#what happened to labour being socialist

[dnpformsprings]

uk politics rn really is just the tories going “hello! super unpopular decision here hope you enjoy!” and then labour nodding along going “yes we will also do that”

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists support?

Anarchists tend to support must forms of co-operation, including those associated with credit and money. This co-operative banking takes many forms, such as credit unions, LETS schemes and so on. In this section we discuss two main forms of co-operative credit, mutualism and

LETS.

Mutualism is the name for the ideas associated with Proudhon and his Bank of the People. Essentially, it is a confederation of credit unions in which working class people pool their funds and savings so allowing credit to be supplied at cost (no interest), so increasing the options available to them. LETS stands for Local Exchange Trading Schemes and is a similar idea in many ways (see Bringing the Economy Home from the Market by Ross V.G. Dobson on LETS). From its start in Canada, LETS has spread across the world and there are now hundreds of schemes involving hundreds of thousands of people.

Both schemes revolve around creating an alternative form of currency and credit within capitalism in order to allow working class people to work outwith the capitalist money system by creating a new circulating medium. In this way, it is hoped, workers would be able to improve their living and working conditions by having a source of community-based (very low interest) credit and so be less dependent on capitalists and the capitalist banking system. Supporters of mutualism considered it as the ideal way of reforming capitalism away for by making credit available to the ordinary worker at very cheap rates, the end of wage slavery could occur as workers would work for themselves by either purchasing the necessary tools required for their work or by buying the capitalists out.

Mutual credit, in short, is a form of credit co-operation, in which individuals pull their resources together in order to benefit themselves as individuals and as part of a community. It has the following key aspects:

Co-operation: No-one owns the network. It is controlled by its members democratically.

Non-exploitative: No interest is charged on account balances or credit. At most administrative costs are charged, a result of it being commonly owned and managed.

Consent: Nothing happens without it, there is no compulsion to trade.

Labour-Notes: They use their own type of money as a means of aiding “honest exchange.”

It is hoped, by organising credit, working class people will be able to work for themselves and slowly but surely replace capitalism with a co-operative system based upon self-management. While LETS schemes do not have such grand schemes, historically mutualism aimed at working within and transforming capitalism to socialism. At the very least, LETS schemes reduce the power and influence of banks and finance capital within society as mutualism ensures that working people have a viable alternative to such parasites.

These ideas have had a long history within the socialist movement, originating in Britain in the early 19th century when Robert Owen and other Socialists raised the idea of labour notes and labour-exchanges as both a means of improving working class conditions within capitalism and of reforming capitalism into a society of confederated, self-governing communities. Such “Equitable Labour Exchanges” were “founded at London and Birmingham in 1832” with “Labour notes and the exchange of small products.” [E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, p. 870] Apparently independently of these attempts in Britain at what would later be called mutualism, Proudhon arrived at the same ideas decades later in France: “The People’s Bank quite simply embodies the financial and economic aspects of the principle of modern democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of the republican motto, ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’” [Selected Writings of P-J Proudhon, p. 75] Similarly, in the USA (partly as a result of Joshua Warren’s activities, who got the idea from Robert Owen) there was extensive discussion on labour notes, exchanges and free credit as a means of protecting workers from the evils of capitalism and ensuring their independence and freedom from wage slavery. When Proudhon’s works appeared in North America, the basic arguments were well known and they were quickly adopted by radicals there.

Therefore the idea that mutual banking using labour money as a means to improve working class living conditions, even, perhaps, to achieve industrial democracy, self-management and the end of capitalism has a long history in Socialist thought. Unfortunately this aspect of socialism became less important with the rise of Marxism (which called these early socialists “utopian”). Attempts at such credit unions and alternative exchange schemes were generally replaced with attempts to build working class political parties and so constructive socialistic experiments and collective working class self-help was replaced by working within the capitalist state. Fortunately, history has had the last laugh on Marxism with working class people yet again creating anew the ideas of mutualism (as can be seen by the growth of LETS and other schemes of community money).

