These quotes from the governing prime minister, the leader of the Labour Party and the general secretary of the biggest trade union in the UK, Unite, set the parameters for the debate which essentially were about the relationship between migration and the significant wage decline of the local working class. The fact that many workers subscribe to their line of argument has less to do with xenophobia, but rather with the merging of various factors during the mid-2000s: the global crisis hit home at a point when the measures aimed at the general casualisation of labour relations that had been introduced by the New Labour government during the late 1990s showed their brutal impact; and this happened during the same period that the labour market in Britain was further opened up as a result of EU expansion in 2004 and 2007. Today we see the seemingly paradoxical coexistence of the lowest unemployment rates in recent history combined with record decline of wages, which points towards a structural weakness on the side of the working class.
Corbyn’s pro-Brexit position is due to his social democratic policies relying not only on the regulation and taxation of capital flows, but also on the regulation of the movement of labour, as the other side of the same coin. This leads to major tension with both the neoliberal wing of the Labour Party and his left-wing foot soldiers, who comprise significant sections of the formerly radical left which have joined the party during the recent Corbynmania. This part of the left reacts against this national trend of social democracy by upholding a liberal or humanist pro-migrant position. As a result, they fail to explain the enormous collapse of working and living conditions of local workers, which they could do by analysing the structural weakness of a newly composed class. Instead they have to blame the wickedness and omnipresent power of the bosses. In the first part of this article we look at the historical context of the current debate about migration and working class existence.
In the second part we write about our experiences in warehouses and factories in west London and with the mainstream trade union wage management. Since 2012 we organise ourselves as the Angry Workers collective in one of Europe’s biggest logistic and food processing zones. More than 90 per cent of our colleagues are migrant workers. They keep London running, providing food and personal services to the global financial and political centre, while at the same time being used as pawns in the political game.
PATRISSE KHAN-CULLORS said:I think what we’ve seen over the last four-and-a-half years, as this movement has grown, is a continued, you know, backlash from the right and “alt-right.” And the first time, you know, we were called terrorists, I remember seeing our names on Bill O’Reilly’s show, and our faces. And I thought that that was frightening, because I know who watches Bill O’Reilly
BILL O’REILLY said:Hi. I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. How Black Lives Matter is killing Americans, that is the subject of this evening’s talking points memo.
AMY GOODMAN said:A leaked memo from the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Analysis Unit claims so-called black identity extremists pose a threat to law enforcement. The memo, from August 2017, reads, quote, “The FBI assesses it is very likely Black Identity Extremist perceptions of police brutality against African Americans spurred an increase in premeditated, retaliatory lethal violence against law enforcement and will very likely serve as justification for such violence.” That, an FBI memo. asha bandele?
Interesting article arguing that the nation state is a product of 19th Century industrial capitalism which required management by centralised bureaucracies, and that the tendency of modern technology towards decentralisation will lead to the nation state being gradually replaced by the city state as the dominant form of organisation. Seems to flirt with libertarian capitalism a little bit but I think the core of the argument makes a lot of sense - and the idea of "smart" socialist cities with digital direct democracy, universal basic income, and key services under municipal control sounds like a realistic route to communism to me.
Is this what the glorious communist future will look like - a federalised global network of smart cities who have abolishing private ownership of the means of production and who practise digital direct democracy? Standing in local elections and campaigning for more municipal independence while attempting to implement direct democracy and replace the welfare system with universal basic income seems like a revolutionary yet realistic and totally achievable goal to me.
The end of a world of nation-states may be upon us | Aeon Essays
I hope not, that version of 'communism' looks shit.
I wouldn't worry the thing is a load of mad libertarian nonsenseI hope not, that version of 'communism' looks shit.
The London mayor is extremely powerful in certain areas (transport) but those areas are strictly limited and outside those areas they are virtually powerless. The idea that the these supposed city states are going to challenge nation states is lunacy, look at this crap.This shift in power is visible in the way that the mayors of major cities are political heavyweights in their own right: think of Bill de Blasio in New York, Sadiq Khan in London,...
Liberland, which is uninhabited but has more than 100,000 online citizens ready to move if Croatia stops blocking inward access, already has the trappings of a city-state. A currency, a constitution, a president and even a football team. Everything has been designed to maximise individual liberty. For a start, anyone can join and leave as they wish. It would be the first state in the world where nothing would be compulsory, where you can do whatever the hell you like, as long as it doesn’t physically harm someone else. ‘It’s a tax heaven, not a tax haven,’ Jedlicka told me recently when I interviewed him for my book Radicals Chasing Utopia (2017). Schools, hospitals, pensions, roads, sewage works, rubbish collection and the rest will be provided by the market, if people decide that’s what they want and stump up the money.
