Read here
And another here.
Also really good.
And.
Sunday, 22 December 2019
Friday, 20 December 2019
If the UK were Venezuela, it would be called a dictatorship
The press would most definitely be calling this a dictatorship if it were Venezuela or any other target state of the west.
So far/on its way under Johnson:
- installing of unelected ministers (Zac Goldsmith)
- voter suppression
- boundary changes
- banning protest (strikes & BDS)
- threats to dissenting media (The Canary)
- threats to the supreme court
- court rules British MI5 agents can murder, kidnap and torture
- support from far-right Tommy R, Britain First, KT Hopkins etc
Added to the usual:
- unelected/partially hereditary House of Lords
- FPTP system
- pliant, monopolised media
- journalists imprisoned (Assange)
- unelected head of state
What else?
So far/on its way under Johnson:
- installing of unelected ministers (Zac Goldsmith)
- voter suppression
- boundary changes
- banning protest (strikes & BDS)
- threats to dissenting media (The Canary)
- threats to the supreme court
- court rules British MI5 agents can murder, kidnap and torture
- support from far-right Tommy R, Britain First, KT Hopkins etc
Added to the usual:
- unelected/partially hereditary House of Lords
- FPTP system
- pliant, monopolised media
- journalists imprisoned (Assange)
- unelected head of state
What else?
Sunday, 15 December 2019
BBC - Fascist Enablers
If the BBC was on the side of the people, doing journalism in the public interest, it would have spent this election screaming:
‘Labour have a plan backed by climate scientists to address the climate crisis (and create loads of jobs)!’.
‘Labour won’t suck up to Saudi Arabia and help them kill thousands in Yemen!’
‘Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life fighting for your rights!’.
‘Boris Johnson is a deceitful, inhuman racist, who is effectively in an alliance with Nigel Farage!!’
Instead we got:
‘Lifelong anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is a racist!’.
‘Man of peace is a terrorist-loving traitor!’.
‘Here’s Boris Johnson eating a scone!’.
The only time they really held Johnson to account was with Andrew Neil’s monologue, after he refused an interview. But that was far too little, too late.
Mostly, the BBC simply parroted far-right talking points from the billionaire-owned press. Fascist enablers.
Recommend this book.
‘Labour have a plan backed by climate scientists to address the climate crisis (and create loads of jobs)!’.
‘Labour won’t suck up to Saudi Arabia and help them kill thousands in Yemen!’
‘Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life fighting for your rights!’.
‘Boris Johnson is a deceitful, inhuman racist, who is effectively in an alliance with Nigel Farage!!’
Instead we got:
‘Lifelong anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is a racist!’.
‘Man of peace is a terrorist-loving traitor!’.
‘Here’s Boris Johnson eating a scone!’.
The only time they really held Johnson to account was with Andrew Neil’s monologue, after he refused an interview. But that was far too little, too late.
Mostly, the BBC simply parroted far-right talking points from the billionaire-owned press. Fascist enablers.
Recommend this book.
What Could Have Been
I am so depressed. The prospect of the Jeremy Corbyn-led movement coming to power in the UK was the only thing giving me some hope for the future; to begin addressing the obscene injustices in this world. To have had a man who has fought for peace, fairness and justice his whole life, as leader on the fifth largest economy in the world, could have been revolutionary. It would have given hope to social movements all around the world that are currently fighting against the grave corporate tyranny of this imposed, global capitalist system.
What I find hardest is that many people just don't seem bothered. But I know I must remember, that most people don't have time to think; too overworked and underpaid, and subject to an unavoidable stream of corporate propaganda wherever they look. And I know, that thanks to these decades of neoliberalism, since Thatcher, hope has been lost. Thatcher's destruction of the very concept of society; her replacement of community with free market extremism; giving away all our power to transnational corporations, destroyed us. We should be one, but we've been separated, pitted against each other and forced to forget that one person's happiness rests on the happiness of all; unable to collectively resist the oppressive policies imposed by this corporate tyranny, as it privatises and exploits, and siphons away all our wealth to the top. It is this system, and the sense of hopelessness that it creates, which is at the root of all our problems today; the rise of the far-right, war, refugee crises, environmental destruction, mental health crisis, etc.
Following 40 years of this, there is little hope of change; most people seem either fully suckered by the false promise of individualistic happiness, or just unable to believe that government can be uncorrupt and actually do good; that it can actually be on our side, rather that on the side of the super rich and the corporations; that it can end and reverse all the horrors of the needless and deathly policy of 'austerity'; the homelessness and child poverty; that it can put people and planet before weapons sales and oil wars; that it can fight for climate justice, etc - we must instead leave everything to the billionaires.
Such an informed, dedicated and principled human rights champion as Jeremy Corbyn, who would have sought an end to the deviant exploitation and plunder that is unsurprisingly so prevalent in a world now run by profit-seeking corporations and billionaires, threatened the corporate powers that be like no other. And so he suffered the most evil character assassination, across all of the 'mainstream' media, from the Murdoch gutter press, to the Guardian and the BBC. Quite how he put up with it and stayed so calm and collected, is beyond me. Even when all of this goebelian propaganda led to a far-right thug punching him in the head earlier this year, he made no fuss.
In 2017, we came so close. Against all the odds, a truly leftist party promising a radical reversal of neoliberalism, and an agenda for peace on the world stage, came within 2,200 votes of winning an election, and achieved its highest increase in the vote 1945. By the end of that year, Labour were polling at 45%, to the Tories 37%. Where did it all go wrong? How did we come so close, and then lose so badly? Along with the vitriolic media, that only got worse since 2017, it was of course the increasing polarization around Brexit, and Labour's shift towards backing a second referendum, that caused it. In 2017, the party promised to respect the referendum result and seek a new deal. By this election, the party had reneged on that pledge.
Sadly, it seems the party was doomed from that moment; the moment it switched from seeking a soft Brexit, to backing the idea of a confirmatory vote. It seems many Brexit-supporting Labour voters in parts of the midlands, and the north - 'Labour's heartlands' - who have been ignored and exploited ever since Thatcher destroyed their communities, once again felt as though they were being deceived by a self-serving Westminster elite, and fled the party. The tragedy of it of course, is that Corbyn's radical Labour Party - with its pledges of mass investment in public services and communities, and its green industrial revolution - would have revitalized these areas and given them hope once again, whilst also converting our energy systems to renewables by 2030-35.
Of course, what is ultimately to blame for all of this is our media. I am no fan of the EU, but the right-wing press's incessant anti-EU propaganda over the years - because the billionaire/corporate owners of the media despise the modicum of social justice/environmental rights that the EU enforces - has been extreme. The EU, and the migration it enables, became the 'other', convincing many that it was that which is to blame for their struggles, not neoliberalism and those who impose it.
I can't claim to understand exactly how and why it was that Labour's Brexit position changed in-between 2017 and this election. The 'People's Vote' campaign, chaired by Roland Rudd, a staunch critic of Corbyn and his leftist ideology, was certainly a huge factor. Much of the PLP - the Blairites/centrists - who as is well known, have hated having Corbyn as their leader, signed up to the campaign. As did much of the Labour membership. In the end, the pressure was so great, that I'm not convinced the leadership could have resisted. But maybe they could have done, I don't know.
Although, if they hadn't shifted, perhaps they would have lost other seats to to the Liberal Democrats? It is impossible to know for sure, whether Remainers would have mostly stuck with Labour, as they did in the 2017 election.
Now that the loss has happened, and Corbyn has announced his departure, it so frustrating that so many of these MPs, who pressured the leadership for a people's vote, are now blaming everything on the leader. But I guess, I should not be at all surprised. Their resentment for what Corbyn and the movement has done to the party, once again making it a party of peace and justice, rather than Blair's party of war and NHS privatization - 'Thatcher's greatest legacy' - was only deepening as time went by, and they are now jumping at the chance to condemn.
Of course, Corbyn should take some of the blame, but it needs to recognized that he was right in his desire to respect the referendum; his failing was that he backed down too easily, to the cries of the Blairites and the 'centrists'. That's my opinion, anyway. These people should have been kicked out of the party long ago. What is even more frustrating is that many of these foes of Corbyn are now blaming Labour's policies and the movement as a whole, for the loss, despite the incredible success in 2017. They are truly contemptible.
I don't know what to do now. My hope is gone. I hate this world. I wish I could go back to being ignorant; to not understanding the horrors of capitalism and imperialism. I try and forget about it all, but it can't be escaped. Life is politics. Everywhere you go, you see injustice; you see exploitation; you see the destructive irrationality of a system left to market forces. And it will only get worse now. An emboldened far-right. Increasing authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, etc. The media as rancid and more in service of the elite, than ever - their coverage of the election campaign was truly disturbed, even for them. An anti-racist attacked for being a racist. An actual racist, and bigot, homophobe, liar, thug, elitist, warmonger, mostly let off the hook.
Right now, I feel like we had our chance. But hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully the craven Labour centrists fail to retake the party, and the social movement that came so close in 2017, despite all the propaganda that it was up against, survives and grows, and a replacement leader with similar principles as Corbyn can be found. But, such informed, thoughtful, decent, dedidcated individuals are rare, especially in politics. And with a country so dominated by the rich, and their media, will it ever really be possible for us to elect someone like this? Given what is being done to the world by our government and ruling classes, to line their pockets - the oil wars, the installation and propping up of fascists from Saudi Arabia to Bolivia, the destruction of nature, etc - and given that this will only get worse under a hard-right Tory regime, we have a responsibility to keep trying.
What I find hardest is that many people just don't seem bothered. But I know I must remember, that most people don't have time to think; too overworked and underpaid, and subject to an unavoidable stream of corporate propaganda wherever they look. And I know, that thanks to these decades of neoliberalism, since Thatcher, hope has been lost. Thatcher's destruction of the very concept of society; her replacement of community with free market extremism; giving away all our power to transnational corporations, destroyed us. We should be one, but we've been separated, pitted against each other and forced to forget that one person's happiness rests on the happiness of all; unable to collectively resist the oppressive policies imposed by this corporate tyranny, as it privatises and exploits, and siphons away all our wealth to the top. It is this system, and the sense of hopelessness that it creates, which is at the root of all our problems today; the rise of the far-right, war, refugee crises, environmental destruction, mental health crisis, etc.
Following 40 years of this, there is little hope of change; most people seem either fully suckered by the false promise of individualistic happiness, or just unable to believe that government can be uncorrupt and actually do good; that it can actually be on our side, rather that on the side of the super rich and the corporations; that it can end and reverse all the horrors of the needless and deathly policy of 'austerity'; the homelessness and child poverty; that it can put people and planet before weapons sales and oil wars; that it can fight for climate justice, etc - we must instead leave everything to the billionaires.
Such an informed, dedicated and principled human rights champion as Jeremy Corbyn, who would have sought an end to the deviant exploitation and plunder that is unsurprisingly so prevalent in a world now run by profit-seeking corporations and billionaires, threatened the corporate powers that be like no other. And so he suffered the most evil character assassination, across all of the 'mainstream' media, from the Murdoch gutter press, to the Guardian and the BBC. Quite how he put up with it and stayed so calm and collected, is beyond me. Even when all of this goebelian propaganda led to a far-right thug punching him in the head earlier this year, he made no fuss.
In 2017, we came so close. Against all the odds, a truly leftist party promising a radical reversal of neoliberalism, and an agenda for peace on the world stage, came within 2,200 votes of winning an election, and achieved its highest increase in the vote 1945. By the end of that year, Labour were polling at 45%, to the Tories 37%. Where did it all go wrong? How did we come so close, and then lose so badly? Along with the vitriolic media, that only got worse since 2017, it was of course the increasing polarization around Brexit, and Labour's shift towards backing a second referendum, that caused it. In 2017, the party promised to respect the referendum result and seek a new deal. By this election, the party had reneged on that pledge.
Sadly, it seems the party was doomed from that moment; the moment it switched from seeking a soft Brexit, to backing the idea of a confirmatory vote. It seems many Brexit-supporting Labour voters in parts of the midlands, and the north - 'Labour's heartlands' - who have been ignored and exploited ever since Thatcher destroyed their communities, once again felt as though they were being deceived by a self-serving Westminster elite, and fled the party. The tragedy of it of course, is that Corbyn's radical Labour Party - with its pledges of mass investment in public services and communities, and its green industrial revolution - would have revitalized these areas and given them hope once again, whilst also converting our energy systems to renewables by 2030-35.
Of course, what is ultimately to blame for all of this is our media. I am no fan of the EU, but the right-wing press's incessant anti-EU propaganda over the years - because the billionaire/corporate owners of the media despise the modicum of social justice/environmental rights that the EU enforces - has been extreme. The EU, and the migration it enables, became the 'other', convincing many that it was that which is to blame for their struggles, not neoliberalism and those who impose it.