[lnsfawwi]

Heroism in TFATWS

Let's establish one thing which is that the show operates in a superhero trope, which means there are good guys and bad guys, and the good guys always win. This is not to say that characters are morally clean-cut between good/bad. The Flag Smashers acted out of good intentions; Walker did want to do good things when he took over the mantle. But that doesn't mean they aren't the bad guys in the story, because a person is not only judged by their intentions but also the means and the ends of those intentions.

Sam and Bucky are the heroes in the story, they beat the bad guys (the Flag Smashers) and saved the world. That's how the story ends. That's how all the superhero stories end.

But the show isn't quite that simple, not in the sense that it deals with moral greys, no. Rather, the show really fucks up the boundaries between good/bad, right/wrong, and by extension, the heroism of the show.

Let's say Karli has some vague cosmopolitan worldview, and let's say that's better than the state system so Sam is justified to sympathize with her cause, and sam is rightfully asking the governments to be better. What's the actual, feasible way to achieve Karli's vision? Nice speeches notwithstanding, Sam isn't offering a solution. States aren't going to abandon the system that made them a state just because some hero dressed in an American flag descends from the sky and tells them to. Forced displacement and/or re-settlement happen because the population distribution is screwed, especially in Western Europe where Karli is from. Those states simply do not have the capacity, spatially and financially, to accommodate all the people while the others would be faced with devastating labour shortages. Statecraft is not just about morals, some IR scholars would even argue it's never about morals, you have to do the rationalist calculation. (also sam's speech to the politicians is so.........wrong. it sounds like a 16-year-old wanna-be socialist who spends too much time on leftist tiktok)

Here's the thing, you can agree with the political ideology or not, because it's not about whether it's right or wrong. It's about Sam being a hero who comes from a heavy political background, who represents a set of values that is meant to transcend a single country, advocating that ideology whilst being completely naive about it.

Steve embodies a similar idealism that makes him a hero, but not a leader. He's a leader because he can lead, he assesses the situation, sets a goal, and gives out tasks to achieve that goal. In the show, Sam is not demonstrating effective leadership, although not entirely his fault.

When you have the 'hero' indiscriminatorily endorsing the villain's philosophy, it doesn't mean the hero is empathetic, it means the hero is fucking bullshit. What makes a hero isn't merely stopping bad guys, it's also offering a better alternative even when the villain kinda makes sense. Superheroes are supposed to offer moral lessons through their heroism, which often takes place as they defeat evil. Without that, they're just dudes stopping fights, not heroes fighting for causes. The only moral lesson Sam offers is 'hey maybe radicalization is bad', which is completely ignored by both Karli and Zemo.

Sam's sympathy towards Karli is even more absurd. Even if he agrees with her cause, she's an unrepentant killer. 'Don't call them terrorists.' really, Sam? What would you call them? Just bc the Soviets fought the N@zis doesn't mean they were the good guys.

Furthermore, we see the contrast between her and the other flag smashers. They were invisible victims while her body was gently carried by Sam as phones and cameras were recording. In a show where they tried to make sense of racism, the stark contrast between Karli and the rest of the group happens to be mostly PoC is kinda hilarious.

The problem isn't Sam. It's the terrible horrible writing. You can't take a Watsonian take when it's so obviously a Doylist problem. The show claims to be a lot of things it got wrong is just pathetic.

What about Bucky? His arc is pretty detached from the main storyline and he basically did nothing significant in the show so I don't even know what they want to convey about his heroism. He was literally just running around punching people (not even very good at it too) while being blamed for things he wasn't responsible for. He only told Karli that killing was bad. What a novel lesson. Again, there is nothing from the good guy.

Who is the hero then?

