolution, or any other kind of revolution, is real, and is possible, as long as we can shrug off all that fixed dogma from 100's of years ago, that 1st world activists love like a fetish, which is oblivious to the scale of current misery, and suffering of real people now!

Thank loads to for setting the record straight on population controls too. It's women and the poor who suffer most from them, and those are the very people we should be helping, not curbing out of existence, as they are on the brink of disappearing already!

Go and have a rest now.

by communist Tue Sep 15, 2009 21:07

"Maybe the best way for the world to change to quickly would be to send all the worlds capitalists to the poorest places in the world, with no money, no way home, no phones, and no contact with anybody but the local people for 20 years or so."

I think this would be infinitely more effective than mental hospitals, or any other kind of 're-education'. Before I became ill i had had enough of being a 1st world activist, and had already planned to dissapear into that world myself, through one of those 2 yr type aid agencies, where you live, work, and help out without any preferences beyond basic shelter. But i would have been dead within weeks if i'd had to scrape an existence, because these chronic pain conditons are rife the world over, and most people outside the developed world, just crawl into the gutter and die, invisible and ignored, by the age of 40, by the million with various unidentified illnesses and respiratory conditions.

As much as I hate these debates too, they are important, at least so that we can make clear that they are not nearly enough. A horrible and frustrating contradiction. I really must go, I think i've said all i can say for now, and all i have the energy to say.

by communist Tue Sep 15, 2009 22:04

"I don't want to get into psychobabble, but maybe that conflict you feel is also making you feel ill with it too?"

Yes. Will be around till midnight, and then i just need to shut off. I feel quite sick on top of feeling quite sick, but happy that a thread with the header of 'communism/real change' etc, hasn't just been blown out the water, and that room has been given for me as a communist (because fundamentally i still am) to fill in some detailed detail on what that means, to me, in real terms, in terms of real people now, and how i think, at least some of that could be made real, without simply repeating all the previous mistakes of communism as it has been.

by Floyd Wed Sep 16, 2009 07:07

Certainly not my place and no one individuals but I would like to say that as a one time socialist who genuinely believes that socialism/communism is a back water, I am grateful that at the end of a long thread the debate has evolved into a sensible discussion.

Great that differing views can be posted and discussed sensibly - "Communist" - many thanks in particular for accepting my point re oil based fertilizers.

I sincerely hope that you recover from what ever illness it is that you are suffering from and are back ASAP to debate a rabid capitalist into a corner (well try too! ;0)

Very best wishes.

by Us Wed Sep 16, 2009 07:14

Nice to have you back here 'commy' even if it is only for a few days.

Your obvious compassion and humanity is touching for all of us who care more for the planet and other peoples than for the rotten fruits of capitalism.

Too often here the capitalist deliberately takes the 'debate' off-topic then injects his reactionary assumptions and opinions and the whole thing becomes somehow debased and inhuman.

Your shining light of compassion and obvious love for others is a fabulous contrast to the usual uncaring capitalistic / pro-profit / propaganda / spin / untruths etc.

Thanks for reminding us that there is something better in a human being than base greed, selfishness and ego.

Your obvious caring for the poor peoples of the world is exactly what we need to see more of here, your contributions over these past few days have been a real joy to read, thank you.

Please take care very good of yourself, we love you.

by an anarchist Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:23

Because I'm also certain who you are 'communist', and from the odd conversation I've had with you, and from what you've also mapped out more fully here, I think I can give a summary.

What you are basically suggesting is almost a fusion of anarchism and communism. With communism at the macro level, and anarchism at the micro level, and not in the sense of an awkward wishy washy truce, but something far more carefully integrated.

As an anarchist I find this very interesting. The holy grail of activism in a way. I hope you can make enough of a recovery to one day define this more fully, as while it may not immediately get all communists and anarchists singing from the same hymn sheet, it would be something very important to see constructed and offered to activism for further consideration.

Without any Gods involved of course, despite my use of religious metaphor.

by widget maker Wed Sep 16, 2009 15:11

Floyd "I admire certain aspects of technology the Soviets achieved, but facts reveal this was often done by mavericks"

Communists couldn't use this as an argument in favour of Stalinism, but many who couldn't fully accept how flawed their system had become, did.

Floyd "But whilst I recognise that there is greed. It is not true that ALL capitalists are greedy profit driven psychos."

Capitalists can't use this as an argument in favour of Capitalism, but many who can't fully accept how flawed their system has become, do.