The article itself only mentions "decentralisation" twice, and both in connection with technology rather than these supposed city states. Where is this decentralisation happening? In fact the trend has been the opposite, an increased centralisation of power. Look at the UK, the powers of local government have been continually reduced since the 70s. For all the talk about the political weight of the London mayor, they have considerably less power than the old GLC did. At the same time the powers of London government have been centralised to one individual whom is in practice unaccountable to the Assembly. How this that decentralisation?Is this what the glorious communist future will look like - a federalised global network of smart cities who have abolishing private ownership of the means of production and who practise digital direct democracy? Standing in local elections and campaigning for more municipal independence while attempting to implement direct democracy and replace the welfare system with universal basic income seems like a revolutionary yet realistic and totally achievable goal to me
Cities can't exist without hinterlands. Chicago wouldn't be Chicago without a vast network that stretched westward all the way to the Pacific ocean. And control of territories of that size is better done by nation-states.Interesting article arguing that the nation state is a product of 19th Century industrial capitalism which required management by centralised bureaucracies, and that the tendency of modern technology towards decentralisation will lead to the nation state being gradually replaced by the city state as the dominant form of organisation. Seems to flirt with libertarian capitalism a little bit but I think the core of the argument makes a lot of sense - and the idea of "smart" socialist cities with digital direct democracy, universal basic income, and key services under municipal control sounds like a realistic route to communism to me.
Is this what the glorious communist future will look like - a federalised global network of smart cities who have abolishing private ownership of the means of production and who practise digital direct democracy? Standing in local elections and campaigning for more municipal independence while attempting to implement direct democracy and replace the welfare system with universal basic income seems like a revolutionary yet realistic and totally achievable goal to me.
The end of a world of nation-states may be upon us | Aeon Essays
I wouldn't worry the thing is a load of mad libertarian nonsense
The London mayor is extremely powerful in certain areas (transport) but those areas are strictly limited and outside those areas they are virtually powerless. The idea that the these supposed city states are going to challenge nation states is lunacy, look at this crap.
But it's not just nonsense, it's nonsense built on stilts. Modern capital requires the nation state, look at the bailouts after 2008, look at Carillion/PFI crap we had last week, it is through the nation state that these transfers of wealth are made possible.
The article itself only mentions "decentralisation" twice, and both in connection with technology rather than these supposed city states. Where is this decentralisation happening? In fact the trend has been the opposite, an increased centralisation of power. Look at the UK, the powers of local government have been continually reduced since the 70s. For all the talk about the political weight of the London mayor, they have considerably less power than the old GLC did. At the same time the powers of London government have been centralised to one individual whom is in practice unaccountable to the Assembly. How this that decentralisation?
Good as it may be none of that is an example of communism.It hasn't happened yet. But the nature of work has undeniably changed from the Fordist production model - in many jobs there is no real need to be in the workplace really.
For examples, I would look at 15M movement in Spain. People from these movements took power in the 2015 local elections in Madrid, Barcelona, and other cities and have used local government to try and reverse privatisations (municipalise, rather than nationalise, public services), improve transparency and participation in decision making, take action on housing and invest more in welfare.
I would also look at sanctuary cities, and, going further back, the experience of militant in Liverpool.
Where is this happening? Where is it going to happen considering the nation state plays a vital role in assisting capital? The creation of special economic zones or special deals for London are not examples of the independence of cities, just another means for the state to help out capital.And city state may be too strong a word. I don't expect cities to replace the nation state, but rather for their independence to grow, and the role of the nation state and national borders to shrink in relative terms.
That's a load of politicians talking about how they don't like (or at least don't like) some parts of TTIP. You think that is communism? It talks about the SNP in Scotland, ok are SNP controlled "municipalities" discussing about passing illegal budgets to obstruct cuts? Of course they aren't. Labour have just blocked any of their local councils doing such. This is not a challenge to the nation state it's a bunch of, generally centre-left, politicians getting together and talking.More independent municipalities are capable of coordinating and organising across national borders, e.g. The Barcelona Declaratio against TTIP, where 40 "TTIP-free" cities from across Europe met in Barcelona to agree to work together in blocking TTIP.
