Latest on Global Research Latest on Dandelion Salad Latest on Black Agenda Report Latest on Stop NATO Latest on John PilgerIn no particular order
20 April 2013 — China.org.cn
Following the death of Hugo Chávez on March 5, 2013, last Sunday’s presidential election in Venezuela produced a narrow victory for the Socialist candidate Nicolas Maduro.
20 April 2013 — Global Research - Russia Today
GR Editor’s Note: The Testimony of the Tsarnaev Brothers’ Mother as well as media reports confirm that the two brothers were on the FBI Radar, under FBI surveillance for several years. The Tsarnaev family had been the object of persistent harassment. (M. Ch.)
16 April 2013 — Venezuelanalysis.com
This afternoon president Maduro said the opposition’s call for a general strike today had “failed”. He also blamed the losing candidate in Sunday’s elections, Henrique Capriles, for the seven deaths last night.
15 April 2013 – antiwar.com
Almost thirty years ago, cultural critic Neil Postman argued in Amusing Ourselves to Death that television’s gradual replacement of the printing press has created a dumbed-down culture driven by mindless entertainment.
NBC’s Brian Williams is talking about North Korea, which has no weapons capable of reaching the U.S.–not the U.S., which has thousands of missiles that could hit North Korea.
It’s not easy to figure out what’s going on with North Korea. We hear that new leader Kim Jong-Un is making threats to attack the United States, South Korea or both–and that’s leading to some rather alarming, and alarmist, coverage.
As ABC World News reporter Martha Raddatz put it (3/31/13): “The threats have been coming almost every day, and each day become more menacing, the threat of missile strikes on the U.S., invading armies into South Korea and nuclear attacks.”
3 April 2013 — Mosaic Records
Jazz Scene U.S.A. was a short-lived syndicated television show shot in Los Angeles in the early ‘60s and hosted by Oscar Brown, Jr. This episode is given over to the Jimmy Smith trio with Quentin Warren and Donald Bailey. If you’ve never had the pleasure of seeing this amazing musician live, enjoy this. – Michael Cuscuna
22 March 2013 — The Bullet • Socialist Project E-Bulletin No. 788
(Terminology: ‘property,’ does not mean that someone owns a pair of trousers, a car, a dildo or a frozen pizza. Property is meant only in the politically relevant sense of the word, where I have something at my disposal that compels others to bend over, to be pushed around, or to buck and bow, so that I can live as I do. If I own land, houses or apartments where someone wants to live or cultivate land, then they must surrender a portion of their wages, salary or something similar to me. If I own capital, I let it work for me; that is to say, I appropriate the labour of others for myself. Whoever does not like the use of such language should take it up with Karl Marx; he’s resting in peace and has time for such trifles.) Continue reading this...
13 March 2013 — WSWS
The war in Mali will enter its third month this week. Some 4,000 French soldiers, and about twice as many African soldiers of an international force fighting in coordination with them, have conquered all the major cities in northern Mali. However, there are hardly any reports of the fighting, and almost no pictures.
9 March 2013 — Climate and Capitalism
This week I was privileged to see an advance release of the film Greedy Lying Bastards.
My advice is simple. See it. Tell your friends to see it. And tell everyone else as well. Use Facebook, Twitter, Email, Morse code — whatever tools you’ve got, use them to spread the word.
4 February 2013 — New Left Project
The Why Poverty project is a recent collaboration between the Open University and the BBC that attempts to highlight the causes of global poverty and explain the different contexts in which it is experienced. The project was extensive, including a detailed website, radio programmes, and a BBC4 television series which will undoubtedly have had an impact on how poverty is understood by a wide audience. In my view, however, parts of the BBC 4 series, as well as the overall narrative of the project were not conducive to the project achieving its aims.
17 January, 2013 — williambowles.info
‘It is the first genocide of the 21st century. Poor Iraq and Iraqis. The silence of the world pushes me to lose faith in humanity.” (Anonymous,)
18 November 2012 — Al Jazeera
As was the case in Operation Cast Lead, the international community is once again turning its back on Gaza. Continue reading this...
23 August 2012 — John Pilger
The British government’s threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy in London and seize Julian Assange is of historic significance. David Cameron, the former PR man to a television industry huckster and arms salesman to sheikdoms, is well placed to dishonour international conventions that have protected Britons in places of upheaval. Just as Tony Blair‘s invasion of Iraq led directly to the acts of terrorismin London on 7 July 2005, so Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague have compromised the safety of British representatives across the world.