...................................

Echos from history, which underline when a system is failing, and those who wish it were not so, cling to it by showing, not without some truth in both cases, that not all those who make up their system are responsible for it's failure.

It's a classic self-abolishing argument Floyd.

Death notes from inside failing systems.

by Mell O Wed Sep 16, 2009 15:19

Thanks for your perceptive summary on 'Communists' posting anarchist.

"A fusion of anarchism and communism" ............ That sounds seriously interesting to me, what 'shape' would that 'fusion' take, how would it work?

by la la la Wed Sep 16, 2009 15:33

Productive and interesting exchange between @communist and @wolfy I thought, just shows that good things can and do happen when greenies and lefties communicate together for a better world future.
Lets hope that such positive communication continues whenever face to face meetings happen in the future between factions opposed to capitalism and with those seeking alternatives to it.
The environment and the massive damage done to it - is capitalisms Achilles heel, everybody on the planet is affected by the damage capitalism has done and continues to do, and it therefore unites us all.
Anti-capitalist Revolution is not just possible and necessary, it is essential to the continuation of life on earth.

by an anarchist Wed Sep 16, 2009 16:45

"A fusion of anarchism and communism" ............ That sounds seriously interesting to me, what 'shape' would that 'fusion' take, how would it work?"

I don't know really, when 'communist' explained it to me briefly in person some time ago, it seemed vague, but i see more of it in the 'feeding the u.k' comment. The state doesn't arrive as a huge suffocating blob, telling everyone what to do, but looks at what's there first, leaves those bits of capitalism which aren't completely bust in place to begin with, with modifications. Then gets on with nationalising some farms to push organic forward. At the same time places like ashton court are taken over, but given back to the people as allotments. The state leaves the communities to do what they want with what they have been given back, and gets on with the job of making sure there's enough food in total for everyone, and steps in further if the need to is truly there. What's left of capitalism gets squeezed, without starting some huge war.

That's how i read it. It isn't what i would call revolution as we know it, but it goes way beyond anything I understand reformism to be. Like putting things back together in an order that makes sense, without being a huge intimidating state that leaves nothing for the indivdual or anarchist to do, and instead sees us as a way of taking weight off the state. It's only food and farming, so still seems vague as a bigger 'plan', but there's something in there which isn't quite like anything i've heard before. Maybe we could all put our thinking caps on, and think about how communism and anarchism can work together, not as an awkward fudge, but as an integrated approach that makes sense as a bigger picture?

by creative gardener Wed Sep 16, 2009 18:45

The 'Feeding the U.K' comment is indeed a rare attempt nowadays to outline how things may be done, in a staged way, until the profit is removed from food, and agriculture turned to organic steadily, while keeping a close eye on total food output so that a sudden conversion to organic doesn't result in a sudden food shortage. My understanding is organic crops can initially be weaker, due to nutrient depletion, and more prone to disease, so keeping those oil based pesticides in reserve seems sensible, while the soils regain their strength.

Releasing energy at the community level to get growing is also great. Taking land back to do this is good. Should also be noted, given how long this thread has got, that later on 'communist' clarifies the in and outs of oil as mainly used to make pesticides, not fertilizers, but that sulphur is an oil based fertiliser in the sense of being a 'waste product' of the industry. Also good to see the way in which some ideas of 'economist' were coopted back into a more revolutionary/transformational agenda. Although 'economist' seems to be from a more tunnel vision branch of economics, that's not to say a more revolutionary agenda can't cherry pick some of the more useful ideas of mainstream economics. They cherry pick from us when it suits them, so good to see a few ideas being plucked back, and RECYCLED in a better way ;)

Changing where our food comes from is the first step. The rest of the economy is a bit beyond me, but food is the vital start, and a big comprehensive project is needed, EVERYWHERE!

by Us Wed Sep 16, 2009 19:34

Earlier in this thread, when @Economist was 'educating' us as to the 'value' and 'price' of a barrel of oil, he seemed to be seriously ignorant or unaware of the COSTS of oil, which is why I posted a few 'cut & paste' comments to illustrate that there are COSTS which @economist needs to be aware of and should know about.

I have neither the time or inclination to teach anybody that calls himself / herself an economist the basic facts of oil - and if I did have the time to teach anybody anything, I would not use my time or energy to attempt to educate capitalists or economists with a closed mind, what a waste of time and energy that would be!