I can't claim to understand exactly how and why it was that Labour's Brexit position changed in-between 2017 and this election. The 'People's Vote' campaign, chaired by Roland Rudd, a staunch critic of Corbyn and his leftist ideology, was certainly a huge factor. Much of the PLP - the Blairites/centrists - who as is well known, have hated having Corbyn as their leader, signed up to the campaign. As did much of the Labour membership. In the end, the pressure was so great, that I'm not convinced the leadership could have resisted. But maybe they could have done, I don't know.
Although, if they hadn't shifted, perhaps they would have lost other seats to to the Liberal Democrats? It is impossible to know for sure, whether Remainers would have mostly stuck with Labour, as they did in the 2017 election.
Now that the loss has happened, and Corbyn has announced his departure, it so frustrating that so many of these MPs, who pressured the leadership for a people's vote, are now blaming everything on the leader. But I guess, I should not be at all surprised. Their resentment for what Corbyn and the movement has done to the party, once again making it a party of peace and justice, rather than Blair's party of war and NHS privatization - 'Thatcher's greatest legacy' - was only deepening as time went by, and they are now jumping at the chance to condemn.
Of course, Corbyn should take some of the blame, but it needs to recognized that he was right in his desire to respect the referendum; his failing was that he backed down too easily, to the cries of the Blairites and the 'centrists'. That's my opinion, anyway. These people should have been kicked out of the party long ago. What is even more frustrating is that many of these foes of Corbyn are now blaming Labour's policies and the movement as a whole, for the loss, despite the incredible success in 2017. They are truly contemptible.
I don't know what to do now. My hope is gone. I hate this world. I wish I could go back to being ignorant; to not understanding the horrors of capitalism and imperialism. I try and forget about it all, but it can't be escaped. Life is politics. Everywhere you go, you see injustice; you see exploitation; you see the destructive irrationality of a system left to market forces. And it will only get worse now. An emboldened far-right. Increasing authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, etc. The media as rancid and more in service of the elite, than ever - their coverage of the election campaign was truly disturbed, even for them. An anti-racist attacked for being a racist. An actual racist, and bigot, homophobe, liar, thug, elitist, warmonger, mostly let off the hook.
Right now, I feel like we had our chance. But hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully the craven Labour centrists fail to retake the party, and the social movement that came so close in 2017, despite all the propaganda that it was up against, survives and grows, and a replacement leader with similar principles as Corbyn can be found. But, such informed, thoughtful, decent, dedidcated individuals are rare, especially in politics. And with a country so dominated by the rich, and their media, will it ever really be possible for us to elect someone like this? Given what is being done to the world by our government and ruling classes, to line their pockets - the oil wars, the installation and propping up of fascists from Saudi Arabia to Bolivia, the destruction of nature, etc - and given that this will only get worse under a hard-right Tory regime, we have a responsibility to keep trying.
Tory Crackdown on Dissent, at Behest of Isreal?
Tory crackdown on dissent gets underway.
First, they announce they're targeting progressive media outlet, The Canary - because they dared to call out the disgusting weaponisation of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn/Labour.
Now, they announce they're planning on criminalizing BDS.
We must not support oppressed peoples in their fight for freedom! To do so is racist!
Corbyn’s Labour would’ve got us out of this Orwellian hell and actually supported the Palestinians in their struggle, rather than continued to back Israel’s barbarism.
And I guess this means the UK will have to cut ties with Ireland? The government there passed a law making goods from Israeli settlements illegal.
BDS is not antisemitic. The racists are those who oppose it.
First, they announce they're targeting progressive media outlet, The Canary - because they dared to call out the disgusting weaponisation of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn/Labour.
Now, they announce they're planning on criminalizing BDS.
We must not support oppressed peoples in their fight for freedom! To do so is racist!
Corbyn’s Labour would’ve got us out of this Orwellian hell and actually supported the Palestinians in their struggle, rather than continued to back Israel’s barbarism.
And I guess this means the UK will have to cut ties with Ireland? The government there passed a law making goods from Israeli settlements illegal.
BDS is not antisemitic. The racists are those who oppose it.
Media consistently dishonest - Labour did not lose because of their policies!
The extreme bias/dishonesty of much of the media is on display yet again.
‘Labour lost the election because nobody wants a leftist agenda’, they say.
Under Corbyn’s leadership, Labour came within 2,200 votes of winning in 2017, with the biggest vote share they’d had since 1945.
And by the end of 2017, Labour were polling 45%, Tories were on 37%.
Anyone trying to say Labour’s policies were’t popular and electable, is a liar. THEY are the extremists - they think Scandinavian-style social democracy is 'far left'. Absurd.
Why DID they lose the election? Brexit, and the polarisation that it created! Backing the second referendum that much of this same media insisted be backed!
‘Labour lost the election because nobody wants a leftist agenda’, they say.
Under Corbyn’s leadership, Labour came within 2,200 votes of winning in 2017, with the biggest vote share they’d had since 1945.
And by the end of 2017, Labour were polling 45%, Tories were on 37%.
Anyone trying to say Labour’s policies were’t popular and electable, is a liar. THEY are the extremists - they think Scandinavian-style social democracy is 'far left'. Absurd.
Why DID they lose the election? Brexit, and the polarisation that it created! Backing the second referendum that much of this same media insisted be backed!
Friday, 13 December 2019
Should we blame Corbyn for the loss?
The press will have put many, many people off voting Labour. It always does. It’s basically why it exists, to get the masses voting against their interests. And it’s even worse now, given that big change is needed - to address the climate crisis, reduce inequality, undo NHS privatisation, etc - which requires taking on the powerful interests whom these newspapers serve, like never before.
They’ve spent years attacking a lifelong anti-racist, man of peace, as a terrorist-loving, anti-Semite. The BBC fanned it all too, particularly during this election, whilst under-reporting the actual racism, bigotry, classism, deceit and authoritarianism of Boris Johnson and the rest of the Tories.
Despite all the usual propaganda, in the 2017 election, enough people saw through it and Labour managed to do surprisingly well. With a radical manifesto to take on those powerful interests, and with Corbyn as leader, they got the highest vote share they’ve had since 1945.
You cannot blame Labour’s ‘far left’ policies for their massive loss in this week’s election. They are popular, as demonstrated in 2017, (and as shown by polling).
You CAN put some blame on Corbyn, a. for not running as good a campaign as 2017, and b. for not resisting the media/PLP/Labour membership demands for a second referendum. This, clearly, was the main reason for their loss. Labour leavers, disillusioned following decades of neoliberal destruction of community/society, felt cheated and ignored once again, by a self-serving political elite in London.
But it would‘ve been an extremely big ask for Corbyn to have done this, and who knows, might even have resulted in him being removed as leader by the party.
And ultimately it might’ve resulted in an equally as poor result in an election, as many Labour Remainers would’ve abandoned the party.
There were no good options. Increasing polarisation around Brexit made things impossible for Labour. Personally, I’d put a lot of blame for this on the remainiac centrists. Their refusal to back any option other than a second referendum (which they’d probably have lost), was key to that polarisation.
Unlike them, Corbyn recognised the referendum result and thought the most responsible, realistic path forward was to respect it and seek a soft/customs union deal. He was attacked constantly by centrists for this.
If not for Lib Dem/Change UK opposition, the customs union proposal would’ve passed in Parliament back in April’s ‘indicative votes’. Had centrists backed Labour and their agenda for a soft Brexit, five more years of Tory rule, and a hard Brexit, might’ve been avoided.
That’s my general thoughts anyway. Happy to hear anyone out who wants to try and convince me I’ve got it all wrong. I don’t actually want to fight centrists - we need to unite. And that requires you come left; that you start acknowledging what decades of neoliberalism has done to the country, (and the world); that you realise what is at the root of this rise of the hard right.
They’ve spent years attacking a lifelong anti-racist, man of peace, as a terrorist-loving, anti-Semite. The BBC fanned it all too, particularly during this election, whilst under-reporting the actual racism, bigotry, classism, deceit and authoritarianism of Boris Johnson and the rest of the Tories.
Despite all the usual propaganda, in the 2017 election, enough people saw through it and Labour managed to do surprisingly well. With a radical manifesto to take on those powerful interests, and with Corbyn as leader, they got the highest vote share they’ve had since 1945.
You cannot blame Labour’s ‘far left’ policies for their massive loss in this week’s election. They are popular, as demonstrated in 2017, (and as shown by polling).
You CAN put some blame on Corbyn, a. for not running as good a campaign as 2017, and b. for not resisting the media/PLP/Labour membership demands for a second referendum. This, clearly, was the main reason for their loss. Labour leavers, disillusioned following decades of neoliberal destruction of community/society, felt cheated and ignored once again, by a self-serving political elite in London.
But it would‘ve been an extremely big ask for Corbyn to have done this, and who knows, might even have resulted in him being removed as leader by the party.
And ultimately it might’ve resulted in an equally as poor result in an election, as many Labour Remainers would’ve abandoned the party.
There were no good options. Increasing polarisation around Brexit made things impossible for Labour. Personally, I’d put a lot of blame for this on the remainiac centrists. Their refusal to back any option other than a second referendum (which they’d probably have lost), was key to that polarisation.
Unlike them, Corbyn recognised the referendum result and thought the most responsible, realistic path forward was to respect it and seek a soft/customs union deal. He was attacked constantly by centrists for this.
If not for Lib Dem/Change UK opposition, the customs union proposal would’ve passed in Parliament back in April’s ‘indicative votes’. Had centrists backed Labour and their agenda for a soft Brexit, five more years of Tory rule, and a hard Brexit, might’ve been avoided.
That’s my general thoughts anyway. Happy to hear anyone out who wants to try and convince me I’ve got it all wrong. I don’t actually want to fight centrists - we need to unite. And that requires you come left; that you start acknowledging what decades of neoliberalism has done to the country, (and the world); that you realise what is at the root of this rise of the hard right.
We forgot about the working class who'd been decimated by Thatcherism/Neoliberalism
On the face of it, holding a second referendum was a totally reasonable policy in my view, because the first was so ambiguous, and clearly led by the hard-right/racists. But it should have been recognised that voters, mainly in the midlands/north, who’ve had their communities destroyed and pretty much been ignored since Thatcher, would see this as yet another betrayal by the political elite in London.
This was not recognized by liberal centrists, either out of ignorance, or just an inability to recognize that it is their entire neoliberal ideology that is to blame.
Corbyn did recognise it. But he was backed into a corner, following a media campaign for a ‘people’s vote’, by those centrists, and backed by much of the PLP and Labour membership, (which was in part, just as much about removing him from power, as it was about stopping Brexit).
Could he have been a stronger leader and resisted it? I’m honestly not convinced that was possible, but perhaps. Either way, a big failure was to not put every effort into targeting those areas once the decision was made, to back the referendum. (Though I very much doubt any effort would’ve been enough).
Corbyn’s plan for some kind of soft Brexit was always the most responsible path forward. But that was denied by centrist/establishment campaign to not accept anything other than a 'people’s vote'.
This was not recognized by liberal centrists, either out of ignorance, or just an inability to recognize that it is their entire neoliberal ideology that is to blame.
Corbyn did recognise it. But he was backed into a corner, following a media campaign for a ‘people’s vote’, by those centrists, and backed by much of the PLP and Labour membership, (which was in part, just as much about removing him from power, as it was about stopping Brexit).
Could he have been a stronger leader and resisted it? I’m honestly not convinced that was possible, but perhaps. Either way, a big failure was to not put every effort into targeting those areas once the decision was made, to back the referendum. (Though I very much doubt any effort would’ve been enough).
Corbyn’s plan for some kind of soft Brexit was always the most responsible path forward. But that was denied by centrist/establishment campaign to not accept anything other than a 'people’s vote'.
I really care about democracy.
I really care about democracy.
That’s why I voted for a party that wants US corporations to control my country.
That’s why I voted for a party that arms and supports fascists all around the world.
That’s why I voted for a party that threatens dissenting media and imprisons journalists.
That’s why I voted for a party that supports an unelected, partially-hereditary House of Lords.
That’s why I voted for a party that detests unions.
That’s why I voted for party that will allow billionaires to continue stealing our wealth.
That’s why I voted for a party that will prevent 16 year olds getting the vote.
That’s why I voted for a party that despises human rights and equality.
That’s why I voted for a party that threatens the Supreme Court.
NB I have sympathy for working classes who felt done over yet again, by the political elite, denying their Brexit vote, but to then vote for a hard-right Tory government, that will screw them even more, when there was an opportunity for a Labour government and a green industrial revolution, is just so fucking sad.