21 August, 2012 — RT
Christine Assange (Reuters / Gary Granja)
Julian Assange’s mother slammed Western media’s lack of research and grasp of basic facts in an interview with Australian television, as the host tried to get her to “address the allegations” of free speech suppression in Ecuador.
Following the profound question “Why did your son choose to make that speech last night?”, Christine Assange was asked if Julian plans to fight for freedom of speech in Ecuador, which is “known for its restrictions on the press.”
20 August, 2012 — Media Lens
Gore Vidal took great delight in demolishing the fragile confections of ‘mainstream’ politics. While corporate journalists typically portray US Presidents as benign demigods, Vidal described George W. Bush as ‘the stupidest man in the United States’. In 2008, Vidal said of the 2003 war on Iraq: Continue reading this...
Friday 17 August 2012 — The Morning Star
South Africa‘s police force admitted today that its officers had killed more than 34 miners at the Lonmin Marikana platinum mine on Thursday.
National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) secretary general Frans Baleni put the toll at 36 and blamed the unrest on the rival Association of Mineworkers and Communication Union making promises which could never be delivered and, in the process, organising an illegal action which led to the loss of lives.
24 July 2012 — Global Research - Voltaire Network
Western and Gulf powers have launched the largest secret war operation since the Contra war in Nicaragua.
The Battle of Damascus is not intended to topple President Bashar al-Assad, but to fracture the Syrian Army to better ensure the domination of Israel and the U.S. over the Middle East. While the city is bracing for a new assault by foreign mercenaries, Thierry Meyssan takes stock of the situation. Continue reading this...
30 June 2012 — williambowles.info
There — it sickens one to have to wade through this grimy sea of opportunism. What a spectacle of shuffling, lies, vacillation and imbecility does this Game Political offer to us? I cannot conclude without an earnest appeal to those Socialists, of whatever section, who may be drawn towards the vortex of Parliamentarism, to think better of it while there is yet time. Continue reading this...
On a point of clarification, when Morris referred to State Socialism, I think he was referring to a ‘Socialism’ confined within the state of capitalism. I am sure he concurred with concept of a transitional State of Socialism as the lower phase of communism.
On the question of community, we need to recognise that local communities can only be part of wider technological developments and, in that sense, will be “discrete endeavours, disconnected from the wider issues” and, historically, it is not “geographical” location that contextualised the issues but the work that was made possible by the particularity of the location.
Also, as a consequence of the changes and expansion of transport and communication, we no longer both live and work in the same community and there is no reason to think that our ‘Parliamentary’ councils can be “revolutionised” any more than our national Parliament.
No – the vision of local, community councils, presumably founded on the outlook of revolutionary social democracy, will need to be politically organised firstly on the present organisation of our health and education services, as the basis for further advance in the areas of environment and leisure, work and housing.
William Morris is very interesting. His politics were always evolving. We can bandy around various quotations from various time-lines. His critique of parliamentarianism is often over-simplified. One has to be reminded that he was in constant dispute with various anarchists within the Socialist League and then at other times in conflict with reformists of the Social Democratic Federation. It would be a bit inaccurate to describe him as a pure and simple “anti-Parliamentarist”, and he certainly was not an anarchist. Morris’ arguments against parliamentary action can be summed up as (1) that Parliament was a capitalist institution; (2) that reforms obtained through Parliament would strengthen capitalism and would only be passed with this end in view; and (3) that campaigning for reforms would corrupt a socialist party. In The Policy of Abstention Morris declared:
“The Communists believe that it would be a waste of time for Socialists to expend their energy in furthering reforms which so far from bringing us nearer to Socialism would rather serve to bolster up the present state of things.”
However his arguments were against the policy of using Parliament to try to get reforms rather than against socialist parliamentary action as such and in fact, even during his “anti-parliamentary” period, Morris was not opposed to socialists entering Parliament in the course of the socialist revolution, on condition that they went there not to try to get reforms but ”as rebels”.