So instead of merely putting forward my own opinions and assumptions as being the truth ............ as capitalist / economist would do, I offered instead verifiable facts in order that he might become more aware of the COSTS of oil.

There is an unlimited amount of evidence 'out there' to illustrate the true costs of oil, from the initial prospecting and geophysical surveying, drilling exploration, transportation along pipelines across land and overseas shipping, to consumption / burning which anybody could use to learn the truth about the costs of oil - if they were interested in the truth of course!

But capitalist / economist simply does not want to change his opinions does he? .............. even when thay are false, not even when they are shown up for what they are, dis-credited and blinkered capitalist dogma, nothing more, nothing less.

Strangely enough, instead of taking on board the data, facts and information offered, what did we get? .......... complaints of 'swamping' is what we got!

Capitalist / economist simply does not get it, I doubt whether it is capable even of getting it ever.

So many times capitalist / economist is given proof that his own opinion is wrong, and what does he do to cover up his own ignorance and embaressment? ............ change the subject of course, classic 'shoot the messenger' psychology ........... and just about any other distraction technique he can muster.

by A for Annie Wed Sep 16, 2009 20:00

Not wanting to go off-topic or anything, this thread being about 'revolution - necessary & possible'.
In some parts of the world (Asia) human waste - (or 'night-soil' as I believe its called) - goes straight back onto the land, and has done for ages.
I also vaguely recollect reading - or hearing - that such land is extremely fertile, and does not need artificial fertilizing at all.
Does anyone know if this is correct? - or am I just talking out of my ass?

by communist Wed Sep 16, 2009 20:51

Couldn't resist popping in to see how things are going. All good. What 'an anarchist' says is right, that's the direction i'm going in, but not just to get all activists going in a similar direction, but to create an appeal far beyond the activist left too. I do have more ideas on the wider economy, but i'm all typed out at the moment, maybe save them for another time. The food issue is the burning issue for me right now, and the rest of the economy can be saved for later.

Also, as a strategy really, because if the state isn't going to grow to the size of a bureaucratic deadweight, one way of keeping it's size down is to focus on one key sector of the economy at a time. Gradually going through the whole mess, like cleaning each room of a house at a time. But, no it's not a complete grand plan. I doubt if one person could do that alone.

Also, on the 'feeding the u.k' contribution, I mention cut n paste at the end, with a wink attached. Sometimes things get lost in translation, but the wink is meant for 'US' so as to say there's nothing wrong with a bit of cut n paste, when it's fully on topic, and isn't totally overboard. I certainly wasn't winking at 'economist'! But i certainly was 'recycling' some of 'economists' ideas for better purposes. Sometimes on other threads, I do think the amount of cut n paste does get too much, but i don't see how 8 or so pieces of cut n paste on a thread of 130+ comments can be classed as 'swamping'! Anyway, I'm off again now...

by Zoe Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:17

Hey Nick ........... This may not be 100% on topic but ..........

Thanks for reading my comment mate, and I appreciate your response to it. I did not reply to yours before now as I was wanting to see what happened on this thread first, and its great to see that our lovely bimvols are back on the case after their 'bizzyness' with climate-camp and the bookfair etc, good job done cleaning up the capitalist crap, thanks to all.

Really appreciate also the invite to bim meetings, loadsa stuff to do as ever at the mo, but I will think on it.

My housemates were well pissed off by the tone of too many of posts on some threads over the past year or so, in particular those from the hammond-esque theatre of capitalist crap comedy, not that theye were ever funny really, just constantly putting down other peoples perspectives, all a bit off-putting really, but over the house meeting supper last nite we had a natter about it all, and they will start reading bim again in the light of your message to them, so thanks for that.

As to your call for positive feedback: OK - every day I find in my inbox lots of interesting, usefull and important emails from all around the world, loads of excellent examples of what other peoples and communities are doing to make their lives and their lands sustainably 'better' in oh so many ways, and very often they do it with a lot less than we have at our 'disposal' materially.

But unfortunately the bimc 'local-links' emphasis thingy means that lots of really inspiring and exciting 'stories and examples' from around the globe have no place here, so everybody loses out, now thats just plain tragic, for them, and us.

The above is not meant as criticism, just an observation, but in my opinion we could all be much better activists if we were better informed and better connected internationally, and we would make more progress in less time, and have more fun in the process.

by Anonymous Capitalist Thu Sep 17, 2009 17:55

Seriously "Communist" if you keep talking like that you could cause a rift in the support of some Capitalists for Capitalism. Some of us deal in ideas too, we aren't all geeks with our noses in economics books. Ok we are a bit geeky some of us, if truth be told. Like internet nerds. I can't say I would ever would have found talking to a "Communist" something I would ever call worthwhile.