That’s why I voted for a party that wants US corporations to control my country.
That’s why I voted for a party that arms and supports fascists all around the world.
That’s why I voted for a party that threatens dissenting media and imprisons journalists.
That’s why I voted for a party that supports an unelected, partially-hereditary House of Lords.
That’s why I voted for a party that detests unions.
That’s why I voted for party that will allow billionaires to continue stealing our wealth.
That’s why I voted for a party that will prevent 16 year olds getting the vote.
That’s why I voted for a party that despises human rights and equality.
That’s why I voted for a party that threatens the Supreme Court.
NB I have sympathy for working classes who felt done over yet again, by the political elite, denying their Brexit vote, but to then vote for a hard-right Tory government, that will screw them even more, when there was an opportunity for a Labour government and a green industrial revolution, is just so fucking sad.
Thursday, 12 December 2019
Thoughts re general election result
NEVER FORGET that in their extreme pro-Boris Johnson bias in this election (and before that), the BBC and the rest of the media, have played a massive role in fucking our future; empowering a racist, deceitful, warmongering, ecocidal thug as PM, and stopping us from having as PM a person with a fantastic record of peace and justice, who would've ushered in a green revolution.
Generally speaking, the current media system is, imo, the greatest enemy of humanity and the planet.
The BBC particularly, needs to be completely boycotted from today. Their pro-Tory/anti-Labour bias has been disgusting. Fascist enablers.
.....................
Unsurprisingly, the BBC and corporate media aren't mentioning the elephant in the room: the role of the media in this election.
When you have 99% of stories, 99% of the time, 99% negative about Labour and Corbyn, it has a negative impact.
We don't have a free press, we have billionaire-owned corporate press who poison the minds of millions.
- Sequoyah De Souza Vigneswaren
......................
To all middle class Tory voters - your annoyance at Labour for backing a second referendum, does not justify your support for a racist, ecocidal, deceitful, warmongering thug as PM.
You are all monstrously selfist, racist assholes.
Please go to hell.
......................
Some initial thoughts.
They will try to blame Corbyn as being "too left wing" but the data does not support that conclusion, on the contrary. In 2010 Brown got 29%, in 2015 Miliband got 30%, then in 2017 Corbyn got 40%. His policies are very popular.
If Labour's policies and leadership were largely the same between 2017 and 2019, what was the key difference that caused the defeat? Labour's Brexit policy.
The Tories knew this was a weakness, hence the "get Brexit done" mantra PR strategy.
In many leave seats it looks like enough Labour voters swung to the Brexit Party/Tories to cut through.
The trend in the data appears to show that the remainiacs insistence on Labour backing a second referendum has been a disaster.
- Sequoyah De Souza Vigneswaren
.....................
Labour leavers haven't voted Tory. They've stayed home. Because they're pissed that their democratic vote was ignored. Backing a second referendum was a huge mistake, but even if they hadn’t done that, we'd still have lost - because of the rancid pro-Tory MSM/BBC.
.....................
We allowed the right set the narrative re Brexit. Labour remainers should've accepted the ref result and immediately begun creating a left vision for exiting the EU. But this was difficult, given much of PLP had no intention of recognising the result, and given immense pressure from establishment for 2nd ref.
......................
It’s important we direct our anger at the manipulators, not the manipulated. Focus your ire at the media, not the working class.
.......................
Saying ‘if a centrist candidate had led Labour, they’d have won’, is not just moronically wrong, it’s also a giant ‘fuck you’ to the poor, to Yemen, to the climate.
.......................
Corbyn’s failing is that he’s too much of a pro-democracy, anti-racist, anti-war, informed, intelligent, man of the people. Such a person will never be allowed into Downing Street.
........................
If you‘d like to address climate change, end oil wars, end poverty, and reverse NHS privatisation, then the ‘extreme left’ is the only option. The Labour manifesto was our chance to focus on all these things, and like him or not, this would not have been the case if not for Corbyn’s leadership.
The ‘centre’ led us to where we are today. Decades of neoliberalism/austerity, led to increasing inequality and the destruction of community, making many people angry and easy targets of the far-right.
.........................
Corbyn is way too good for this deeply racist, rotten country. We’ve a helluva lot of waking up to do before someone as informed and decent as him stands a chance. And it’ll most likely be too late by then.
Generally speaking, the current media system is, imo, the greatest enemy of humanity and the planet.
The BBC particularly, needs to be completely boycotted from today. Their pro-Tory/anti-Labour bias has been disgusting. Fascist enablers.
.....................
Unsurprisingly, the BBC and corporate media aren't mentioning the elephant in the room: the role of the media in this election.
When you have 99% of stories, 99% of the time, 99% negative about Labour and Corbyn, it has a negative impact.
We don't have a free press, we have billionaire-owned corporate press who poison the minds of millions.
- Sequoyah De Souza Vigneswaren
......................
To all middle class Tory voters - your annoyance at Labour for backing a second referendum, does not justify your support for a racist, ecocidal, deceitful, warmongering thug as PM.
You are all monstrously selfist, racist assholes.
Please go to hell.
......................
Some initial thoughts.
They will try to blame Corbyn as being "too left wing" but the data does not support that conclusion, on the contrary. In 2010 Brown got 29%, in 2015 Miliband got 30%, then in 2017 Corbyn got 40%. His policies are very popular.
If Labour's policies and leadership were largely the same between 2017 and 2019, what was the key difference that caused the defeat? Labour's Brexit policy.
The Tories knew this was a weakness, hence the "get Brexit done" mantra PR strategy.
In many leave seats it looks like enough Labour voters swung to the Brexit Party/Tories to cut through.
The trend in the data appears to show that the remainiacs insistence on Labour backing a second referendum has been a disaster.
- Sequoyah De Souza Vigneswaren
.....................
Labour leavers haven't voted Tory. They've stayed home. Because they're pissed that their democratic vote was ignored. Backing a second referendum was a huge mistake, but even if they hadn’t done that, we'd still have lost - because of the rancid pro-Tory MSM/BBC.
.....................
We allowed the right set the narrative re Brexit. Labour remainers should've accepted the ref result and immediately begun creating a left vision for exiting the EU. But this was difficult, given much of PLP had no intention of recognising the result, and given immense pressure from establishment for 2nd ref.
......................
It’s important we direct our anger at the manipulators, not the manipulated. Focus your ire at the media, not the working class.
.......................
Saying ‘if a centrist candidate had led Labour, they’d have won’, is not just moronically wrong, it’s also a giant ‘fuck you’ to the poor, to Yemen, to the climate.
.......................
Corbyn’s failing is that he’s too much of a pro-democracy, anti-racist, anti-war, informed, intelligent, man of the people. Such a person will never be allowed into Downing Street.
........................
If you‘d like to address climate change, end oil wars, end poverty, and reverse NHS privatisation, then the ‘extreme left’ is the only option. The Labour manifesto was our chance to focus on all these things, and like him or not, this would not have been the case if not for Corbyn’s leadership.
The ‘centre’ led us to where we are today. Decades of neoliberalism/austerity, led to increasing inequality and the destruction of community, making many people angry and easy targets of the far-right.
.........................
Corbyn is way too good for this deeply racist, rotten country. We’ve a helluva lot of waking up to do before someone as informed and decent as him stands a chance. And it’ll most likely be too late by then.
.........................
Having someone as PM who actually understands how the world works and wants change, was the only thing giving me some hope for the future; for peace, justice, the environment. Have been in a state of shock all day. Crying now. Devastated. Our country is dominated by cunts, in the media etc. I imagine the Tories will be in power for the foreseeable. They’ll give enough people just enough to keep them happy, and the media will continue manufacturing consent for their increasing authoritarianism, their privatisation of the NHS, their subservience to the US, etc.
............................
The centrist, liberal establishment will always side with fascism when threatened by a bit of socialism. Liberal media’s vilification of Corbyn and general bias against Labour during this election campaign, again makes this clear.
............................
I’m sad for Yemen, for Palestine, for Venezuela, for Bolivia, etc. Ever since learning about how the world works, I’ve realised how important it is for a country like the UK, at the heart of the capitalist empire, to elect an anti-imperialist government. Corbyn was our chance.
.............................
It was centrists who backed austerity, which fuelled the anger that led to Brexit.
It was centrists who who prevented a customs union Brexit.
It was centralists who pushed for a people’s vote, the thing most responsible for Labour’s loss.
Now these centrists seem to think they have a right to take back the party.
Completely bananas.
.........................
Thatcher/Reagan, and the elite class they served, are ultimately responsible for all the shit happening today.
You can’t destroy the whole notion of society/community, then expect anything other than division and hell.
.........................
That centrists have decided Scandinavia-style economics are ‘extremist’ exposes them once again as the true extremists!
.........................
Under Corbyn’s leadership, Labour came within 2,200 votes of winning in 2017, with the biggest vote share they’d had since 1945.
Anyone trying to say Labour’s economic (and foreign) policies were’t popular and electable, is a liar. THEY are the extremists.
What changed since then? Brexit polarisation (largely caused by Remainer refusal to recognise the ref), an even more intense and horrid propaganda campaign, and yeah - failings by the leadership/movement. Unfortunately, it seems Labour was done for the moment they started blocking Brexit.
........................
End of 2017, Labour were polling 45%, Tories were on 37%.
Don't let anyone try and say that Labour's policy agenda under Corbyn wasn't popular!!
.......................
Chair of the ‘People’s Vote’ campaign, and brother of Amber, Roland Rudd, got his wish. Corbyn toppled. The PV campaign was an establishment hit job against Corbyn/the left, from the off.
.......................
Crackdown on dissent begins.
......................
Corbyn’s main problem was that he’s not a dick. Too fair. Too kind. Too truthful. Too ‘unpatriotic’. Too anti-racist.
He dared to condemn the Empire, and all the heinous criminality of the British state since. Not allowed!
Despite this, Labour did well under him in 2017. Perhaps many voters just weren’t fully aware of his anti-war record by then?
.......................
Many of us tried to explain to pro-second referendum Remainers that ignoring the ref result would piss off Labour leavers and cock up any hope of Labour winning an election.
We warned that if we didn’t back a soft Brexit, we would end up with a hard Brexit.
It fell on deaf ears.
We were right, but I bloody wish we weren’t. 😔
Lesson? Never listen to liberals/'centrists'.
.........................
Were many Leave voters not actually voting to Leave - they were really just voting to make their government actually do what they’re asked, for a change?
........................
On the face of it, holding a second referendum was a totally reasonable policy in my view, because the first was so ambiguous, but it should have been recognised that voters, mainly in the midlands/north, who’ve had their communities destroyed and pretty been ignored since Thatcher, would see this as yet another betrayal by the political elite in London.
This was not recognised by the centre, either out of ignorance, or just an inability to recognise that it is their entire centrist neoliberal ideology that was to blame.
Corbyn did recognise it. But he was backed into a corner, following a media campaign for ‘people’s vote’, by those centrists, and backed by much of the PLP and Labour membership, (which was in part, just as much about removing him from power, as it was about stopping Brexit).
Could he have been a stronger leader and resisted it? I’m honestly not convinced that was possible, but perhaps. Either way, the failure was to not put every effort into targeting those areas once the decision was made, to back the referendum. (Though I doubt any effort would’ve been enough).
Corbyn’s plan for some kind of soft Brexit was always the most responsible path forward. But that was denied by centrist/establishment campaign to not accept anything other than a people’s vote.
This would all be very different imo, if we had a media that was focussed on informing people, that made clear to all voters in those areas Corbyn’s record of sticking up for the rights of ordinary people, and Labour’s plans for Green revolution which would revitalised these areas and created loads of jobs. But alas.
........................
We need to separate the previously Labour-voting working classes who’ve been done over by politicians for decades, felt done over again by calls for a second referendum, and so voted, however misguidedly, to ‘get Brexit done’, from middle class southerners who would have voted for Boris Johnson either way, and now do so on pretense of democracy/‘getting Brexit done’, even though Boris Johnson is an anti-democratic disgrace who wants to sell what’s left of our country to US corporations, who supports fascism around the world, who wants to suppress votes, who threatens media, who imprisons journalists, who supports hereditary House of Lords, etc.
........................
Witnessing the horrific, Orwellian media vilification of Jeremy Corbyn sure makes you wonder what/who else we’ve been lied to about over the years. Especially pre-internet, when there was no way for us to debunk the lies.
.......................
.........................
Thatcher/Reagan, and the elite class they served, are ultimately responsible for all the shit happening today.
You can’t destroy the whole notion of society/community, then expect anything other than division and hell.
.........................
That centrists have decided Scandinavia-style economics are ‘extremist’ exposes them once again as the true extremists!
.........................