Zemo is the true anti-hero of the show. Throughout the show, Sam and Bucky - the good guys - oppose killing in general, but their method is proven ineffectual and in the end, all Flag Smashers are killed with a majority of them killed after they were lawfully arrested. The Flag Smashers were terrorists, they were the villains, therefore narratively, this makes Zemo's end goal - killing all supersoldiers, in this case, the Flag Smashers - right. His ideology - the desire to become superhuman cannot be separated from supremacist ideas; supersoldiers cannot be allowed to exist - is positively reflected in the story. His success inevitably justifies his ideology, which stands in contrast to both Sam and Karli. I'm not saying what he did was heroic, but from a storytelling perspective, Zemo is the 'hero' who ultimately eliminated the evil in this superhero trope.

The result is that Sam, the supposed hero of the show, has done nothing. He didn't stop the bad guys, he didn't offer an effective alternative to Karli (or Zemo) practically and ideologically, while Zemo did all that. What does it say about heroism and the idealism that comes with it? That it's nice to talk about but useless when a real battle takes place? That end does justify means? Because that's not what Cap trilogy conveys.

[angie-words]

CW: mention of being overwhelmed, swearing

Today was a bit of a rollercoaster

Took my dad to watch Nye at the National Theatre. I bought the tickets back in November and we've been looking forward to it. Dad's an old Labour party member, through-and-through Socialist, with Aneurin Bevan being one of his absolute heroes. He even got to see him speak, in person, when he was just a child.

He's also a fan of Michael Sheen's work like me (well, not quite like me... We just appreciate him in different ways...)

Anyway, long complicated journey to get there because of the trains being messed up. We arrive to find that unfortunately Sheen is unwell and unable to perform. Some friends found out he'd also not been able to perform yesterday or do stage doors for a few nights, apparently.

These things happen, got to let it roll off you like water off something's back, right?

The problem is that I don't do great with change at the best of times so I was terrified I was going to get overwhelmed and ruin the day. Bear in mind that we were actually meant to go in March but had to change the tickets due to a family event being put in place after I had already booked the tickets (that's... that's a whole other complicated thing)

And then my dad, who this entire trip has really been all for, must have seen the look on my face. He softly said, "oh, it's ok. No need to feel despondent! I'm sure it will be lovely anyway." It was just such a sweet thing to hear that I sort of compartmentalised and reminded myself that, whilst seeing Sheen pretend to be a deer on stage would have been a highlight (yes, that happens in the play), this was his day out.

You know what? It was lovely. The understudy, Lee Mengo, was fantastic. The play was beautiful and funny; it reminded me why the NHS is so vital, and how criminal it is that it's been undermined and under-funded for so long.

I asked dad afterwards if he enjoyed it. He thought it was wonderful, timely and made him remember what a titan Bevan had been (as well as what a cunt Churchill was - dad's words but also mine).

I let my friends in discord know and they were incredibly sweet and supportive. One of them has even volunteered to come see it with me next week as they haven't seen the play. Even better: it's going to be a sensory-adapted performance, so I'm intrigued about what that looks like. I also really want to see it again because I'm dying to see Michael Sheen live, and how his performance differs.

Hopefully he's feeling better soon. I'm honestly astounded at the workload actors maintain over several weeks in shows like these so it shouldn't be a massive surprise that people get ill.

Just feeling very grateful for having wonderful family, friends, and a partner who gave me a massive hug when I got home

[dracomort]

Hello! I noticed you recently used the radfem tag on a post. Being a HP author, are you aware of the message this sends considering the source content for this fandom?

I debated whether or not to answer this, as I am well aware of the hornet's nest I'm kicking—particularly on this site. However, I believe the contemporary rhetoric that assumes one's support of 'x' means they must believe 'y' to be reductive, dishonest, and particularly troubling when it comes to silencing the voices of women. It's the very same false equivalence that has led large swathes of the population into claiming that support of Palestine = antisemitism (including, ironically, JK Rowling).

I consider myself a radical feminist and I won't censor that simply because I also happen to like a magical school kid's book series written by a conservative moron. Does this mean I agree with everything every single radical feminist has ever said? No. But I believe that sex-based oppression is alive and well and can be seen most prominently in law-enforcement response to rape and domestic violence, abortion rights in many countries, access to maternity leave, research into women's health, household labour distribution and the commercial objectification of women (be that advertising or pornography).

