“No-Deal” Brexit: A nineteenth century solution that still works

A “no-deal” Brexit was always the only Brexit the UK had any chance to gain out of its fascist minded referendum. This is not just because the opponents of Brexit are in charge of the process, although they are; nor is it simply because the May government is incompetent, although it is.

The real reason a “no-deal” Brexit was inevitable is that Britain is looking for the same sort of deal with the European Union that it enjoyed with India up until 1948.

If Britain could dictate its relation with the EU and determine EU policies, its membership in the EU would not be a problem. The problem only emerges because the EU asserts in no uncertain terms that its rules apply to all members without exception.

This is unacceptable to Britain — Brits are special and deserve special rules that apply only to them.

Continue reading ““No-Deal” Brexit: A nineteenth century solution that still works”

“Capital’s Lapdogs”: How communization theory also misreads the proletarian revolution

This is part two of the notes I made on the text, Revolution: program or communization?, which purports to be a primer on communization theory. Part one can be found here.

NOTE: The original text is in French. I have based this critique on an English translation, supplemented with a web-based translation service. Where necessary, I have edited the text and placed it [in brackets] to make it more comprehensible to me. It is possible some parts of the authors’ argument has been mangled in the process and I apologize for this.

Continue reading ““Capital’s Lapdogs”: How communization theory also misreads the proletarian revolution”

“Capital’s Lapdogs”: How communization theory misreads the proletarians

I apologize for this to my readers, but I cannot help myself. I have been reading another of these trashy anonymous communization manifestos — this one, titled Revolution: program or communization?, which purports to be a primer on communization theory.

Unfortunately, even by the standards of communization theory writings, it is ghastly. But since I come across very little in the way of critical engagement with the underlying argument of communization theory, I am forced to wade through this shit.

This primer in particular stinks of warmed over Open Marxism.

NOTE: The original text is in French. I have based this critique on an English translation, supplemented with a web-based translation service. Where necessary, I have edited the text and placed it [in brackets] to make it more comprehensible to me. It is possible some parts of the authors argument has been mangled in the process and I apologize for this.

Continue reading ““Capital’s Lapdogs”: How communization theory misreads the proletarians”

The SCUM Manifesto and the Abolition of Wage Slavery

As I was banned on r/communization last night, I accused of parroting Valerie Solanas, author of the SCUM Manifesto in 1967. I had never heard of this person before last night, so I went to read it. I was actually surprised both by the manifesto and by the accusation that I was parroting many of Solanas’s ideas.

If you are familiar with Solanas and her SCUM Manifesto, my surprise may not be what you think it is. I was very impressed with her argument.

Here are some of her choice quotes:

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

This is certainly more profoundly revolutionary sentiments than anything I have ever read on r/communization since I joined it, or any communization screed with which I am familiar.

Solanas also wrote this in 1969:

There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants.

And, finally, this gem:

What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.

This manifesto was decades ahead of its time on a number of fronts and addresses issues communists still grapple with today.

The text is highly controversial: did Solanas mean it to be taken literally or was it satire on the level of Jonathan Swift? Solanas (and many who knew her) at times appears to take either side of this controversy. In any case, I am going to spend some time examining it. I hope to write something about it in the next few days.

Banned again for suggesting we need to get rid of wage labor: A Tale

I had an interesting experience on r/communization subreddit tonight. I told some people that I thought communism meant getting rid of wage slavery. I even explained how I thought this could be done.

I was told that getting rid of wage slavery didn’t address women’s issues, colonialism, etc. When I responded that if wage labor was eliminated that women would not be dependent on men and could tell men to fuck off, I was banned summarily from the subreddit.

I am pretty sure I never violated any rules of the subreddit. I just think many communists really don’t want to think about actually getting rid of wage labor, despite their protests to the contrary. Banning may be the only way they can handle the issue.

I think the real rule I violated was to talk about getting rid of labor. No one — not radical Leftists, social-democrats or hard-core communists — wants to talk about this issue.

John Danaher asks “Should We Abolish Work?”

I have been reading an essay by John Danaher, “Should We Abolish Work?” It is part of a collection of essays on the theme of antiwork in a volume titled, “Abolish Work”.

I don’t make it a habit of critiquing anarchist essays for the simple reason that it is a little like nailing jello to the wall. Anarchist writings are so diverse in their approaches that very little said about one writer applies to the next. However, I think Danaher asks an interesting question that pretty much touches on one of the most important themes of this blog.

And I want to discuss why I think Danaher’s approach is unsatisfactory in this essay because it reflects what I think is a general weakness with the essays in this volume. While I agree that technological unemployment is a good thing (at least in the long run), I don’t believe this volume makes a very good case for abolishing wage labor.

Continue reading “John Danaher asks “Should We Abolish Work?””