Under Corbyn’s leadership, Labour came within 2,200 votes of winning in 2017, with the biggest vote share they’d had since 1945.
Anyone trying to say Labour’s economic (and foreign) policies were’t popular and electable, is a liar. THEY are the extremists.
What changed since then? Brexit polarisation (largely caused by Remainer refusal to recognise the ref), an even more intense and horrid propaganda campaign, and yeah - failings by the leadership/movement. Unfortunately, it seems Labour was done for the moment they started blocking Brexit.
........................
End of 2017, Labour were polling 45%, Tories were on 37%.
Don't let anyone try and say that Labour's policy agenda under Corbyn wasn't popular!!
.......................
Chair of the ‘People’s Vote’ campaign, and brother of Amber, Roland Rudd, got his wish. Corbyn toppled. The PV campaign was an establishment hit job against Corbyn/the left, from the off.
.......................
Crackdown on dissent begins.
......................
Corbyn’s main problem was that he’s not a dick. Too fair. Too kind. Too truthful. Too ‘unpatriotic’. Too anti-racist.
He dared to condemn the Empire, and all the heinous criminality of the British state since. Not allowed!
Despite this, Labour did well under him in 2017. Perhaps many voters just weren’t fully aware of his anti-war record by then?
.......................
Many of us tried to explain to pro-second referendum Remainers that ignoring the ref result would piss off Labour leavers and cock up any hope of Labour winning an election.
We warned that if we didn’t back a soft Brexit, we would end up with a hard Brexit.
It fell on deaf ears.
We were right, but I bloody wish we weren’t. 😔
Lesson? Never listen to liberals/'centrists'.
.........................
Were many Leave voters not actually voting to Leave - they were really just voting to make their government actually do what they’re asked, for a change?
........................
This was not recognised by the centre, either out of ignorance, or just an inability to recognise that it is their entire centrist neoliberal ideology that was to blame.
Corbyn did recognise it. But he was backed into a corner, following a media campaign for ‘people’s vote’, by those centrists, and backed by much of the PLP and Labour membership, (which was in part, just as much about removing him from power, as it was about stopping Brexit).
Could he have been a stronger leader and resisted it? I’m honestly not convinced that was possible, but perhaps. Either way, the failure was to not put every effort into targeting those areas once the decision was made, to back the referendum. (Though I doubt any effort would’ve been enough).
Corbyn’s plan for some kind of soft Brexit was always the most responsible path forward. But that was denied by centrist/establishment campaign to not accept anything other than a people’s vote.
This would all be very different imo, if we had a media that was focussed on informing people, that made clear to all voters in those areas Corbyn’s record of sticking up for the rights of ordinary people, and Labour’s plans for Green revolution which would revitalised these areas and created loads of jobs. But alas.
........................
We need to separate the previously Labour-voting working classes who’ve been done over by politicians for decades, felt done over again by calls for a second referendum, and so voted, however misguidedly, to ‘get Brexit done’, from middle class southerners who would have voted for Boris Johnson either way, and now do so on pretense of democracy/‘getting Brexit done’, even though Boris Johnson is an anti-democratic disgrace who wants to sell what’s left of our country to US corporations, who supports fascism around the world, who wants to suppress votes, who threatens media, who imprisons journalists, who supports hereditary House of Lords, etc.
........................
Witnessing the horrific, Orwellian media vilification of Jeremy Corbyn sure makes you wonder what/who else we’ve been lied to about over the years. Especially pre-internet, when there was no way for us to debunk the lies.
.......................
Labour Failure - who's to blame?
It's important to note that, as leftists have been saying for years now - centrism has definitely collapsed. These election results again make this clear - along with Labour, the Liberal Democrats have done very badly. Sadly, the centre has been replaced by a far-right that offers easy, and false/racist, answers to our problems. The left has been unable to counter that.
Labour's poor result is largely down to Labour leavers punishing them (in the midlands/north) - for backing a second referendum. It's going to be extremely frustrating, and just downright ridiculous, if centrists start blaming that on Corbyn. Will they ever wake up?
It is these centrists who helped alienate those voters, via decades of neoliberalism, and by refusing to acknowledge this collapse of centrism. By immediately rejecting the EU vote and insisting it was illegitimate, and by insinuating that all leavers, including the millions of Labour leavers, were all racists, rather than recognizing that firstly, that is not true (for many Labour leavers at least), and that secondly, those who are racist/xenophobic, are largely that way, because of centrist, neoliberal policy, which screwed over their lives and made them easy targets of the far-right, these centrists have been an incredibly negative influence over the party.
I was on the fence about backing the second referendum, precisely because of the risk of losing these voters, but I think really, Brexit just made things impossible for Labour. Corbyn clearly didn't want to support it, but he's a democrat, and that's what the party wanted. And obviously, the pressure from outside the party - from liberal media/pundits, Lib Dems, etc - was insane. And if they hadn't backed it, that also would have have had negative consequences, as some remainers would have fled. I always felt that Labour's position of not backing either side, but of trying to bring the country together, seemed the best of a bad bunch of options. In backing a second referendum, they pretty much abandoned that position, even with Jeremy's insistence on, personally, staying neutral.
The fear of Brexit, and the desire to prevent it, was and is obviously entirely reasonable, but it looks as though there should have been much more of a recognition of the EU result, from Remainers.
Brexit - the greatest gift to the ruling classes ever!
Saying all this, if we actually had a media that hadn't spent years attacking the anti-racist, man of peace, Jeremy Corbyn, and had instead attacked Boris Johnson - the actual racist; if it had made clear that the Tories are already privatizing the NHS, and have no interest in addressing climate change; and made clear that Labour would've ended that privatization, and that their plans for the environment were backed by climate scientists, and necessary to create a sustainable future; if it had made clear the dire consequences of a Tory Brexit - then, despite all the divisions caused by Brexit, the result would have been very different, I'd hope.
The fight must continue, or else the future is incredibly bleak for all of us. Neoliberalism has destroyed us, in so many ways. Centrists need to come left and join the socialist movement, if there is to be any hope.
Labour's poor result is largely down to Labour leavers punishing them (in the midlands/north) - for backing a second referendum. It's going to be extremely frustrating, and just downright ridiculous, if centrists start blaming that on Corbyn. Will they ever wake up?
It is these centrists who helped alienate those voters, via decades of neoliberalism, and by refusing to acknowledge this collapse of centrism. By immediately rejecting the EU vote and insisting it was illegitimate, and by insinuating that all leavers, including the millions of Labour leavers, were all racists, rather than recognizing that firstly, that is not true (for many Labour leavers at least), and that secondly, those who are racist/xenophobic, are largely that way, because of centrist, neoliberal policy, which screwed over their lives and made them easy targets of the far-right, these centrists have been an incredibly negative influence over the party.
I was on the fence about backing the second referendum, precisely because of the risk of losing these voters, but I think really, Brexit just made things impossible for Labour. Corbyn clearly didn't want to support it, but he's a democrat, and that's what the party wanted. And obviously, the pressure from outside the party - from liberal media/pundits, Lib Dems, etc - was insane. And if they hadn't backed it, that also would have have had negative consequences, as some remainers would have fled. I always felt that Labour's position of not backing either side, but of trying to bring the country together, seemed the best of a bad bunch of options. In backing a second referendum, they pretty much abandoned that position, even with Jeremy's insistence on, personally, staying neutral.
The fear of Brexit, and the desire to prevent it, was and is obviously entirely reasonable, but it looks as though there should have been much more of a recognition of the EU result, from Remainers.
Brexit - the greatest gift to the ruling classes ever!
Saying all this, if we actually had a media that hadn't spent years attacking the anti-racist, man of peace, Jeremy Corbyn, and had instead attacked Boris Johnson - the actual racist; if it had made clear that the Tories are already privatizing the NHS, and have no interest in addressing climate change; and made clear that Labour would've ended that privatization, and that their plans for the environment were backed by climate scientists, and necessary to create a sustainable future; if it had made clear the dire consequences of a Tory Brexit - then, despite all the divisions caused by Brexit, the result would have been very different, I'd hope.
The fight must continue, or else the future is incredibly bleak for all of us. Neoliberalism has destroyed us, in so many ways. Centrists need to come left and join the socialist movement, if there is to be any hope.
If Labour lose, don't let blame Jeremy Corbyn
If there’s a disappointing result for Labour today, there will be lots of people (centrists) blaming Jeremy Corbyn, but I fail to see how this will be justifiable. Of course, he is not perfect (who is?), but for sure, he‘s the most down-to-earth, decent, principled politician to have come this close to becoming PM, maybe ever? The man has dedicated his life to fighting for the rights of ordinary people, and spends his spare time volunteering at homeless shelters. He's pretty awesome. And he has really been quite amazing in putting up with an onslaught of attacks for 4 years, from the media, and also physical - he was punched in the head by a far-right thug earlier this year.
The problem for Labour is not Jeremy, without whose determined, democratic leadership, there would be no radical manifesto to address poverty, war, climate change, NHS privatisation, etc - the main problem is that our country is dominated by an oligarchy who profit off all that, and who have the power to keep making it work in their interests, using media to get the underpaid and overworked to vote against their interests.
Whatever happens, unless you believe in making compromises when it comes to the climate crisis, war, ending homelessness/poverty, etc, there’s no choice but to continue building the movement for change. Thanks to decades of neoliberalism, there’s extreme cynicism at the possibility of change; of creating a society for the many. We’ll have to keep fighting to make people see that another world is possible.
There can be no return to centrism, which fuelled the far-right, and enabled all the capitalist destruction; the war, the ecocide. With a potential hard right Brexit on the way, a radical movement in opposition will be needed more than ever.
If Labour do badly in today's election thanks to Labour leavers punishing them (for backing a second referendum), then the only possible criticism of Corbyn, in my opinion, is that he should have resisted backing that second referendum. But given the IMMENSE pressure on him to do so, and given that he is a total democrat, it would have been impossible for him to get the party to oppose it. And if this is the case, it is going to be extremely frustrating if Labour centrists start blaming it on Corbyn. It is those centrists who alienated those voters via decades of neoliberalism, and then by immediately rejecting their EU vote, and insinuating that they're all a bunch of racist morons.
(Hopefully I’m being pessimistic, and we get a good result later!).
The problem for Labour is not Jeremy, without whose determined, democratic leadership, there would be no radical manifesto to address poverty, war, climate change, NHS privatisation, etc - the main problem is that our country is dominated by an oligarchy who profit off all that, and who have the power to keep making it work in their interests, using media to get the underpaid and overworked to vote against their interests.
Whatever happens, unless you believe in making compromises when it comes to the climate crisis, war, ending homelessness/poverty, etc, there’s no choice but to continue building the movement for change. Thanks to decades of neoliberalism, there’s extreme cynicism at the possibility of change; of creating a society for the many. We’ll have to keep fighting to make people see that another world is possible.
There can be no return to centrism, which fuelled the far-right, and enabled all the capitalist destruction; the war, the ecocide. With a potential hard right Brexit on the way, a radical movement in opposition will be needed more than ever.
If Labour do badly in today's election thanks to Labour leavers punishing them (for backing a second referendum), then the only possible criticism of Corbyn, in my opinion, is that he should have resisted backing that second referendum. But given the IMMENSE pressure on him to do so, and given that he is a total democrat, it would have been impossible for him to get the party to oppose it. And if this is the case, it is going to be extremely frustrating if Labour centrists start blaming it on Corbyn. It is those centrists who alienated those voters via decades of neoliberalism, and then by immediately rejecting their EU vote, and insinuating that they're all a bunch of racist morons.
(Hopefully I’m being pessimistic, and we get a good result later!).
Tuesday, 10 December 2019
Good vs Evil. Media sides with Evil
This election is a very clear case of good vs evil. An anti-racist vs a racist. A man of the people vs an elitist. Environmentalism vs environmental vandalism. Peace vs war. Healthcare for all vs healthcare for some. Hope and love vs fear and hate. Anti-fascism vs neo-fascism.
Has this been the general depiction of things in the media? Hell no.
This is no time for ‘balanced reporting’, but even worse, the media has - mostly by their omissions/framing - been overwhelmingly on the side of evil.
We are likely to be fucked until enough people see MSM for the elite propaganda machine that it is.
Has this been the general depiction of things in the media? Hell no.
This is no time for ‘balanced reporting’, but even worse, the media has - mostly by their omissions/framing - been overwhelmingly on the side of evil.
We are likely to be fucked until enough people see MSM for the elite propaganda machine that it is.
Sunday, 8 December 2019
We need a Labour government to undo decades of centrist choas
'Centrists' who say that the left is just as 'extreme' as the right, and thus in some way comparable with fascism, are in denial about what 'centrism' has done to the world, and about the fact that it is 'centrist' neoliberalism that has and is fueling that fascism. Left 'extremism' (i.e. common sense socialism), is the only way it will be defeated.