Does this mean I think sex-based oppression is the only form of oppression? No. Does this mean I associate myself with TERFs? No. Was the radical feminist movement without flaws? Also no. Just as the socialist movement did not adequately address the disadvantages women faced in the 60s and 70s, the second-wave feminist movement failed to address the unique struggles of non-white women and queer women. There is always room to grow from the starting point of a movement created ~60 years ago. Intersectionality is critical. But we have not progressed as far as most would like to pretend (looking at you, America), and the way that women hasten to distance themselves from the 'harsh' type of feminism is partially at fault for this, in my opinion.

Without radical feminism, we would not have had the Women's Liberation Movement. Without radical feminism, we would not have abortion rights, access to credit, equal pay protections, etc. The demonisation of a branch of feminism that was so critical in fighting for the rights that modern women enjoy today is harmful and something I am very suspicious of. I mean, we're at a point where I can't even use the tag radfem without having people in my asks sending messages like this? Really? If there is something that I have reblogged or posted that you disagree with, then I am always open to a good-faith discussion, but I don't respect this style of internet discourse that strikes you down as guilty by association.

(Also, since I know that's what you're getting at — my opinion on TERFs is that they've done a great disservice to radical feminism and have gotten themselves worked up about something that is a non-issue outside of their corner of the internet. My question when people come to me IRL with anti-trans rhetoric is always, "have you ever actually met a trans person?" and the answer is always no...)

While I don't agree with everything said in it, this is an interesting article from Dr Charlotte Proudman which I recommend you read: Being a radical feminist means being a trans ally at the same time.

[litheammunition]

As an actual good faith fellow traveller, it's important to nip this sort of thinking in the bud.

After every election, people like to convince themselves that their personal misgivings about the candidate they still supported (i.e. not quite partisan enough) were also the reason they lost swing votes, when it's almost always the opposite.

It's confirmation bias. Leftist members of defeated left-wing parties, having lost the middle ground, say they just weren't left enough. Labour in the UK had four electoral cycles of this, edging steadily leftward and losing more votes each time before shifting back to the centre and winning in a landslide.

In the same way, defeated right-wing parties have plenty of members wanting them to shift further right (as they always wanted beforehand), confusing ideology with pragmatism. That's been currently happening with the UK Conservatives, and the reason they lost in that landslide.

If you're in an echo chamber, it's easy to confuse the thing you personally want with the thing that would appeal to the whole country. The position that would work in practice is conveniently the position held by you, a non-marginal voter, specifically.

Harris was a perfectly good candidate, and Trump was an atrocious one. No rational voter would have chosen him. We've spent almost a decade learning he's a sexist, racist, ableist, mentally incompetent narcissistic sexual predator with no respect for democracy or the rule of law. His own previous cabinet and predecessors recommended against him. The electorate of many other countries would have rejected him outright.

The Democrats could have sent a blank slate to oppose him, but instead backed a candidate with experience and charisma. They didn't make a point about her being a woman (learning from 2016) and, if anything, it may have counted against her. That's how reactionary the US electorate seems to be. Her being a woman was not something 'going for her'. Her not 'growing a pair' might have held her back.

The only candidate to defeat Trump in three tries has been the old white man with a conservative reputation. We don't need to speculate about this. We've seen the way to beat Trump, and Biden was hardly the amazing candidate of your dreams, but that's what worked. The familiar, safe pair of hands the marginal voter (often old, white, male or conservative themselves) seems to need to vote blue.

This win is more telling than 2016, when Trump was seem as something of an unknown quantity. If a majority of your electorate are voting Trump, despite everything they now know about him, it's because they broadly agree with his policy objectives, or have a prejudice towards his demographics. A socialist is not going to sway them, only give Republican fear-mongers an easy line of attack to scare of that undecided middle.

