De-escalation

Seth Godin promotes De-escalation .

There are revolutionaries who want the big finish of the General Strike, the barricades, the storming of the Winter Palace:

The goal then is to create tension, to escalate need, to amplify conflict until action is taken. Escalation causes us to commit to our original need, by reinforcing it.

The cultural norm is always to sharpen the conflict.

Godin proposes:

De-escalation creates connection, not commitment to previously made choices. It trades the short-term battle for the long-term relationship.

Taking our time and letting air in (and heat to escape) might be precisely the best way to build the relationships we need for the long run. It leads to better decisions, less shrapnel and work that truly matters, without regret.

An interesting idea of building Socialism quietly through relationships, instead of conflicts.

It is always tempting to avoid conflicts especially in light of the state's prepondernace of force and brutality. This would leave the workers defenceless against attacks.

Read more!

Hugo Chavez, undefeated! Why the rich and powerful hated Chavez

Hugo Chavez, undefeated! Why the rich and powerful hated Chavez.

The rich and powerful of the world did not hate Chavez because he was a dictator. Deep down the sentient among them know he wasn't.

They hated him because he was symbolic of a threat to the dictatorship of Capital, a figurehead of a continent alive with social movements and millions of people conscious of their political power.

Read more!

Hugo Chavez presente!

Hugo Chavez presente! Hugo Chavez is dead.

Time will tell how deeply Socialism has taken in Venezuela. I think Chavez has done a good job of bringing prosperity to the poor of his country. Literacy and health has improved dramatically.

The Capitalist press screams "Dictator!" when he won 63% of the vote.

The prolonged period of dual power in Venezuela is going to wear people down.

In Venezuela and the Middle East after Chavez, Juan Cole criticises Chavez for:

The foreign policy of late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez imagined that socialism and anti-imperialism are the same thing, and that he could lead a new sort of socialist international. These considerations shaped his Middle East policy in ways that were contradictory and hypocritical.

In Chavez's defence, it could be said that Venezuela was a country under imperialist attack, and Chavez sought allies wherever he could find them.

The BBC posits Hugo Chavez: A divided and divisive legacy?.

He gave a voice and identity to the poor, not just at home but also on the international stage.

He was a determined advocate of South-South dialogue, building close relations with ideologically like-minded presidents across Latin America.

He raised the profile of Venezuela into that of an international player, forming alliances with anyone who opposed the US (Iran, North Korea, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi).

"Within his administration he gave opportunities to people who would never have had them otherwise," said political analyst Carlos Romero.

Read more!

Resisting the EduFactory: Education for liberation

Some reflections on Resisting the EduFactory: Education for liberation.

I think the key argument is:

Student activists fight austerity and restructuring not because they feel entitled to study, but because society benefits from spaces for free thought. The university can and should be a place that drives social knowledge and development, not just train cogs for the economy. Everyone should benefit from every new vaccine that is researched, every groundbreaking novel, or revolutionary idea that helps lead to a new more sustainable and democratic society.

Despite what vice-chancellors or advertising executives might say, the university is not a brand. The university is the space for society’s critical consciousness.

It is all about developing human beings. We cannot develop ourselves if are slaving at dreary jobs and are burden with unpaid labour such as childcare, housework, and caring for others.

Each human being deserves the right to be able to better themselves. We must have an economic and political system that allows this.

Read more!

Karl Marx (5)

Following on from my post on Karl Marx, I want to argue against the idea that automation has changed the way Capitalism works.

Since before Capitalism emerged from Feudalism, machines were part of the landscape. The machines automated simple tasks like hammering or weaving. These machines could be crafted by a tradesman.

As machines grew more complex with the addition of steam power, the Capitalist came into their own by supplying capital that was beyond the means of a single tradesman.

The expense of machines gave rise to the factory system to defray the cost.

Automation is a natural outcome of this trajectory of economic development. It is nothing new. It is not radical.

What is radical is the disappearnce of labourers from Department II.

Read more!

Karl Marx (4)

Following on from my post on Karl Marx, I want to argue against the idea that there is no longer any distinction between workers and owners.

This is the political philosophy of the ownership society. The idea was to get all people to become supporters of the Capitalism system through:

• Home ownership
• Share ownership

This is the basis of the claim that there is no longer any distinction between workers and owners. The argument is that everyone can become an owner by participating in the share and housing market.

This political philosophy started with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. This was to garner political support for:

• Breaking up the uniosn
• Lowering taxes
• Reducing welfare

Unfortunately, this political philosophy fell afoul of the concentrating tendencies of Capitalism. Wealth accumulates into fewer and fewer hands. This is one of the laws of motion of Capitalism.

This was demonstrated time after time with the share market crashes of 1987, 2000, and 2008. There was the Savings and Loans crisis (and the building society crisis) of the 1980's, and the Great Financial crisis of 2008.

Capitalism cannot, by itself, extend the ownership class. More and more people must be reduced from owners to workers.

The politcal nature of Capitalism means that the ruling elite must become smaller and smaller as Capitalism becomes more and more successful.

The owners are becoming workers, not the other way around.

Read more!