So-called 'centrism', with its oil wars, its NHS privatization, its mass exploitation of workers, its ecocide for profit, it’s extreme inequality, it's mass redistribution of wealth and power from the many to the few, and it's literal direct support for fascism around the world, is, along with the Farages and Trumps, extremely extreme! The overt far-right that is now on the rise in the west, is just us reaping what has been sown.
The only reason we have an ounce of decency in society is because of collective socialist resistance to capitalism. But this decency has gradually been eroded. Neoliberalism, beginning under Thatcher/Reagan, with its insistance that we focus on the individual rather than on the collective and the communal, destroyed our ability to resist capital; we increasingly became disconnected, mindless money makers/consumers; too distracted and overworked to resist the system being imposed from above.
This enabled capital to run riot; resulting in the wars, the ecocide, the exploitation, the inequality...
We desperately need to undo decades of neoliberalism and regain democratic, collective control over society, away from the unaccountable corporations and billionaires; from the exploiters. It is our only hope for addressing all the above - and for addressing the capitalism-fuelled environmental crisis.
We need a sensible mixed economy, with key industries nationalized, a focus on redistributing power in corporations, the encouragement of cooperatives, and a truly representative, uncorrupt government putting people and planet before profit; a progressive social democracy really. This is what the Labour manifesto calls for.
And of most imminent importance in my opinion - we need to stop the imperialist, for-profit foreign policy (100,000 dead in Yemen so far), and begin making amends for the historical and present day crimes of the British state.
So-called 'centrism', with its oil wars, its NHS privatization, its mass exploitation of workers, its ecocide for profit, it’s extreme inequality, it's mass redistribution of wealth and power from the many to the few, and it's literal direct support for fascism around the world, is, along with the Farages and Trumps, extremely extreme! The overt far-right that is now on the rise in the west, is just us reaping what has been sown.
The only reason we have an ounce of decency in society is because of collective socialist resistance to capitalism. But this decency has gradually been eroded. Neoliberalism, beginning under Thatcher/Reagan, with its insistance that we focus on the individual rather than on the collective and the communal, destroyed our ability to resist capital; we increasingly became disconnected, mindless money makers/consumers; too distracted and overworked to resist the system being imposed from above.
This enabled capital to run riot; resulting in the wars, the ecocide, the exploitation, the inequality...
We desperately need to undo decades of neoliberalism and regain democratic, collective control over society, away from the unaccountable corporations and billionaires; from the exploiters. It is our only hope for addressing all the above - and for addressing the capitalism-fuelled environmental crisis.
We need a sensible mixed economy, with key industries nationalized, a focus on redistributing power in corporations, the encouragement of cooperatives, and a truly representative, uncorrupt government putting people and planet before profit; a progressive social democracy really. This is what the Labour manifesto calls for.
And of most imminent importance in my opinion - we need to stop the imperialist, for-profit foreign policy (100,000 dead in Yemen so far), and begin making amends for the historical and present day crimes of the British state.
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
Corbyn a bad leader? And who will be responsible if Labour lose the election?
They say Corbyn is a rubbish leader, but the man has overseen the reinvigoration of the Labour party back to its roots, away from the Blairite warmongers and corporatists, resulting in a fantastic manifesto focussed on the interests of ordinary people, and the environment.
And he has achieved all this whilst under constant attack from the media, security services, and much of the PLP. That he has managed to remain relatively calm and composed through it all, is quite amazing, if you ask me. (Imagine having millions of people thinking you’re a terrorist-loving, antisemite!).
As for criticising Labour’s approach to Brexit - they have had an impossible dilemma.
There are millions of Leave voters who voted Labour in the 2017 general election. Rejecting the referendum result and campaigning for a ‘people’s vote’, was always going to mean potentially losing these voters, and thus likely would mean losing many seats (in the north of England) to the Tories/Brexit Party.
And on the other side, refusing to support a second referendum, would’ve pushed many Labour Remainers to the Lib Dems. (Or so we are told - this didn’t actually happen in the 2017 election, when Labour were promising to respect the referendum).
The compromise approach they’ve taken - to seek a new exit deal with the EU, then put that forward in a second referendum vs Remain, with Corbyn staying neutral, is seen by many as the best of several bad options, as they try desperately to keep both sides happy. But if the polls are accurate, it looks as though those Labour leavers are, as expected, planning on punishing them.
If Labour lose the election next week partly thanks to losing those pro-Leave seats, the 'centrist' establishment, and their media, will obviously blame it all on Corbyn, but really it is they who should take much of the blame - for refusing to recognize that it is ‘centrist’ neoliberalism that created the conditions that led to support for Brexit, and then for simplistically blaming that support on far-right xenophobia/racism - rather than looking at the root cause of that xenophobia. Their calling for the referendum to be scrapped; for Leave voters to be ignored, rather than calling for a reckoning as to how we got here, has always been very short-sighted.
Labour Leavers might be misguided in blaming most of their problems on the EU, but screaming ‘you’re a bunch of idiots and racists’ at them, and seeking to overturn their vote, isn’t exactly going to help change their minds.
One can argue that Corbyn will be to blame, but not for the reasons centrists will say - they will say it is because he is a useless leader who should have made clear that he would back Remain in a second referendum, and that this somehow would’ve miraculously persuaded a bunch of Tory Remainers to vote for socialism - ridiculous. (And of course, they will also say that it is because he isn't personally likable - despite him, by any objective measure, being the most decent, honest, human, uncorrupt potential PM we have had in a very long time, maybe ever).
No, instead, it could be argued on the grounds that it was his backing of a second referendum that did it. But it is hard to blame Corbyn for this, given the immense pressure for a second referendum, and given that it was voted for at Labour conference. The blame should surely be directed mostly at pro-EU fanatics, and the neoliberal establishment/media, who refused to recognize the situation we found ourselves in after the referendum, and seek compromise, and many of whom still refuse to recognize the root cause of all this chaos - decades of neoliberalism - and refuse to recognize the need for a socialistic government to address that root cause.
It is Brexit, and the reactions to it - not really Jeremy Corbyn - that may well have scuppered our chance at having a radical government that would undo decades of neoliberal inequality/poverty/disempowerment etc, and usher in a period of mass investment in public services and poverty alleviation, and a green revolution.
(But hopefully the polls are wrong/can be changed - vote Labour!).
And he has achieved all this whilst under constant attack from the media, security services, and much of the PLP. That he has managed to remain relatively calm and composed through it all, is quite amazing, if you ask me. (Imagine having millions of people thinking you’re a terrorist-loving, antisemite!).
As for criticising Labour’s approach to Brexit - they have had an impossible dilemma.
There are millions of Leave voters who voted Labour in the 2017 general election. Rejecting the referendum result and campaigning for a ‘people’s vote’, was always going to mean potentially losing these voters, and thus likely would mean losing many seats (in the north of England) to the Tories/Brexit Party.
And on the other side, refusing to support a second referendum, would’ve pushed many Labour Remainers to the Lib Dems. (Or so we are told - this didn’t actually happen in the 2017 election, when Labour were promising to respect the referendum).
The compromise approach they’ve taken - to seek a new exit deal with the EU, then put that forward in a second referendum vs Remain, with Corbyn staying neutral, is seen by many as the best of several bad options, as they try desperately to keep both sides happy. But if the polls are accurate, it looks as though those Labour leavers are, as expected, planning on punishing them.
If Labour lose the election next week partly thanks to losing those pro-Leave seats, the 'centrist' establishment, and their media, will obviously blame it all on Corbyn, but really it is they who should take much of the blame - for refusing to recognize that it is ‘centrist’ neoliberalism that created the conditions that led to support for Brexit, and then for simplistically blaming that support on far-right xenophobia/racism - rather than looking at the root cause of that xenophobia. Their calling for the referendum to be scrapped; for Leave voters to be ignored, rather than calling for a reckoning as to how we got here, has always been very short-sighted.
Labour Leavers might be misguided in blaming most of their problems on the EU, but screaming ‘you’re a bunch of idiots and racists’ at them, and seeking to overturn their vote, isn’t exactly going to help change their minds.
One can argue that Corbyn will be to blame, but not for the reasons centrists will say - they will say it is because he is a useless leader who should have made clear that he would back Remain in a second referendum, and that this somehow would’ve miraculously persuaded a bunch of Tory Remainers to vote for socialism - ridiculous. (And of course, they will also say that it is because he isn't personally likable - despite him, by any objective measure, being the most decent, honest, human, uncorrupt potential PM we have had in a very long time, maybe ever).
No, instead, it could be argued on the grounds that it was his backing of a second referendum that did it. But it is hard to blame Corbyn for this, given the immense pressure for a second referendum, and given that it was voted for at Labour conference. The blame should surely be directed mostly at pro-EU fanatics, and the neoliberal establishment/media, who refused to recognize the situation we found ourselves in after the referendum, and seek compromise, and many of whom still refuse to recognize the root cause of all this chaos - decades of neoliberalism - and refuse to recognize the need for a socialistic government to address that root cause.
It is Brexit, and the reactions to it - not really Jeremy Corbyn - that may well have scuppered our chance at having a radical government that would undo decades of neoliberal inequality/poverty/disempowerment etc, and usher in a period of mass investment in public services and poverty alleviation, and a green revolution.
(But hopefully the polls are wrong/can be changed - vote Labour!).
Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Chief Rabbi Condemns Labour
Britain's Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, has said that Corbyn-led Labour is a threat to Jews.
This man has previously stated, during the 2014 Israeli bombing of Gaza, that killed 2,250 Palestinians:
‘Israel has no choice but to use force in Gaza'.
Corbyn‘s Labour Party would recognise the Palestinian state and stand in solidarity with Palestinians as they resist brutal Israeli aggression/expansion. It would put an end to U.K. arms sales to the Israeli regime, thus hindering their ability to use the murderous ‘force’ that Mirvis thinks is so necessary.
So it is hardly a surprise that he isn’t a fan.
Mirvis has previously congratulated Boris Johnson—the most openly racist Prime Minister in recent times—upon his election as leader of the Conservative Party.
All stats indicate, unsurprisingly, that racism of all kinds, is far more prevalent in the Tory Party than in the Labour Party, (and I imagine this will have increased since Johnson became leader).
Of course there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, as there is in all parts of society, and it should always be fought, but that there has been an ‘antisemitism crisis’ since Corbyn became leader, is a total media creation.
YouGov data indicates that antisemitism in the party has actually reduced since Corbyn became leader. And it is less prevalent in Labour than in wider society.
Under the leadership of a lifelong anti-racist, Labour is now more of an anti-racist party than it has ever been. And racists can't stand it.
This man has previously stated, during the 2014 Israeli bombing of Gaza, that killed 2,250 Palestinians:
‘Israel has no choice but to use force in Gaza'.
Corbyn‘s Labour Party would recognise the Palestinian state and stand in solidarity with Palestinians as they resist brutal Israeli aggression/expansion. It would put an end to U.K. arms sales to the Israeli regime, thus hindering their ability to use the murderous ‘force’ that Mirvis thinks is so necessary.
So it is hardly a surprise that he isn’t a fan.
Mirvis has previously congratulated Boris Johnson—the most openly racist Prime Minister in recent times—upon his election as leader of the Conservative Party.
All stats indicate, unsurprisingly, that racism of all kinds, is far more prevalent in the Tory Party than in the Labour Party, (and I imagine this will have increased since Johnson became leader).
Of course there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, as there is in all parts of society, and it should always be fought, but that there has been an ‘antisemitism crisis’ since Corbyn became leader, is a total media creation.
YouGov data indicates that antisemitism in the party has actually reduced since Corbyn became leader. And it is less prevalent in Labour than in wider society.
Under the leadership of a lifelong anti-racist, Labour is now more of an anti-racist party than it has ever been. And racists can't stand it.
Sunday, 24 November 2019
Hong Kong - what is the solution?
Having been colonised by the British Empire 150+ years ago, and thus raised in a western ‘culture’, the majority of Hong Kongers (57% vs 41% according to these elections) clearly prefer western neoliberal rule, to the prospect of living under China’s system. (And, from what I've seen of the protests, it seems that many are discriminatory, and sometimes extremely violent, towards mainlanders; and openly supportive of far-right western leaders, like Trump).
The US/UK and allies have long been backing the 'pro-democracy', anti-mainland China movement in Hong Kong, via NED funding, and now via the passing of the 'Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act', in US Congress.