[historia-vitae-magistras]

I'm a bit delirious now but regarding the lumber incident, is that the one last 2017? I read that Canada placed tariffs on US gypsum exports in retaliation, and even planned to impose tariffs on coal and other products made in Oregon (the hometown of that senator who advocated for tariffs against Canada but I can't remember the name). but I remember that the book I read about this was by Thomas Oatley

anyway, NA bros pettiness 😭

So preface: This is one of those topics where I am blatantly a Canadian. Like violently angry about the US bullshit on this. Like you want a topic that instantly makes me a blue-flannel, blowing-up-busts-of-queen-victoria Quebecois stereotype, this is it. My family has been seasonal loggers for literally centuries and my ancestral plot of old growth trees was obliterated in a fire this past summer so this is an emotional topic for me. That said, its BC that gets fucked more in the ass every time this happens nowadays but still.

The Canadian side is absolutely as petty about it but the consequences on the Canadian side are profound. The lumber industry beef goes back to.... fuck. The Conquest really. It's older than the US or Canada as independent states but where it really came to a head was back in 1982. But tbh, on a civics level, what it comes down too is a difference in how two nations exercise sovereignty over undisputed, internationally recognized territory. In Canada, the government, represented by the crown has automatic ownership over the vast majority of land where softwood lumber farms exist, rather than being in private hands like the US. It's an inherent aspect of Canadian democracy that often moderates our politics. And the Canadian lumber industry is a fucked up thing, I might call it evil, and GOD knows there's labour exploitation but there are usually more and better unions, labour negotiation and working conditions on the Canadian side of this argument that get shaken everytime this shitshow resurges. And it fucks over indigenous peoples and people of colour especially.

In the US, the lumber industry has a powerful lobby that takes what has often been a series of difficult but more or less even handed agreements between two governments at least pretending to operate on a more or less respectful level by using institutions like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization to negotiate. Instead of moving forward, these people turn it into a nationalist shit show that takes US economic power and says "oh you want to be a fully recognized neighbor? fuck you. take your beating and say thank you or you'll get another."

Like tbh save the Northwest Passage which in practical military terms Canada likely won't have choice but to cooperate with the US and its giant defense budget this is one of the issues where the US really allows capitalism to fuck us up in the face of American law and international trade standards. And honestly in the grand scheme of things, God knows we've got it better than pretty much anyone else who lives next to a large superpower but its really sad to see that a majority of Americans in the last few years would rather take a nationalist stance, blame Canada for being 'communist' than take their own corporations to task. Its yank consumers getting fucked over here too. It should be a fucking solidarity issue on both sides, with workers and unions demanding the adoption of more and better legislation but instead its devolved into a nationalist shit show. On both sides, honestly but its kind of hard not to feel a lot resentment when people I've known for years as kind, cooperative, pro-labour people start parroting fuck Canada over they're dirty foreign communists like its 1924 all over again.

I generally try to shy away from headcanons about specific and more current stuff like this but considering its been a major contributer to Canadian economic woes and global inflation, its a topic where Matt vomits blood and Alfred says "have you tried not being a socialist?" and gets a mug thrown at his head. They're both fucking assholes but Alfred is still driving a tank to a knife fight.

[leaslichoma]

Is overwork causing the declining birth rates?

Today I saw a headline from, I believe the Wall Street Journal, discussing how Chinese politicians are worried about the declining birthrate. While I could not read the article due to a paywall, this got me thinking about (as I have done many times before) why the birthrate has declined in so many industrialized countries.

One of the common things people suggest as the cause is that Employers do not pay people enough to have families and because of this people do not have them. However, I don't think this can account for everything. Employers have always had this incentive since the dawn of capitalism, but we did not see this pattern in earlier capitalist countries nor do we see it in many less developed countries. The capitalist must pay the worker at least the minimum to live and reproduce as doing otherwise is completely unsustainable.