“I did not mean that at some time or other it might not be necessary for Socialists to go into Parliament in order to break it up; but again, that could only be when we are very much more advanced than we are now; in short, on the verge of a revolution; so that we might either capture the army, or shake their confidence in the legality of their position”
“I believe that the Socialists will certainly send members to Parliament when they are strong enough to do so: in itself I see no harm in that, so long as it is understood that they go there as rebels, and not as members of the governing body prepared by passing palliative measures to keep ‘Society’ alive. ”
“I admit, and always have admitted, that at some future period it may be necessary to use parliament mechanically: what I object to is *depending* on parliamentary agitation. There *must* be a great party, a great organisation outside parliament actively engaged in reconstructing society and learning administration whatever goes on in parliament itself. This is in direct opposition to the view of the regular parliamentary section as represented by Shaw, who look upon Parliament as *the* means…” (His emphases)
He recognised the necessity for socialists to gain control of political power before trying to establish socialism: “We must try. . . and get at the butt end of the machine gun and rifle, and then force is much less likely to be necessary and much more sure to be successful.” and that “it is necessary somehow to get hold of the machine which has at its back the executive power of the country”
In later life he reviews his early ideas – “We thought that every step towards Socialism would be resisted by the reactionaries who would use against it the legal executive force which was, and is, let me say, wholly in the power of the possessing classes, that the wider the movement grew the more rigorously the authorities would repress it. Almost everyone has ceased to believe in the change coming by catastrophe. To state the position shortly, as a means to the realization of the new society Socialists hope so far as to conquer public opinion, that at last a majority of the Parliament shall be sent to sit in the house as avowed Socialists and the delegates of Socialists, and on that should follow what legislation might be necessary; and moreover, though the time for this may be very far ahead, yet most people would now think that the hope of doing it is by no means unreasonable.”
He describes his vision of a socialist organisation “The organisation I am thinking of would have a serious point of difference from any that could be formed as a part of a parliamentary plan of action; its aim would be to act directly, whatever was done in it would be done by the people themselves: there would consequently be no possibility of compromise, of the association becoming anything else than it was intended to be; nothing could take its place: before all its members would be put one alternative to complete success, complete failure, namely. The workers can form an organisation which without heeding Parliament can force from the ruler what concessions may be necessary in the present and whose aim would be the total abolition of the monopolist classes and rule.”
Elsewhere he states “getting the workmen to organise genuine revolutionary labour bodies not looking to Parliament at all but to their own pressure (legal or illegal as the times may go) on their employers while the latter lasted”
An outline that obviously is not reflected by the run of the mill workers organisations of his time.
Morris clearly understood that a change in society could only be brought about with a change in the consciousness of the majority of people. “Practical socialism”, as he called revolutionary socialism, was a question of “making socialists” and therefore it was necessary to “educate the people in the principles of socialism”. Which clearly separates him from the Leninist vanguard concept of The Party. leading the workers. Nor was he proponent of state ownership as you so rightly point out – “No better solution would be that State Socialism, by whatever name it may be called”.
Morris, although not opposed to using Parliament as such, believed that concentrating on these elections would have directed the League away from the essential task of “making socialists” and instead into advocating reforms. The differences led to the Parliamentarists breaking away, leaving Morris and his associates at the mercy of anarchists, who soon dominated the League. When this happened Morris and his socialist friends withdrew to form the Hammersmith Socialist Society.
Morris was quite clear: a socialist organisation should not campaign for reforms or “palliatives” but should concentrate exclusively on socialist propaganda and education. In the beginning, in 1885 and 1886, this was based on a belief that capitalism was soon going to collapse (“when the crisis comes”) and the consequent urgent need to have a strong body of socialists to ensure that socialism would be the outcome. But, after a while, Morris came to question whether his opposition to campaigning for reforms (and campaigning to get elected to Parliament and local bodies on a programme of reforms) was justified. By 1890 this had developed to a full and clear understanding that the establishment of socialism was impossible without there first being a mass of opinion in favour of it and he never wavered on this crucial point.
The problem which Morris had been grappling with was the problem of reform and revolution. In his Socialist League days he had clearly seen the futility and danger of campaigning for reforms, but had linked this with a virtual rejection of parliamentary action. This was because in his mind parliamentary action and campaigning for reforms were inseparable. So, later, when he came to recognise the need to gain control of political power through the ballot box and Parliament before trying to establish socialism, this was coupled with an acceptance of the policy of campaigning for reforms.
Later proponents of the “Impossiblist” tradition such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain adopted a policy of trying to gain control of the machinery of government through the ballot box by campaigning on an exclusively socialist programme without seeking support on a policy of reforms; while supporting parliamentary action they refused to advocate reforms.
Apologies for this wordy comment but the views of William Morris is worth debating for its relevance for today.
I think we can all accept Morris’s caustic opinion of politicians when he said, “the business of a statesman is to balance the greed and fears of the proprietary classes against the necessities and demands of the working class. This is a sorry business, and leads to all kinds of trickery and evasion; so that it is more than doubtful whether a statesman can be a moderately honest man.”