To what extent this effort has fueled the movement, and the fear of reintegration with China, is impossible to know. But for sure, the west has a long track record of engineering this kind of thing - and it does seem odd that they hate mainland China so much, but love the west, despite the fact that it is the west that has imposed an exploitative, neoliberal system on them which has resulted in the same kind of grievances there, as in any other neoliberal state - for example, there is only 50% homeownership, (compared to 90% in China).
Obviously, western foreign policy has very little to do with protecting and advancing human rights - any country not under the control of western capitalists, is a target for regime change, for purposes of exploitation and profiteering. Ultimately, they'd like to see the Chinese government toppled, just like they do the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Venezuelan government, etc, so that neoliberal puppet governments can be installed, to privatize resources, for the benefit of western corporations.
They are simply using Hong Kongers in their hybrid war against China, (and to protect their financial interests in Hong Kong itself).
What is the solution here?
There is surely no possibility that China will ever allow self-determination. This will enable the continuation and expansion of western influence over the islands.
So, it seems likely that what will happen is that the west will continue to meddle, in support of the 'pro-democracy' movement, and the situation will become increasingly tense, between east and west - between nuclear armed powers.
Surely the only peaceful solution is for the west to offer full citizenship rights to all Hong Kongers who oppose reintegration with China, so that they have the option of re-locating to the west?
In my view, this is what we should be demanding from our governments. We should surely NOT be demanding that they interfere in Hong Kong/Chinese affairs even more than they already are - we must strongly oppose this, because it potentially puts us on a path to catastrophe.
The US/UK and allies have long been backing the 'pro-democracy', anti-mainland China movement in Hong Kong, via NED funding, and now via the passing of the 'Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act', in US Congress.
To what extent this effort has fueled the movement, and the fear of reintegration with China, is impossible to know. But for sure, the west has a long track record of engineering this kind of thing - and it does seem odd that they hate mainland China so much, but love the west, despite the fact that it is the west that has imposed an exploitative, neoliberal system on them which has resulted in the same kind of grievances there, as in any other neoliberal state - for example, there is only 50% homeownership, (compared to 90% in China).
Obviously, western foreign policy has very little to do with protecting and advancing human rights - any country not under the control of western capitalists, is a target for regime change, for purposes of exploitation and profiteering. Ultimately, they'd like to see the Chinese government toppled, just like they do the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Venezuelan government, etc, so that neoliberal puppet governments can be installed, to privatize resources, for the benefit of western corporations.
They are simply using Hong Kongers in their hybrid war against China, (and to protect their financial interests in Hong Kong itself).
What is the solution here?
There is surely no possibility that China will ever allow self-determination. This will enable the continuation and expansion of western influence over the islands.
So, it seems likely that what will happen is that the west will continue to meddle, in support of the 'pro-democracy' movement, and the situation will become increasingly tense, between east and west - between nuclear armed powers.
Surely the only peaceful solution is for the west to offer full citizenship rights to all Hong Kongers who oppose reintegration with China, so that they have the option of re-locating to the west?
In my view, this is what we should be demanding from our governments. We should surely NOT be demanding that they interfere in Hong Kong/Chinese affairs even more than they already are - we must strongly oppose this, because it potentially puts us on a path to catastrophe.
Saturday, 23 November 2019
Russiagate Comes to the UK
Boris Johnson has previously argued in favor of EU sanctions against Russia, and compared the World Cup in Russia (in 2018) to Hitler's 1936 Olympics.
But now, the media is suggesting that he is ‘Putin’s puppet’.
Please god can we not bring the deranged Russiagate conspiracy theory to the UK?
Sure, the ‘Russia report’ should be released.
But chances are, it involves corruption with anti-Putin Russian elites - the oligarchs who became extortionately rich and powerful in the 90s after the west imposed neoliberal shock therapy on Russia, and who were then tamed/prosecuted when Putin came to power.
And the constant insinuation that all corruption emanates from Russia is absurd, and Russophobic.
There’s loads of powerful people who want Russia to be our enemy, for all kinds of reasons - none of them good. Yes, Tory corruption should obviously be made public, but let’s just be careful not to encourage the new cold war and push us closer to nuclear catastrophe!
But now, the media is suggesting that he is ‘Putin’s puppet’.
Please god can we not bring the deranged Russiagate conspiracy theory to the UK?
Sure, the ‘Russia report’ should be released.
But chances are, it involves corruption with anti-Putin Russian elites - the oligarchs who became extortionately rich and powerful in the 90s after the west imposed neoliberal shock therapy on Russia, and who were then tamed/prosecuted when Putin came to power.
And the constant insinuation that all corruption emanates from Russia is absurd, and Russophobic.
There’s loads of powerful people who want Russia to be our enemy, for all kinds of reasons - none of them good. Yes, Tory corruption should obviously be made public, but let’s just be careful not to encourage the new cold war and push us closer to nuclear catastrophe!
Friday, 22 November 2019
Bolivia becoming military dictatorship
Following 13 years of western support for the neoliberal far-right in Bolivia, the socialist president was removed from power in a military coup, and those far-right fascists took control. And now, predictably, they seem to be creating a full on military dictatorship - dissidents are being killed, politicians arrested, media banned, etc.
We must all oppose this.
Jeremy Corbyn is one of the only UK politicians to publicly do so.
Vote Labour to stand with the indigenous people of Bolivia, and all people of the world, against western terrorism!
We must all oppose this.
Jeremy Corbyn is one of the only UK politicians to publicly do so.
Vote Labour to stand with the indigenous people of Bolivia, and all people of the world, against western terrorism!
Monday, 18 November 2019
Putin wants to end western imperialism? Awesome.
Imperialist 'liberal', Guy Verhofstadt, banging on about Russia again here.
God forbid the west be divided and lose its power and hegemony over the world.
It might mean countries like Bolivia won’t be taken over by west-backed fascists! Can’t have that.
(I do obviously think the report should be released, but chances are it involves anti-Putin oligarchs, rather than the Kremlin. And the focus on Russia, as if all corrupt activity emanates from there, is extremely Russophobic, and also kinda sick, given that it was west-imposed neoliberal shock therapy in the 90s that created those corrupt oligarchs).
God forbid the west be divided and lose its power and hegemony over the world.
It might mean countries like Bolivia won’t be taken over by west-backed fascists! Can’t have that.
(I do obviously think the report should be released, but chances are it involves anti-Putin oligarchs, rather than the Kremlin. And the focus on Russia, as if all corrupt activity emanates from there, is extremely Russophobic, and also kinda sick, given that it was west-imposed neoliberal shock therapy in the 90s that created those corrupt oligarchs).
Western Powers and Western Media Continue to Back Bolivian Fascists
There is still not proof of any fraud in the Bolivian elections.
Despite this - the UK, EU, Human Rights Watch, entire MSM, all insist the election was probably fraudulent, and have eagerly recognized the far-right coup regime.
Isn’t it amazing how so many can disinform so uniformly on such a mass scale? Ugh.
The US/UK/EU-backed fascists have now announced that they are going to begin arresting legislators (all indigenous) from Evo Morale’s party - the party that won the recent election.
I’d have thought, even for some of those western powers, and their media, that this might be going a bit far, surely?! Sickening.
To think some people still believe western foreign policy is pro-human rights! It is and always has been unbelievably violent, exploitative, extractive, destructive, and fascist. Millions killed. Planet ruined.
And the media has always enabled it.
We need change!!!!
Despite this - the UK, EU, Human Rights Watch, entire MSM, all insist the election was probably fraudulent, and have eagerly recognized the far-right coup regime.
Isn’t it amazing how so many can disinform so uniformly on such a mass scale? Ugh.
The US/UK/EU-backed fascists have now announced that they are going to begin arresting legislators (all indigenous) from Evo Morale’s party - the party that won the recent election.
I’d have thought, even for some of those western powers, and their media, that this might be going a bit far, surely?! Sickening.
To think some people still believe western foreign policy is pro-human rights! It is and always has been unbelievably violent, exploitative, extractive, destructive, and fascist. Millions killed. Planet ruined.
And the media has always enabled it.
We need change!!!!
Saturday, 16 November 2019
NYT - what a rag
She took power after a military coup, which followed an election in which her party got 4.2% of the vote.
She thinks Evo Morales, who won that election with 47% of the vote but has now fled to Mexico, should be prosecuted.
She has given permission to security forces to 're-establish internal order' by any means necessary.
She thinks indigenous people like Morales are ‘satanic’.
Her security forces are now massacring those indigenous people (8 killed yesterday).
She is considering criminalising the political party that represents them (Morale’s party).
And she is an ally of Luis Camacho, an unambiguously fascist, religious extremist.
But what does the New York Times call her? Racist? Fascist? Brutal dictator?
Nah, she is just a ‘conservative’.
Disgusting propaganda rag.
She thinks Evo Morales, who won that election with 47% of the vote but has now fled to Mexico, should be prosecuted.
She has given permission to security forces to 're-establish internal order' by any means necessary.
She thinks indigenous people like Morales are ‘satanic’.
Her security forces are now massacring those indigenous people (8 killed yesterday).
She is considering criminalising the political party that represents them (Morale’s party).
And she is an ally of Luis Camacho, an unambiguously fascist, religious extremist.
But what does the New York Times call her? Racist? Fascist? Brutal dictator?
Nah, she is just a ‘conservative’.
Disgusting propaganda rag.
Friday, 15 November 2019
Bolivians are being massacred and no one cares
Bolivians are being massacred.
But no one cares, because a neoliberal regime has taken power and that's great for western corporations.
Capitalism is hell.
But no one cares, because a neoliberal regime has taken power and that's great for western corporations.
Capitalism is hell.
Money = Happiness: A Big Lie
The media constantly sells us a lie, that money equals happiness.
Once you see through this lie, and realise, that beyond a certain point, personal wealth doesn't bring happiness, it becomes very easy to support socialism!
Unfortunately, most people are prevented from reaching that point, and thus from coming to that realisation, so they continue voting for the capitalist system... that is preventing them from reaching that point!
Once you see through this lie, and realise, that beyond a certain point, personal wealth doesn't bring happiness, it becomes very easy to support socialism!
Unfortunately, most people are prevented from reaching that point, and thus from coming to that realisation, so they continue voting for the capitalist system... that is preventing them from reaching that point!
Thursday, 14 November 2019
Capitalist Media Loves Fascism
The Economist backed the fascist dictator, Pinochet, and claimed any suggestion of US involvement ‘absurd’, as he overthrew the social democratic government of Allende, in the 1973, CIA-orchestrated, military coup in Chile.
They described Pinochet’s fascist regime as a ‘military technocratic government that will try to knit the social fabric that the Allende government tore apart’.
Today, The Economist, and the rest of the media, does similar re Bolivia, where a left-wing government has just been ousted in a US-backed coup, replaced by a far-right, neoliberal, racist regime.
Fascism is a means by which capitalism can be enforced, and capitalist media will invert the truth and support it when necessary.
They described Pinochet’s fascist regime as a ‘military technocratic government that will try to knit the social fabric that the Allende government tore apart’.
Today, The Economist, and the rest of the media, does similar re Bolivia, where a left-wing government has just been ousted in a US-backed coup, replaced by a far-right, neoliberal, racist regime.
Fascism is a means by which capitalism can be enforced, and capitalist media will invert the truth and support it when necessary.
Wednesday, 13 November 2019
To Save The Planet We Must Realize We Are One
Paraphrasing, from this talk by Charles Eisenstein:
When anything or anyone in the world suffers, something is suffering in me.
When there are millions of people in poverty, I am in poverty in some way, even if I have enough of everything I can measure.
The world is not just a thing. The world is a self. The world is alive. We are all one being.
When anything or anyone in the world suffers, something is suffering in me.
When there are millions of people in poverty, I am in poverty in some way, even if I have enough of everything I can measure.
The world is not just a thing. The world is a self. The world is alive. We are all one being.
Tuesday, 12 November 2019
Environmentalism MUST be anti-capitalist
We need to massively alter how we consume, if we're to have any chance of ensuring a sustainable future.
This is not possible under the current system, which requires perpetual growth, with corporations continuously plundering the planet's resources, so that they can produce poor quality products, and products that we don't really need, which they can they manipulate us into purchasing, so that they can constantly increase their profits.
It is this system that is at the root of imperialism. For hundreds of years, western foreign policy has been about extracting resources, for the benefit of corporations, to maintain economic growth, and enrich an elite few.
Now, with decarbonization on the agenda, this will likely continue, but they will now wage military and economic wars for lithium, rather than just oil.
Any environmental movement needs to focus on opposing the capitalist system and the imperialism that it fuels and requires. If it does not do this, it is just calling for the exploitation, plunder and consumption to continue, but in a less carbon-intensive manner.
This is not possible under the current system, which requires perpetual growth, with corporations continuously plundering the planet's resources, so that they can produce poor quality products, and products that we don't really need, which they can they manipulate us into purchasing, so that they can constantly increase their profits.