Link to the anti-TTIP thing:
'Barcelona Declaration' of European cities demands suspension of TTIP talks
What actual examples are in this piece? There's a lot of talking, a lot of it even stuff I agree with but the sole concrete examples seem to be getting control/opposition of local government.Some examples of "new municipalism" in Spain and beyond.
From Citizen Platforms to Fearless Cities: Europe’s New Municipalism
No bad thing (at least not necessarily), but not communism, not a challenge to the nation state, it is not in any way, shape or formIn some major Spanish cities – including Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Zaragoza, La Coruña – those mayors and those coalitions are now in government. In others, they represent the main opposition force.
or anything like it.a federalised global network of smart cities who have abolishing private ownership of the means of production and who practise digital direct democracy? Standing in local elections and campaigning for more municipal independence while attempting to implement direct democracy and replace the welfare system with universal basic income seems like a revolutionary yet realistic and totally achievable goal to me.
Good as it may be none of that is an example of communism.
Where is this happening? Where is it going to happen considering the nation state plays a vital role in assisting capital? The creation of special economic zones or special deals for London are not examples of the independence of cities, just another means for the state to help out capital.
That's a load of politicians talking about how they don't like (or at least don't like) some parts of TTIP. You think that is communism? It talks about the SNP in Scotland, ok are SNP controlled "municipalities" discussing about passing illegal budgets to obstruct cuts? Of course they aren't. Labour have just blocked any of their local councils doing such. This is not a challenge to the nation state it's a bunch of, generally centre-left, politicians getting together and talking.
What actual examples are in this piece? There's a lot of talking, a lot of it even stuff I agree with but the sole concrete examples seem to be getting control/opposition of local government. No bad thing (at least not necessarily), but not communism, not a challenge to the nation state, it is not in any way, shape or form
or anything like it.
No they're examples of centre-left parties getting control of local government and those local governments having a knees up.I'm not saying it is happening, I just thought that rethinking communist strategy in terms of municipalities rather than workplaces is an interesting idea. The examples I gave are of local activists getting control of local government and different local authorities networking independently of national governments
No they're examples of centre-left parties getting control of local government and those local governments having a knees up.
I've no issue with municipal socialism but you've not show a single example of the nation state being challenged, you've not shown an example of cities "creating new structures of direct democracy". You've not even given an reason why you think this is more likely to happen than " call centre workers and waiters occupying their workplaces". Electing centre-left parties, the same centre-left parties that are implementing cuts to services, to local government is not municipal socialism. And how has UBI been implemented by governments, local or national?
In 1993, Vice President Al Gore took part in an unusual debate about trade: He went on Larry King’s CNN show to spar with Ross Perot—the third-party candidate President Bill Clinton had beaten in the previous year’s election—over the impending North American Free Trade Agreement. During the campaign, Perot had warned that NAFTA would create a “giant sucking sound” as high-paying manufacturing jobs drained out of the country. About a year later, Clinton was trying to push it through, and so Gore was dispatched to debate NAFTA’s most high-profile opponent.
Most observers concluded that Gore won handily. But he didn’t convincingly put away Perot’s arguments; instead, he took his opponent down with a lot of cheap rhetorical tricks—most especially, baiting Perot’s notorious temper by constantly interrupting him. Perot’s peevish “Could I finish?” was turned into a punch line by comedian Dana Carvey, and that was that. It was a tactical success for Clinton, who wanted to build a new base for his party among the executive and financier class and high-income voters. NAFTA was eventually approved by the Senate and signed into law by Clinton on December 8, 1993.
In the end, however, Perot turned out to be more right than wrong about NAFTA—and not only on economic but on political terms. While NAFTA’s overall effects weren’t that large, there were far bigger losses after Clinton signed another trade deal, this time with China, in 2000, and the wreckage left by the outsourcing and deindustrialization that followed would come back to haunt his wife in the 2016 election. The Democrats’ embrace of free-market policies, which reached its apex under Clinton, may have helped rejuvenate the party in the 1990s and early 2000s, but that embrace has now crippled it. Hillary Clinton’s shocking loss to Donald Trump—whose signature economic pledge was to reverse the “bad deals” of the past few decades—simply highlights a generation of Democratic Party politics that has now come crashing to an end.
In April 1932, hundreds of workers took to the hills of northern England to challenge the right of landed gentry to enclose the countryside.