What, then, is the value of labouring power? Like that of every other commodity, its value is determined by the quantity of labour necessary to produce it. The labouring power of a man exists only in his living individuality. A certain mass of necessaries must be consumed by a man to grow up and maintain his life. But the man, like the machine, will wear out, and must be replaced by another man. Beside the mass of necessaries required for his own maintenance, he wants another amount of necessaries to bring up a certain quota of children that are to replace him on the labour market and to perpetuate the race of labourers.

Karl Marx, Value, Price and Proft, Chapter 7

I think that the declining birth rates have more to do with the labor involved in child rearing. Women have entered the workforce but families cannot keep up with the labor of childcare and housekeeping.

I understand that similar arguments have been used by many conservatives and reactionaries. However, my analysis differs in the respect that I do not blame the feminist movements for this (something that is being believed by even many left-wing people) and I also want to elaborate more on the role of industrialization.

Confirming women have entered to workforce

First I want to confirm that women have indeed entered the workforce. Some people argue that women have always worked, and while there have always been women who worked, this does not mean it was the same kind of work in the same amounts, etc.

Table 5.1 Proportion of US women in the labor force, ages 16 and over, 1870-1920 Year | Women employed (%)

1870 | 14.8

1880 | 16.0

1890 | 19.0

1900 | 20.6

1910 | 24.0

1920 | 24.2

(Side note: notice how the number is increasing long before the second wave of feminism )

In November of 2023, 70.7% of US men and 58.8% of US women were in the workforce. In 2022, 61% of Chinese women were in the work force, and 73% of men participated. So now we're certain that women are participating in employment many times more than they were 100 years ago.

The modern family frequently expects the husband and wife to provide for each other and the kids with many mothers working as well as fathers. While it's true there were women who worked in the 19th century, they were fewer in number than today such that it wasn't seen as normal. Socialist writers of the time describe workers primarily as men who have wives who do not work under normal circumstances (though who may do so in times of crisis, etc).

Society overworks people

Society works people much more than necessary to provide value to the employer class. You may already be aware of how in the United States productivity has grown faster than wages. This is far from the first time things like this have happened. In the 1883 essay The Right To Be Lazy the author Paul Lafargue thought that society could make do with a 3 hour workday. He mentions that while Anglo-saxon women spend 70% of their time weaving, the industrialization of textiles did not cause women to work 70% less. Society has done this for every industry and keeps doing it, but we do not keep working less.

It is often said that work has decreased since the 19th century, but if we count all the women who previously did not work it may have stayed the same or actually increased. Finding out for certain would require good estimates on workforce participation of both men and women for a long period of time along with good estimates of total yearly work hours, and would likely change depending on the country. For a very rough estimate a modern couple might work 9 and 8 hours for a 40 and 45 hour workweek or total 85 hours, so if a Victorian working family has a father who is the sole breadwinner for less than 15 hours a day the Victorian family work work less total. Working hours varied in the Victorian era, with some factories working people for 14 to even 16 hours while others worked 12 or 10. The factories act 1847 effectively limited adults to 10 hours in textile mills, so it's entirely possible certain working class Victorian families worked less than certain modern working families. In Asia many people work a 9-9-6 work schedule, a number of hours right at home in the Victorian and Gilded age, so if both members of a couple work that much they are likely worse exploited than their Victorian counterpart.

Why this causes the declining birth rate

Working parents necessarily spend less time with their children. Women entering the workforce means that someone else has to watch their children and keep the house. However, if wages are not accounting for further domestic labor costs they will struggle to keep up with child rearing.

Many women feel that they are working two shifts, once when they go to work, and a second shift when they go home and must manage the household. Why would a women want to subject herself to more work? A full-time job and managing a household and the financial expenses of children is too much for many women and their families to comfortably handle. It is for this reason I believe many young couples are eschewing children.

Is the model of the family changing?

In the 19th century men were expected to be the sole breadwinner for their wife and children (though this expectation may not have been met at times). Today many women are working as well even if they have families. Men are often incapable of being the sole provider. The model of the family may be changing.