It is this system that is at the root of imperialism. For hundreds of years, western foreign policy has been about extracting resources, for the benefit of corporations, to maintain economic growth, and enrich an elite few.
Now, with decarbonization on the agenda, this will likely continue, but they will now wage military and economic wars for lithium, rather than just oil.
Any environmental movement needs to focus on opposing the capitalist system and the imperialism that it fuels and requires. If it does not do this, it is just calling for the exploitation, plunder and consumption to continue, but in a less carbon-intensive manner.
Monday, 11 November 2019
Lithium Wars the New Oil Wars?
As we decarbonize, will lithium become the new oil?
Will capitalists wage wars for lithium, as they have done for oil?
This seems highly likely.
Is the coup in Bolivia - where the largest untapped lithium reserve in the world is located - just the beginning?
We desperately need socialist leaders in power in the capitalist western world, to prevent this.
Will capitalists wage wars for lithium, as they have done for oil?
This seems highly likely.
Is the coup in Bolivia - where the largest untapped lithium reserve in the world is located - just the beginning?
We desperately need socialist leaders in power in the capitalist western world, to prevent this.
Solution for war!
How about, instead of starting a Cold War with China, which can only end in disaster, the west offers full citizenship to Hong Kongers who oppose reintegration, so that they can relocate to the US and experience true freedom (lol)?
Seriously though, this seems sensible to me.
Of course, as we all know, this will never happen, because western foreign policy is about $ and has absolutely nothing to do with human rights - if it did, we'd never wage a single war. Instead, we would simply offer citizenship (and transport/housing etc) to all victims of conflict and oppression.
Seriously though, this seems sensible to me.
Of course, as we all know, this will never happen, because western foreign policy is about $ and has absolutely nothing to do with human rights - if it did, we'd never wage a single war. Instead, we would simply offer citizenship (and transport/housing etc) to all victims of conflict and oppression.
Sunday, 10 November 2019
Want to nationalize your resources and fight poverty? Empire says no.
If you’re in the global south and you want to nationalise your resources, as Bolivia did, so that profits go towards ending poverty, rather than to elites/western corporations, you will be attacked, one way or another, by the US Empire. It is the same story, over and over again.
(If you don’t yet understand why socialist countries targeted by far-right elites and the US Empire often have to become ‘authoritarian’. THIS IS WHY).
(If you don’t yet understand why socialist countries targeted by far-right elites and the US Empire often have to become ‘authoritarian’. THIS IS WHY).
Military Coup in Bolivia Removes Anti-Imperialist, Evo Morales, from Power
Despite winning the recent election, Bolivian President Evo Morales has been forced to step down, in a military coup, despite him agreeing to demands from the opposition for a new election. He now faces arrest, as the right-wing coup plotters take over the country.
(Link to my last post about Bolivia - I recommend reading all the links included).
The world has lost a great leader - the first indigenous leader of a country that has, like the rest of Latin America, been colonized and plundered by westerners for centuries. Most recently, it is the US that has committed all kinds of atrocities throughout the continent - installing fascist dictators, arming death squads, and so on; all to force the privatisation of resources, and advance the interests of western corporations and elites.
Under Evo's leadership, however, Bolivia liberated itself from the grip of the US and, to a significant extent, from the grip of the capitalist elite within the country. He was thus able to carry out a socialistic agenda, leading to a huge reduction in poverty and inequality, and to the empowerment of indigenous people, who had previously been persecuted by the white minority who previously ruled. (He has also been able to speak out about climate change, and boldly call out US imperialism, on the world stage).
Of course there are fair criticisms of Evo, as there are of any leader, but the criticisms that have most widely been leveled at him in the run up to this coup, from protestors, from right-wing Latin American regimes, from western powers, and from western media, are highly contestable.
Firstly, they argue that he won the election on October 20th fraudulently. Despite western media uniformly reporting this to be the case, there appears to be no evidence for this allegation. The Organization of American States, which made the unfounded allegation, is 60% US-funded, and openly boasts about being a vehicle to advance US interests. Most notably, the organization has made no statement about extreme authoritarianism from the right-wing, US-backed governments of Honduras and Chile. Nor did they do anything when the leftist former president of Brazil, Lula, was wrongly imprisoned, enabling the rise of neo-fascist, Bolsonaro.
Secondly, they point to the 2016 referendum on presidential term limits, which Evo called, hoping to overturn a law that was preventing him running for another term. Evo lost the referendum, by 2%, ruling him out of running in this year's election. However, he and his supporters argued that his loss was as a result of right-wing propaganda and US funding. And last year, the democratically-elected supreme court in Bolivia ruled that Evo could indeed run for the presidency.
Is the Supreme Court biased towards Evo's ruling party? Inevitably, this is what his opponents say, but there seems to be no evidence for this - as mentioned, the judges in the court have been democratically elected. And in any case, given that the US has indeed long been meddling in Bolivia, including during that referendum campaign, it hardly seems unreasonable to assume that he would otherwise have won, given the narrow margin by which he lost. (And, we should note that many democratic countries do not have term limits).
As for other criticisms, it should be taken into consideration that there was no Cuba-style revolution in Bolivia - Evo's government took some of the power away from the capitalist class, but did not overthrow them and totally abolish the private sector. They remained, always supported by the US, and constantly working against Evo and his socialistic policies. He has had an extremely difficult task in having to deal with that, whilst transforming the economy into an economy that works for all citizens, (which he has to a very large extent, succeeded in doing).
As mentioned, the US has been meddling in Bolivian affairs, in support of the capitalist class, since Evo came to power in 2006, and it seems as though the current opposition leader (and now likely future President) - Carlos Mesa - is their man. He is a member of a Washington-based think tank, that is run by a former employee of the National Endowment for Democracy (an off shoot of the CIA). The think tank is funded by an array of western corporations, foundations, and agencies - all eager for privatization and profit. (As we move towards decarbonization in the west, are these corporations hoping to exploit Bolivia's lithium? The world's largest untapped lithium reserve is located at the Uyuni Salt Flat, in Bolivia's Andes mountains).
The think tank is also funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department subsidiary that was exposed in WikiLeak's cables directing millions of dollars to opposition groups in Bolivia, including those "opposed to Evo Morale's vision for indigenous communities".
Mesa was previously Vice President, in 2003, when 71 indigenous protestors were killed as they tried to resist US exploitation of their resources. Evo, who took part in these protests, came to power a few years later thanks to a mass social movement, and began his agenda to liberate the country, first by nationalising some of the country's resources. As ever, the business elites within Bolivia (mainly based in Santa Cruz), and the western capitalist powers, who had been exploiting the resources, were angered by this - and by the general leftist/pro-sovereignty agenda of Evo's government - and thus have been trying to topple him ever since. This WikiLeaks cable reveals that Mesa has been in regular contact with American officials, in their efforts to destabilize Evo's government.
Whether or not it is justified to accuse Evo of any authoritarianism, in terms of what happened with the 2016 referendum - it doesn't seem so to me - we must remember what is at stake here. This is a successfully developing country that has, under Evo's leadership, been significantly liberated from neo-colonial exploitation and persecution. It is not surprising that Evo and his supporters have been incredibly fearful of his reign coming to an end. And if you do deem him to have been authoritarian, please note that he still has the support (according to the October election results) of 47% of the voting public. This is a significantly larger mandate than most western leaders have. And most importantly, we must remember that there is no greater authoritarianism than western hegemonic aggression. To resist it, as Bolivia has been doing, whilst remaining democratic, is not easy - as this coup demonstrates! And then of course there is the argument as to what exactly constitutes 'democracy'. Should a system that allows for the election of a foreign-backed, right-wing government, that exploits and persecutes poor and indigenous people, really be viewed as democratic? (Also, unlike the west, Bolivia is not developing by colonizing and plundering the world!).
Bolivia has long been a divided country, with a significant proportion of the population - generally the upper classes - unhappy with Evo's Movement For Socialism, and it is now, seemingly, more divided than ever. We must hope that whatever happens now, the huge gains made under Evo's leadership, in terms of social justice-oriented economic growth, in terms of regaining sovereignty, and in terms of indigenous rights, are not lost. Signs do not look remotely hopeful, especially given what happened under Mesa's vice presidency, and given his affiliation with a think tank that is funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil. Under a US-backed neoliberal regime, the rights of indigenous people will always come second to these capitalist interests, as they did before Evo came to power, and as they do in countries across Latin America (and the world) that are still run by such oligarchical regimes.
It seems likely that a Carlos Mesa-led coup regime will turn to IMF loans (enslavement), and to privatisation, meaning that the country will once again become an exploited puppet state of the west.
All good people of the world must resist this destructive, imperialist system. Thankfully, we now have a chance, in the heart of the empire, to elect two socialist leaders - Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Via twitter, both have expressed solidarity with Evo and Bolivia, (and also with Lula in Brazil, who was released last week). It is essential that we get socialist leaders like these into government, if we are to have any hope of ending capitalist imperialism.
(I thoroughly recommend watching these two documentaries to get an idea of how the west advances its interests around the world, often extremely unnoticeably).
.....................
Updates:
(Link to my last post about Bolivia - I recommend reading all the links included).
The world has lost a great leader - the first indigenous leader of a country that has, like the rest of Latin America, been colonized and plundered by westerners for centuries. Most recently, it is the US that has committed all kinds of atrocities throughout the continent - installing fascist dictators, arming death squads, and so on; all to force the privatisation of resources, and advance the interests of western corporations and elites.
Under Evo's leadership, however, Bolivia liberated itself from the grip of the US and, to a significant extent, from the grip of the capitalist elite within the country. He was thus able to carry out a socialistic agenda, leading to a huge reduction in poverty and inequality, and to the empowerment of indigenous people, who had previously been persecuted by the white minority who previously ruled. (He has also been able to speak out about climate change, and boldly call out US imperialism, on the world stage).
Of course there are fair criticisms of Evo, as there are of any leader, but the criticisms that have most widely been leveled at him in the run up to this coup, from protestors, from right-wing Latin American regimes, from western powers, and from western media, are highly contestable.
Firstly, they argue that he won the election on October 20th fraudulently. Despite western media uniformly reporting this to be the case, there appears to be no evidence for this allegation. The Organization of American States, which made the unfounded allegation, is 60% US-funded, and openly boasts about being a vehicle to advance US interests. Most notably, the organization has made no statement about extreme authoritarianism from the right-wing, US-backed governments of Honduras and Chile. Nor did they do anything when the leftist former president of Brazil, Lula, was wrongly imprisoned, enabling the rise of neo-fascist, Bolsonaro.
Secondly, they point to the 2016 referendum on presidential term limits, which Evo called, hoping to overturn a law that was preventing him running for another term. Evo lost the referendum, by 2%, ruling him out of running in this year's election. However, he and his supporters argued that his loss was as a result of right-wing propaganda and US funding. And last year, the democratically-elected supreme court in Bolivia ruled that Evo could indeed run for the presidency.
Is the Supreme Court biased towards Evo's ruling party? Inevitably, this is what his opponents say, but there seems to be no evidence for this - as mentioned, the judges in the court have been democratically elected. And in any case, given that the US has indeed long been meddling in Bolivia, including during that referendum campaign, it hardly seems unreasonable to assume that he would otherwise have won, given the narrow margin by which he lost. (And, we should note that many democratic countries do not have term limits).
As for other criticisms, it should be taken into consideration that there was no Cuba-style revolution in Bolivia - Evo's government took some of the power away from the capitalist class, but did not overthrow them and totally abolish the private sector. They remained, always supported by the US, and constantly working against Evo and his socialistic policies. He has had an extremely difficult task in having to deal with that, whilst transforming the economy into an economy that works for all citizens, (which he has to a very large extent, succeeded in doing).
As mentioned, the US has been meddling in Bolivian affairs, in support of the capitalist class, since Evo came to power in 2006, and it seems as though the current opposition leader (and now likely future President) - Carlos Mesa - is their man. He is a member of a Washington-based think tank, that is run by a former employee of the National Endowment for Democracy (an off shoot of the CIA). The think tank is funded by an array of western corporations, foundations, and agencies - all eager for privatization and profit. (As we move towards decarbonization in the west, are these corporations hoping to exploit Bolivia's lithium? The world's largest untapped lithium reserve is located at the Uyuni Salt Flat, in Bolivia's Andes mountains).
The think tank is also funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department subsidiary that was exposed in WikiLeak's cables directing millions of dollars to opposition groups in Bolivia, including those "opposed to Evo Morale's vision for indigenous communities".
