Blog

Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the LRC. We are currently undergoing technical problems with the site and currently with the links to blog postings. Please bear with us until we can complete a new website.

Ferguson, USA

Barry Ewart
23rd August 2014 at 20:13
0 comments
When I was a kid I used to love the nature films on TV -  you know where human beings usually used to dart wild animals like rhinos, elephants etc to save them.  But why do human beings always seem to shoot to kill other human beings? Does it come with the territory of a uniform and authority plus the militarisation of the US police- in the face of its own US citizens? Could intelligent authority reps if they are so frightend use dart guns as a semi- last resort to pacify human beings? Or if they are really frightened and are so intoxicated by using lethal weaons at least shoot other human beings in the leg as a last resort to debilitate - both I accept may be semi- barbarric but don’t kill.  I am a peaceful democratic socialist and believe talking is the real solution but perhaps we should give dignity to all human beings in all our wonderful human diversity. Of course what working people in the US and oppressed groups there really need to deal with the root causes of all their problems is a US Labour!
Yours in peace and hope!  [continue/comment...]

On Enlightenment

Steve Ballard
18th August 2014 at 10:51
3 comments
This draft is based on Kant’s 1788 What is Enlightenment, Hegel’s 1827 Philosophy of Right, Feuerbach’s 1843 Principles of the Philosophy of the Future and Engels’ 1886 Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.
Kant is widely regarded as the father of enlightenment and modern science. He recognised that Nature is the source of all life. Kant defined enlightenment as humankind becoming more mature by using its increasing understanding of Nature to repudiate self-righteous authorities that cause ungovernable destruction of life and cultures in futile wars.
Hegel was a Prussian professor who validated war for profit. He reasoned that autocracies have no right use armed force to uphold their legal authority, whereas liberal democracies have the right to declare war against legal authorities, if most voters approve. At that time, voters were a tiny minority of privileged men — men of property and some professionals such as academics and lawyers. Thousands of privileged men throughout Europe suddenly developed an interest in democracy and philosophy and declared themselves Young Hegelians. Like Kant but unlike Hegel, Feuerbach recognised that privileged men have always profited from war, and that capitalism — authority based on waging war for profit — will cause ungovernable destruction of life and cultures which will prevent populations from working with the rest of Nature to provide what they need to survive. Like Kant but unlike Hegel, Feuerbach recognised that waging war for profit is an ungovernable unsustainable abuse of Nature that will cause cultures to disintegrate into barbarism. The thesis of Feuerbach’s Principles is that humankind’s survival will depend on a critical mass of people repudiating waging war for profit which they will only recognise as necessary after experiencing barbarism.
In 1848, liberals used armed force to overthrow the remaining legal autocracies in Europe, and privileged men suddenly lost interest in democracy and philosophy, even Feuerbach. Marx and Engels became the only people to oppose the disintegration of cultures on the basis of Feuerbach’s Principles. The 1864 International Workingmen’s Association, later called the First International, was the first attempt to mobilise the compassionate democracy of an injury to one is an injury to all trade unionism to overcome the philistine hegemony of profiteering war-mongers. The First International was taken over by anarchists who repudiated Feuerbach’s thesis, and claimed the right to kill those who profit from death. Like Kant and Feuerbach, Marx recognised that self-righteous executions are an abuse of Nature, and he closed down the First International in 1876 rather than leaving it in the hands of armed libertarians.
In the meantime, cultures were beginning to disintegrate as a result of civil conflict and colonial wars. Tragically, the functionaries of the 1881 Second International also repudiated Feuerbach’s thesis. They failed to recognise how Darwin’s Origin of Species confirmed Kant’s thesis and the disintegration of cultures confirmed Feuerbach’s Principles. They also misunderstood Marx’s struggle against the anarchists, as Engels made clear in 1886. As a result, Second International functionaries had no philosophical basis to prevent the proliferation of nationalist cliques demanding war for profit, and catastrophic world war became unavoidable. Instead of repudiating capitalism, Second International functionaries taught trade unionists to accept it as part of modern life, and to survive by pleading for crumbs like beggars.
In 1917, after three years of ‘the war to end all wars’, Lenin and the Bolsheviks managed to form a few Soviet republics. They were opposed by war on all fronts. Having repudiated war, their objective was to overcome starvation caused by years of war and ignorance caused by centuries of unenlightened autocracies. Lenin formed the Third International in 1919 to sustain the unstable Soviet system pending assistance from countries where enlightened education and trade union solidarity were more established than in the vast plains of feudal Russia. After Lenin’s death, the Third International adopted the compromising methods of the Second International, and degenerated to executing its critics.
Current functionaries of Trotsky’s 1938 Fourth International have learned nothing from the ungovernable destruction of life and cultures caused by ungovernable wars for profit that is now self-evident. Current functionaries of the British Labour Party demonstrate their lack of principle by supporting armed invasions beyond British jurisdiction, and the use of force against trade unionists and other opponents of profiteering and war within Britain. ‘New Labour’ war-mongers no longer prevail. Nevertheless, if current British Labour Party functionaries form a government, they will prove incapable of repudiating capitalism unless challenged on the basis of humankind’s survival. The 2004 Labour Representation Committee was formed to secure a socialist voice within the Labour Party, the trade unions, and Parliament. That means providing a clear explanation of why capitalism threatens humankind’s survival, so that LRC members and others can begin to change the course of history.
Repudiating all war and the profiteering orthodoxy of the bond market would be a good starting point in Britain. In practice, this means organising world-wide campaigns for unconditional ceasefires and the unconditional disbanding of all armed forces and the dismantling of all weapons; world-wide campaigns for the immediate unconditional cancellation of all public liability to profiteering enterprises, and for progressive taxation to outlaw the unjust accumulation and inheritance of unequal wealth and privileges; and world-wide campaigns to safeguard all children’s equal right to a better future. Other methods for changing the course of history should be considered in other parts of the world, but their common cause needs to be that of enlightened teachers throughout history — developing a clear explanation that any adult can teach to any youth anywhere in the world, so that we can all use our increasing understanding of Nature and the natural ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’ compassion we were born with to repudiate all forms of self-righteous authority.  [continue/comment...]

Ukraine – who to support?

MickBrooks
11th August 2014 at 10:04
1 comment
Ukraine – who to support? By Mick Brooks The essential background to the crisis in Ukraine is the deep impoverishment of the population caused by the restoration of capitalism. Ever since then politics has been dominated by oligarchic cliques of capitalists who stole the publicly owned means of production. Capitalism has also been restored in Russia and Putin (an oligarch) is its representative. Why should socialists support one gang of capitalists against another? [continue/comment...]

A revenge operation?

Mike Phipps
23rd July 2014 at 19:58
1 comment
Mark Harper, the Immigration Minister notorious for the racist “In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest” vans who left the Government in February, is back in office. After just six months on the back benches, he returns to the Coalition as Minister of State at the DWP. [continue/comment...]

What Labour narrative?

Mike Phipps
8th July 2014 at 10:13
0 comments
There my be an element of wishful thinking in Michael Meacher’s recent post on Left Futures, “A clear Labour narrative is emerging, but key gaps need filling”. (http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/07/a-clear-labour-narrative-is-emerging-but-key-gaps-need-filling/). A few good policies, such as the repeal of the bedroom tax or an energy price freeze does not constitute a narrative. In fact, without such an over-arching ideology there is a real danger that a few good policies will lack any credibility. [continue/comment...]

Page 7 of 12 pages
first page / previous / 5 / 6 / [ 7 ] / 8 / 9 / next / last page