This new model of the family may provide easier exploitation for capitalists, as it may be easier for two people to tolerate 8 hour shifts than one person to tolerate a 16. However, this seems to come at the cost of a couple's willingness to reproduce. If capitalists believe this as the cause in the future they may try to go back to the old model, and discourage women from the workforce again while increasing hours for men and the women left in it. They may also try re instituting child labor to get more profit from the family, though this would come at the cost of the child's education which could be a bad investment for them in the long term.

Why feminism isn't responsible

We often see feminism, particularly the second wave, cited as the reason women have entered the workforce. However, this is not the case. In one of the top charts we can see the number of women in the workforce increasing long before the second wave of feminism. Something else must be the cause.

Feminism is a broad collection of ideologies that are sometimes at odds with each other, so blaming it broadly makes little sense. Some feminists, such as the International Wages for Housework Campaign, have argued that housework should be compensated which is a position that stands in exact opposition to this. Many feminists have commented on the "two shifts" problem working women face. Feminism is not responsible.

[upsettingandunfortunateclasshate]

Why and how was the left - from the labour party to the socialist worker to marxism in general - gentrified in the 80s?

Like it's glaring how joe blogs was replaced by teachers, academics, law types, medium and high end professionals

It has to be more than the trendy lefty stereotype that was popular - much like today when being woke or a *literal communist* is trendy

What made them sign up and WC people leave or not be included or what. What happened

[eaglesnick]

THE MORAL ECONOMY (Part 1)

I was listening to the news on Saturday when a man trying to get football supporters to Wembley said he was having difficulties because of the rail strike. Luckily, he had managed to book some coaches but they had cost twice as much as normal because of increased demand due to the strike.

Nothing very unusual about that you might say but is it really acceptable to raise prices simply because of an increase in demand? Or is raising prices when no extra costs have been incurred by the seller pure greed?  None of us like the grotesque profits being made by energy suppliers using the excuse of war in Ukraine: it is blatant war profiteering. But is the act of doubling or trebling the price of a coach trip to Wembley because of a rail strike any different?

Milton Friedman, economic guru to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan, argues that the business of business is to maximise profits for the shareholders. In his 1970 paper "The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase Profits” he argued that corporate managers should:

“conduct the business in accordance with [shareholders’] desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible…"

Although the title of Friedman’s paper contains the phrase “social responsibility” he is quick to dismiss any notions of social justice. In the very first paragraph of his paper he argues that people who believe business has the social responsibility of "providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution" and other "social ends” are socialists and therefore the enemy. Businessmen who talk of anything other than maximising profits for their shareholders are described as:

“-preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.”

The Tory love affair with Milton Friedman’s economic views that started with Thatcher has never been stronger. The rise of the Tory right has seen a resurgence in neoliberalism as an ideology - the notion that free-markets and competition are the prime and natural organisers of society, wherein the “market” sorts society into a natural hierarchy of winners and losers and that any attempt to change this "natural order" is counter-productive.

Dominic Raab, Liz Truss and Savid Javid all seek to " implement the ideology in its most extreme form”, said the Guardian way back in 2019. We all know what happened to the economy during the short reign of Liz Truss, and we all know what happened to the right-wing bully Dominic Raab. But although these two extremists have been found out, the doctrine of maximising profit at all costs still has widespread support, not only amongst the Tory faithful but also within the Labour leadership.

Sadly, the Labour Party is no longer a socialist party, intent on redistributing wealth and looking after the welfare of ordinary working families. Instead it has once again become a slightly watered-down version of the Tory Party and neoliberal economics, where maximising profit, WHATEVER the cost, is the primary goal.

Am I exaggerating? I think not. We know that only yesterday Starmer was claiming to be Blair “on steroids”. We also know that Margaret Thatcher regarded Blair as her greatest legacy to the nation as he and his Labour government adopted the same doctrine of free market economics as she advocated. Make no mistake, Starmer is also prepared to put corporate and business profit before people. But don’t take my word for it.