But I don't think if you call it "Communism" it will work as far as the public goes. Especially in those countries which have tried 'It', even that's not your "It" Ideas or not.

by Wolfy Smith Fri Sep 18, 2009 06:27

Please 'anonymous capitalist' - at least try to imagine what it must be like to have a shred of sensitivity or common humanity and treat 'communist' as if you cared for another human being.

'Communist' is a seriously ill man - you have read this thread have you not? - Why do you insist on harrassing anybody who is obviously unwell - shame on you!

Please try to find a molecule of decency within yourself - and stop hounding a sick man!

by Them Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:09

Why do you think that the comments to 'communist' were insensive ?????

It was hardly an unsolicited response, & if Communist is capable of taking part in debate then he is capable of ignoring comments if he doesn't like them !!

by Anonymous Capitalist Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:07

What I Meant was, is that "Communist" clearly won this argument. Floyd, as he said himself, was argued into a corner. But the name? What's it going to be called? If I may give an example. Capitalism was previously called Feudalism. It contined being the same thing as a continuum, but it's name changed, because for good or bad, it had shifted it's internal characteristics. This still is "Communism" I would suggest, but it's internal economics have shifted, or are shifting to a point, that in purely internal terms, if nothing else, it needs a new name. With a new name, if one is being earnt in objective terms, comes an opportunity to move on from all the more negative emotions and experiences that people indelibly associate with "Communism".

by communist Fri Sep 18, 2009 13:48

Thanks 'Anonymous Capitalist'. I'm sure you can appreciate that I'm going to eye you suspiciously, as whenever a capitalist wants to be your 'mate' the chances are they are only trying to co-opt you. But I can play that game quite happily too. 'Capitalists' don't have to be my mate to have a rift open up in their ranks. But I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. I'm just little old me in Bristol, putting my own partially formulated alternative forward.

But you are right that I am, on a deeper economic level, also putting forward some of the opening economic moves (if you like) in the reinvention of Communism, at a root economic level. As Boyd mentioned quite some time ago, Communism was left flailing when it abolished the pricing mechanism within Capitalism, and spent the next 70yrs with its own economic eyes poked out, desperately trying to price and value what it was doing with these vast inputs of resources. In the end, a key reason it failed (there are always many within any economic system) was because it had wasted so many of its own resources, that it internally collapsed, as much as being externally pressured, by the arms race.

There are always more layers to history than people often immediately see. Although Reagan was considered to be another dunce at the helm of the United States, the arms race was seen by the U.S, under his leadership and instinctively hawk like eye, as a way of piling the economic pressure on the Soviet Union. Yes, the Soviet Union could match the U.S missile for missile, but it had wasted so many resources in the process, that there wasn't much left over for consumer basics like washing machines and refridgerators.

This is another one of those areas where subtle, but critical, differences can be identified, and some tools of capitalism, carefully cut out of its rotting economic corpse, and transplanted back into a new economic body.

The pricing mechanism is one of them.

Pricing material inputs, so that you are not blindly flailing around, trying to work out what you are 'spending' is not the same thing as putting a profit margin on top, and as also very quickly mentioned earlier too, there is also a difference between profit, and private remuneration to exist on - which must also be comfortably above the subsistence existence of billions - with profit then being above what you need to exist on.

Thanks also to those watching my back here, I really appreciate. I am ill, I am exhausted (another visit to the docs yesterday), but I can also keep writing and writing after a day or so of crawling back into an exhausted ball much of the time, but it's not good for me. I'm also reluctant to keep writing and writing, because then I also risk doing what communists also have a bad reputation for, which is the squeezing out of other voices.

But if what I am proposing is to have a new name, it should only be because the internal economics have genuinely morphed into something 'new', not as some cheap rebranding exercise which wouldn't really wash. I'm really not there. Not even close in terms of economics geeks (of all varieties) pouring over it looking for flaws. But thanks for suspending that 'interrogation' for a moment, and offering a pause in hostilities.