Morris did not come “to recognise the need to gain control of political power through the ballot box and Parliament before trying to establish socialism” as asserted by Alan. There was no u-turn on his part, although Morris did, reluctantly, come to recognise that supporting reforms through Parliament was a necessary compromise.
As he himself put it, ‘Perhaps we Leaguers have become too stiff in our refusal to compromise. I have always felt that it was rather a matter of temperament rather than of principal: that some transition was of course inevitable, I mean a transition involving State Socialism and pretty stiff at that.’
He was right to be sceptical about reformism for, In 1945, the reformist Labour Party under the leadership of the Tony Blair of his day, Clement Attlee, won a Parliamentary ‘majority’ resulting in a Conservative/Labour governmental coalition of the UK which launched the post-war, modernisation of industry and the introduction of a welfare state while, at the same time, creating the imperialist NATO.
Certainly Morris was right in understanding that, “the establishment of socialism was impossible without there first being a mass of opinion in favour of it”, but that begs the question of how do you measure mass opinion?
For me, finding the ways to develop revolutionary social democracy in the here and now is the way to win the mass of working class opinion in favour of socialism beyond capitalism.
Hmmm… all interesting stuff here but I think the core aspect, namely the relevance (or not) of the parliamentary process in the struggle for socialism is still the key issue here. We can argue the toss about Morris’s ‘changing’ views’ on the subject and after all, his age, just like ours, was infused with the reformist view of things. Morris was pretty much a lone voice, never mind that the Anarchists took over ‘his’ Socialist League (largely because he was essentially alone on the left).
Morris’s comment:
“Whatever concessions may be necessary to the progress of the Revolution can be wrung out of them at least as easily by extra-Parliamentary pressure, which can be exercised without losing one particle of those principles which are the treasure and hope of Revolutionary Socialists.”
It rings true today. Just think on all the turnarounds the govt has made recently. Admittedly not over the fundamentals of their neoliberal agenda but they happened because Parliament is supine and peopled with professional politicos of the ‘left’ and right who no more represent the great British Public than I do.
I think the election of George Galloway demonstrates the futility of Parliament perfectly. He can do his Galloway thing til the cows come home but it’ll make not one jot of a difference except make a few on the left feel good for a few minutes. Would those on the ‘left’ of the Labour Party in parliament side with Galloway? Not if they want to keep their seats. In fact the Labour Party has a long history of red-baiting and Cold-War-mongering including banning real lefties from membership and even banning associating with those on the left over issues.
Thus, the issue hinges on whether or not a progressive party (or coalition) could win a majority in Parliament and form a real socialist government? How long would it last I wonder? More to the point; how do we get to there from here?
Bill
Bill
In my first comment on your article, I was not “arguing the toss about Morris’s ‘changing views’ on the subject”, I was seeking some clarification on your statement that “it’s Morris’s rejection of State Socialism that got him airbrushed out of our socialist past” and in my second comment I took up the question of your views on “local communities”.
In my next intervention, I differed with Alan on the question of Morris’s attitude towards ‘State Socialism‘ and then I referred to the question of “mass opinion” and, also, socialism beyond capitalism.
Those last words now seem particularly apt when you noted that, “the issue hinges on whether or not a progressive party (or coalition) could win a majority in Parliament and form a real socialist government?”
As the only ‘real socialism’ possible is that beyond capitalism, any ‘socialist’ government formed within the constitutional framework of capitalist society cannot be anything other than ‘reformist’.
19 March 2012 – Information Clearing House
Israel Intelligence Agrees Iran Is Not After N-bomb: Report
By Press TV
Several senior Israeli officials, who spoke to AP in recent days clearly, said Israel has come around to the US view that no final decision to build a bomb has been made by Iran.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30853.htm
Rag Radio
Greenwashgold.org
PBS ombud Michael Getler (
Hi Alan,
Thanks for this, I think it compliments my precis of Morris’s ideas about socialism perfectly. However, if in Morris’s day, he considered parliament a waste of time and effort for socialists to (attempt) entering, I can only say that today, parliament is even less relevant! And given that we no longer have trade unions or political parties as our collective means of political expression, things look decidedly grim for us.
We need only consider the millions of people who have been plunged into poverty by the so-called austerity programme, all of it hidden from our view. It has no voice, no organisation, nothing. The media ignores it, the ‘left’ is still talking about an organised working class when the entire point is that the working class is NOT organised, except for what’s left of the labour aristocracy, most of whom work for the government! It’s a bizarre and unique situation.