Mesa was previously Vice President, in 2003, when 71 indigenous protestors were killed as they tried to resist US exploitation of their resources. Evo, who took part in these protests, came to power a few years later thanks to a mass social movement, and began his agenda to liberate the country, first by nationalising some of the country's resources. As ever, the business elites within Bolivia (mainly based in Santa Cruz), and the western capitalist powers, who had been exploiting the resources, were angered by this - and by the general leftist/pro-sovereignty agenda of Evo's government - and thus have been trying to topple him ever since. This WikiLeaks cable reveals that Mesa has been in regular contact with American officials, in their efforts to destabilize Evo's government.
Whether or not it is justified to accuse Evo of any authoritarianism, in terms of what happened with the 2016 referendum - it doesn't seem so to me - we must remember what is at stake here. This is a successfully developing country that has, under Evo's leadership, been significantly liberated from neo-colonial exploitation and persecution. It is not surprising that Evo and his supporters have been incredibly fearful of his reign coming to an end. And if you do deem him to have been authoritarian, please note that he still has the support (according to the October election results) of 47% of the voting public. This is a significantly larger mandate than most western leaders have. And most importantly, we must remember that there is no greater authoritarianism than western hegemonic aggression. To resist it, as Bolivia has been doing, whilst remaining democratic, is not easy - as this coup demonstrates! And then of course there is the argument as to what exactly constitutes 'democracy'. Should a system that allows for the election of a foreign-backed, right-wing government, that exploits and persecutes poor and indigenous people, really be viewed as democratic? (Also, unlike the west, Bolivia is not developing by colonizing and plundering the world!).
Bolivia has long been a divided country, with a significant proportion of the population - generally the upper classes - unhappy with Evo's Movement For Socialism, and it is now, seemingly, more divided than ever. We must hope that whatever happens now, the huge gains made under Evo's leadership, in terms of social justice-oriented economic growth, in terms of regaining sovereignty, and in terms of indigenous rights, are not lost. Signs do not look remotely hopeful, especially given what happened under Mesa's vice presidency, and given his affiliation with a think tank that is funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil. Under a US-backed neoliberal regime, the rights of indigenous people will always come second to these capitalist interests, as they did before Evo came to power, and as they do in countries across Latin America (and the world) that are still run by such oligarchical regimes.
It seems likely that a Carlos Mesa-led coup regime will turn to IMF loans (enslavement), and to privatisation, meaning that the country will once again become an exploited puppet state of the west.
All good people of the world must resist this destructive, imperialist system. Thankfully, we now have a chance, in the heart of the empire, to elect two socialist leaders - Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Via twitter, both have expressed solidarity with Evo and Bolivia, (and also with Lula in Brazil, who was released last week). It is essential that we get socialist leaders like these into government, if we are to have any hope of ending capitalist imperialism.
(I thoroughly recommend watching these two documentaries to get an idea of how the west advances its interests around the world, often extremely unnoticeably).
.....................
Updates:
- Evo has escaped Bolivia to Mexico, after the leftist government of Lopez Obrador offered him asylum.
- It seems that the coup has lurched significantly to the right, with support for the neoliberal, Carlos Mesa, waning, as the unambiguously extremist and fascistic, Luis Fernando Camacho, takes advantage of the situation. This article about Camacho is a must read.
- These are extremely dangerous times - there are many reports of violence (resulting in casualties) against Evo's supporters, including indigenous groups, who have been resisting the coup.
- Jeanine Anez has taken over as interim leader of Bolivia. Here are some old tweets of hers, condemning Chavismo in Venezuela (which lifted millions out of poverty in that country), and praising the neo-fascist Venezuela politician, Henrique Capriles - who, along with others, like Leopoldo Lopez, supported the 2002 coup in Venezuela to topple Hugo Chavez and abolish the democratically-created constitution. There is no doubt that what is happening in Bolivia is a far-right coup, just like that (short-lived) 2002 coup in Venezuela.
- In another tweet by Anez, she called the Aymara - Bolivia's largest indiginous group - 'satanic'.
- Are people being paid by coup leaders to support the coup?
- Commanders of Bolivia’s military and police helped plot the coup and guaranteed its success. This investigation reveals that they were educated for insurrection through notorious US military and FBI training programs.
- Vicious aggression against Senator Adriana Salvatierra, president of Bolivia's Senate, first in line of succession to Evo Morales. She's the legitimate interim president, not the coup leaders. So they are beating her and using force to prevent her from entering the Parliament.
- Good twitter thread about how leftist criticism of Morales is unfair
- Western media continues to once again prove itself as a total propaganda machine for the western-domination of the world and its resources
- Anez has recognized Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela. The US has been trying, unsuccessfully, to install the neoliberal Guaido as president of Venezuela all year.
- Interview with Orlando Gutierrez, Chief Executive of the Federation of Miners of Bolivia.
- Unsurprisingly, Anez has not one single indigenous person. It is a 'cabinet' dominated by the business elite of Santa Cruz.
- The OAS was promoting Anez as a leader three years ago.
- The coup regime is now rounding up and detaining Cuban doctors.
- The coup regime is now implying that it will block Evo Morale's party, Movement for Socialism, from participating in elections.
- Six months ago, a group of Bolivian politicians wrote to Donald Trump, asking him to interfere in the elections.
- Bolivians are rising up against the coup regime, and are being massacred.
- The new Bolivian coup government has pre-exonerated all security and military forces from any crimes in the "re-establishment of internal order".
Saturday, 9 November 2019
Liberal 'Democracy'
Liberal ‘democracy’ really is a load of nonsense; a charade to make us feel like we have some power.
The only reason we were given this much ‘democracy’ is because those at the top knew that they could easily corrupt the politicians to work in their interests, and, via propaganda, easily get an overworked, badly-educated populace to vote against their interests.
The only reason we were given this much ‘democracy’ is because those at the top knew that they could easily corrupt the politicians to work in their interests, and, via propaganda, easily get an overworked, badly-educated populace to vote against their interests.
Wednesday, 6 November 2019
Stealing Syria's Oil - Media Doesn't Care
The US is currently brazenly occupying a foreign country (Syria) and stealing their oil. Trump has boasted that this is what they're doing.
But there is no outrage in the media. It's barely even reported.
We do not have a 'free press'. We have a propaganda machine for the 1%.
But there is no outrage in the media. It's barely even reported.
We do not have a 'free press'. We have a propaganda machine for the 1%.
Tuesday, 5 November 2019
Hillary Clinton's Monstrous Hypocrisy
Hillary Clinton says Facebook is ‘destroying democracy’.
What monstrous hypocrisy.
People like her destroy democracy, (and entire countries - see Libya) all around the world!
Her ilk are responsible for imposing neoliberalism from Iraq to Honduras to Haiti, etc, resulting in millions of deaths and the mass exploitation of people for the benefit of western corporations.
Here’s one of her many victims.
These modern day Roman Emperors want social media censored because it’s enabling people to expose and spread awareness re their immense criminality.
What monstrous hypocrisy.
People like her destroy democracy, (and entire countries - see Libya) all around the world!
Her ilk are responsible for imposing neoliberalism from Iraq to Honduras to Haiti, etc, resulting in millions of deaths and the mass exploitation of people for the benefit of western corporations.
Here’s one of her many victims.
These modern day Roman Emperors want social media censored because it’s enabling people to expose and spread awareness re their immense criminality.
Monday, 4 November 2019
Saudi backer becomes 'special envoy on counter terrorism'. Orwellian!
Orwellian news of the day:
Blairite former Labour MP, John Woodcock, who likes going on all-expenses-paid trips to al Qaeda-supporting Saudi Arabia, and then doing PR for the regime (including justifying their genocidal war on Yemen), has just been appointed 'special envoy on counter terrorism' for the Tories.
(Oh, and he does this for Erdogan's Turkey too).
Our system really is entirely corrupt!
Blairite former Labour MP, John Woodcock, who likes going on all-expenses-paid trips to al Qaeda-supporting Saudi Arabia, and then doing PR for the regime (including justifying their genocidal war on Yemen), has just been appointed 'special envoy on counter terrorism' for the Tories.
(Oh, and he does this for Erdogan's Turkey too).
Our system really is entirely corrupt!
Saturday, 2 November 2019
Should billionaires exist?
Is it okay if a system produces billionaires, providing there is a way of ensuring that those billionaires cannot corrupt the government and cannot avoid paying tax? And providing their business is doing something positive for society, and that they are treating all their workers well - including paying them at least a living wage?
China is the most unequal country on the planet, but they have lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty, and are doing great things in terms of building infrastructure and job creation; in terms of reforestation, investment in renewable energy, etc. But they are not 'free market' capitalist - they have a huge amount of state ownership and central control. And capital controls. This, and being a one-party state, perhaps makes it easier to ensure that everyone is benefiting from the wealth creation, (even if the workers aren't getting the wealth, that many would argue, they truly deserve).
In general, I just don’t think it’s particularly healthy for anyone to be that rich. This study concluded that wealth beyond a certain amount (around $100k in the US), does not lead to greater happiness, and many other studies have concluded that great wealth actually leads to unhappiness.
And I guess whichever way you look it, it is exploitation of the worker, if that worker isn't getting the wealth that their labour is creating for the business.
Radio show host Emma Barnett says here that those of us on the left who question the existence of billionaires, shouldn't do so, because they pay a lot of tax. But this is an extremely flawed argument. With great wealth, comes great power, including the ability to corrupt the government (and the media) to operate in your interests; the ability to funnel money to offshore tax havens, etc. And if the profits were shared fairly, the workers would be paying the tax, and they would not have such powers to avoid doing so.
Another argument leveled at the left is that condemning billionaires is paramount to condemning aspiration. I imagine that, surely, the existence of billionaires, with their domination of society and the market, results in detrimental effects for those at the bottom who want to start a business? And also, it surely is not healthy for society to encourage and value such immense personal wealth? Given that it leads to unhappiness, and given that we know that 'trickle-down' economics does not work?
So it seems to me that we either need a one-party state, with capital controls, like they have in China, where the super rich are unable to so easily corrupt the government, avoid paying tax, and send their profits oversees, or we need to suitably regulate corporations, so that power and wealth are redistributed fairly and, eventually, billionaires are eradicated!
China is the most unequal country on the planet, but they have lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty, and are doing great things in terms of building infrastructure and job creation; in terms of reforestation, investment in renewable energy, etc. But they are not 'free market' capitalist - they have a huge amount of state ownership and central control. And capital controls. This, and being a one-party state, perhaps makes it easier to ensure that everyone is benefiting from the wealth creation, (even if the workers aren't getting the wealth, that many would argue, they truly deserve).
In general, I just don’t think it’s particularly healthy for anyone to be that rich. This study concluded that wealth beyond a certain amount (around $100k in the US), does not lead to greater happiness, and many other studies have concluded that great wealth actually leads to unhappiness.
And I guess whichever way you look it, it is exploitation of the worker, if that worker isn't getting the wealth that their labour is creating for the business.
Radio show host Emma Barnett says here that those of us on the left who question the existence of billionaires, shouldn't do so, because they pay a lot of tax. But this is an extremely flawed argument. With great wealth, comes great power, including the ability to corrupt the government (and the media) to operate in your interests; the ability to funnel money to offshore tax havens, etc. And if the profits were shared fairly, the workers would be paying the tax, and they would not have such powers to avoid doing so.
Another argument leveled at the left is that condemning billionaires is paramount to condemning aspiration. I imagine that, surely, the existence of billionaires, with their domination of society and the market, results in detrimental effects for those at the bottom who want to start a business? And also, it surely is not healthy for society to encourage and value such immense personal wealth? Given that it leads to unhappiness, and given that we know that 'trickle-down' economics does not work?
So it seems to me that we either need a one-party state, with capital controls, like they have in China, where the super rich are unable to so easily corrupt the government, avoid paying tax, and send their profits oversees, or we need to suitably regulate corporations, so that power and wealth are redistributed fairly and, eventually, billionaires are eradicated!
Friday, 1 November 2019
So many hopeful signs - but we need a government that is on our side!
There’s so many hopeful signs these days - recognition of what neoliberal capitalism/consumerism is doing to the environment, movements towards localism rather than globalism, people consuming more responsibly (buying organic produce and eating less meat), etc.
This is all great stuff.
But imagine how helpful it would be if we had a government that was on our side in this? Instead of having a government that is on the side of the transnational corporations that we’re trying to resist?
It is so sad, that over recent decades, we have been so convinced by the notion that the state must only have a limited role. And it is even more sad, given that it is a great big lie - the state has a huge role! But their role has tended to be on the side of the elites, rather than on the side of the people, and the planet. Socialism for the 1%.
We need a radical, leftist governments to direct and regulate the system so that it supports us in this movement away from neoliberal globalization.
VOTE LABOUR. VOTE BERNIE SANDERS.