May the rift within capitalism be torn open, and its economic failings admitted from within.

by communist Fri Sep 18, 2009 14:22

Very briefly, and back to the *full* costs of oil. A 'Communist' society, as outlined above, would include *all* costs of oil within the price, as provided by 'Us'. The reason why capitalism can't or won't include the full costs of oil, is because if it did the price would be so prohibitively expensive, the mechanisms of capitalism would grind to a halt. This is why including these costs within capitalism in terms of simply adding on the 'externalities' wouldn't solve capitalism, or sustainability, but break it, and the food supply, as it stands.

A bit like Mad Max, but with the remaining oil still in the ground.

So, giving everything its true price, in a staged why, while morphing the mechanisms of capitalism as it stands around that resetting of prices, along 'communistic' lines, is a strategy, if an incomplete one. Many vagaries are left to be addressed, but the outline is there.

That's me done for today.

by Them Fri Sep 18, 2009 16:36

That 'vision' of economics is so wrong, it's difficult to know where to start... but saying feudalism is another word for capitalism is probably a good place to start.... oh dear, no real analysis or understanding there I'm afraid !!

But anyway, the cost of oil..... being prohibitively expensive..

An iron plough really helps with being able to farm. If you look at the production of the plough share, from mine, to smelting, to smithing then the cost is 'prohibitively expensive'..... if you view it as an isolated economic action. When you stick it behind a horse's arse, then it suddenly becomes viable....... economics, whatever system, is a dynamic & holistic process...

Anyway, enough amusement, time to go to work & be economically productive...... viewed in the round, of course... ;-)

by Anonymous Capitalist Fri Sep 18, 2009 17:21

A very good understanding of what went wrong with the Soviet Union from day one, and the barriers Capitalism is up against in the present. The "Externalities" issue is good area to debate, because the reason why "Externalities" aren't adopted is because the price would be pushed so high that it would, at the very least, trigger a bout of oil price induced hyper inflation, which we may not be able to control as prices of other commodities, with oil inputs, are pushed up along with them. We are already struggling to absorb oil price shocks when they do happen, with "Externalities" already ignored. Mechanisms do exist. The main one is to take money in the economy out of circulation by selling bonds. It can at least stop the hyper inflation, but the price of oil would still push food prices up extortionately high. The solution of some Capitalists is to ignore even more externalities, and to remove all taxes. I think Capitalism needs to accept these barriers, and think about how to overcome them, instead of retreating from them and cutting taxes, which only buys some time until oil again begins to rise in price.

What happens when taxes have been cut to zero? At some point all Capitalists will have to think more seriously about these issues. That they are not, makes me feel a bit trapped as a Capitalist within Capitalism.

by communist Fri Sep 18, 2009 19:13

I'll try to keep this brief. Classic capitalist mechanisms for controlling inflation only 'work' in reasonably benign environments. Whether you are selling bonds, or putting up interest rates you are still talking about taking demand out of the economy, and inducing a recession. Thatcherite policies for curing what was a relatively benign outbreak of inflation were devastating enough. Those needed to cure hyperinflation risk killing the patient.

An alternative approach is also implicity contained within 'feeding the u.k'.

Oil inputs are first slashed in the agriculture sector. The slackening in demand for oil - without taking demand out of the economy - gives room to install the first 'eternality tax' on oil.

Oil inputs are then slashed in the next economic sector which the state moves onto. Again, the further slackening in demand for oil, gives room to install the second 'externality tax'.

As you move from sector to sector, slashing demand for oil in each, without slashing overall demand in the economy, the overall oil price is held steady (other factors being equal), with the price increasingly consisting primarily of 'externality taxes', until all economic sectors have been addressed, and a new equilibrium is reached.

Can't do another full weekend of this, but I think that clarifies a few more things for now.

Have a good weekend people.

by communist Fri Sep 18, 2009 19:50

It also needs to be said that the 'externality taxes' don't just end up in state coffers. They are instead used to reimburse those people who have been affected by previous and existing oil fields, and used to make any new ones as environmentally neutral as possible (an inherently difficult concept I know), as well as to fund projects to 'offset' or minimise the carbon footprint of the remaining oil we are still burning, after all sectors have had their inputs minimised. A second wave of going back through all economic sectors, minimising inputs further, can then begin.

by Anonymous Capitalist Fri Sep 18, 2009 20:59

You've managed to undo a very big knot in my mind! I'm going to show some of this to my Capitalist/Economist colleagues, and see how they react, before I tell them It's by a "Communist"! They will love the use of terms like "Other factors being equal" and "a new equilibrium is reached"! Terms like that are like porn to economics geeks!

I think you've even given enough written detail to distill it into a diagram using Hicks!

Ceteris Paribus! :)

by communist Fri Sep 18, 2009 22:21

They say a diagram saves a thousand words, but for the general public not versed in abstract economic diagrams, I prefer a thousand words, hopefully couched in a readable language which keeps people interested, and not bored silly. I do try.

At some point I've got to start distilling my ideas into diagrams for the geeks to examine, but it's not my cup of tea, although I will do them if I really have to. But if you want me to start boiling it down into econometric equations, I really will have to call in the specialists as they make my brain ache, and if this thread starts becoming a bizarre exchange of economists posting equations in substitute for debate, I think my attempts to keep economics lively and interesting will be destroyed in an algaebraic haze :)

Now, I really really must go, and have a weekend where I'm just an everyday person.

by Anonymous Capitalist Sat Sep 19, 2009 01:48

I would find it fascinating to see this distilled further into diagrams and equations! But I imagine it would quickly kill this debate for eveyone else! You've really got me thinking. The only flaw I can currently see in what you've provided is that this systematic reduction in oil inputs would need to take place in more than one country for the reduction in demand for oil to be significant enough for a fall in the oil price to create enough slack to begin applying the "externality taxes". Although it's only a flaw in the sense that the context you give is "Feeding The U.K", and not a flaw in the context of the rest of your comments, as taking place internationally as a preference.

by here you go Sun Sep 20, 2009 08:50

One economics diagram, it says it all I think.

DIAGRAM

by Mell O Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:08

Inspired by 'here you go's' - old IWW poster in an earlier post, I did a quick search using 'google images' and found this image which brings us up to date quite nicely.

This particular graphic is so much better than the countless thousands of words that capitalists and economists like to spin and misinform and waffle and bore us all to death with.

by Mell O Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:16

oooops!

capitalist system 'diagram'

by communist Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:30

Lol. I like those diagrams better. Some people call economics the 'dismal science'. I would personally remove the word 'science'. When I did my Economics degree, I entered it hating every minute, terrified I would be coopted into its esoteric language. But I came out the other side, with an intricate knowledge of their language. Interesting how a Capitalist starts salivating when I throw in a few key words. Like throwing a dog a bone. Economics is not a science, it is a crude system with financial lego bricks stacked so high they must eventually topple (as they have) and leaching mechanisms to control inflation. Suck blood out of the economy.

But, what I saw were deep problems. Capitalism is like a crudely built nuclear reactor. As shown with 'externalities'. If you start loading tax upon tax on capitalism, without changing how it functions beneath the lego brick surface, you can set off a chain reaction, create hyperinflation, and interrupt the food supply. So, my expertise is really in how to dismantle capitalism without setting off those chain reactions, and in the long run make myself redundant. Most Communists have forgotten the State is supposed to wither away under Communism. What I've outlined is that withering away, while safely taking apart that crudely built monster that Capitalism is, which wraps itself up in esoteric language and diagrams.

In the long run, the skills of indigenous people's with a knowledge of ecosystems and how to feed people, stretching back 10's of thousands of years, are more valuable than mine.

by Anonymous Capitalist Sun Sep 20, 2009 14:04

Right! I'll take the bone I've been thrown, even If I don't like being called a dog! I'll do some more thinking, and try to think without equations and diagrams for a change! What I said still stands. If you can come up with a working alternative, which isn't old lefty rhetoric, and does have some kind of plan of action which is sound, diagrams and equations or not, there are a lot of Capitalist/Economists who want to share in that debate. Some of us don't expect rigid statistical models before we listen to someone. Now that our own statistical financial models have collapsed some of us are human enough to feel humbled by the experience! But many more are already behaving like it never happened, or that it was down to a few rogues! It did happen! It was financial capitalism, not a bunch of bankers, which did it!

by Zoe Sun Sep 20, 2009 15:04

Without hearing from the poorest and wisest voices in the world, debates like this (especially when greedy capitalists are involved) can only ever be so much hot air - and meaningless essentially .

That is not to say that non-capitalists perspectives are of no value, on the contrary, but they're 'views' are insufficiently broad or deep as 'commy' has just intimated with his reference to Indigenous Peoples

Therefore in order to be seriously effective - we need more and better inputs from the poorest (economically or materially poor) peoples of the world, another example of how BIMC 'local links' insistance thingy is harming the prospect for radical change anytime soon, and depriving us all of much needed inspiration and power to effect change.