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have set about convincing firms that they are the party of profit, writes Cameron’s skills tsar and ex-CBI chief Paul Drechsler.” (Independent: 13/02/23)

When the ex-boss of the CBI,the UK’s largest employers organisation (now in its final death throws due to sexual scandal and harassment within its ranks) praises the leader of the Labour Party for his commitment to business and maximising profits you know something has gone seriously wrong. When one of David Cameron’s top aids tells Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves that Labour is becoming THE party of business, then ordinary working people are in trouble.

The Labour Party may still exist, but it is in  name only.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

What is it about the Pilates thing that seems incompatible with, as you say, things you used to think were possible re: Harry and gender - that he is presented as a man, that he perhaps signed off on it without knowing what it said, or that he is seemingly comfortable with misogyny? (Or am I missing something?)

I don’t see the first thing as meaningful info about his gender - he knows the world sees him as man, and going along with this is perfectly compatible with closeted trans experience. As for the second thing - I don’t think it follows that a hypothetically trans Harry would necessarily be extra-sensitive to how his gender is portrayed. Again: he knows the world sees him as a man. I can see him going along with this without feeling the need to know the exact details of how it’s playing out.

If he Did know what it said, I also don’t see this as incompatible with hypothetical transness - we know his orientation toward power and limited worldview. As I think you’ve said in the past, he might see gender as a thing for himself, not for others. There exist trans people who aren’t particularly concerned with collective liberation (and it’s likely much easier for this to happen for a person with his privilege)

……anyway, in writing all this I’ve realized that it feels important to me that I defend hypothetically trans Harry, and that that probably has a lot more to do with me than it does real life Harry Styles. Which is probably the case for a lot of people, and is probably the case for lots of things in fandom beyond gender theories.

Thanks for your thoughts anon - I think they're really interesting and worth engaging with.

First of all, the aspect of the video that had most impact on how I saw Harry was none of those things you listed. The video and caption promoted both the gender binary (men are the opposite of women) and also a very narrow version of masculinity - it's that specific combo - rather than a wider more generalised misogyny

But also when I said "I think that lots of things that I thought were possible before that was posted, don’t seem possible now." I meant - I wasn't using as a euphemism for saying something far more specific. You seem to have understood it as me saying 'Harry can't be trans', which is not what I meant.

The way I see it is that there are lots of possible Harry's that are created by the gaps in what we know. To give an example, I think it's possible that Harry voted Labour or Lib Dems in the 2017 election, and that he voted Labour Lib Dems or didn't vote in the 2019 election. If he said something like 'I've only voted Labour' some of the possible Harry's would disappear.

I totally agree with everything you say about trans people having a wide range of views and not necessarily being committed to liberation. (One of my favourite responses to Harry's dumbass My Policeman comment was a gay London socialist who was basically 'this doesn't show he's straight lots of gay men have terrible opinions about cinema' - but with a strong subtext of - 'I know that he's not straight because I have access to gossip you don't').

I think it's useful to think about maybe two axes of this (there are more - but these are I think significant when it comes to Harry). One is whether or not you think it's possible for someone to transition away from the gender they were assigned at birth - and the other is the legitimacy of the gender binary - both the idea that men and women are opposites, and a narrow definition of both. So obviously you can and do get trans men and trans women who actually have no problem with the gender binary, the issue for them is how they are seen within that binary. My impression is that it's far less likely for a non-binary person to have no problem with with the idea that men and women are opposites and that the gender binary is legitimate. I'm not saying it's impossible - I'm sure there's lots I don't know and people work in all sorts of ways - but I think it's much less likely.

When it comes to the possibilities with Harry, the points that were significant were that he is seen as a man and it is clear that femininity is pretty meaningful to him and also that he's totally comfortable requiring people who work for him to follow a gendered dress code. The new information we've got with this video is that he is comfortable promoting the gender binary, and also him personally and his body as a pinnacle of masculinity.

I think that particularly combination is far more likely in a cis-man than a trans person. Or to put it another why - when I watched that clip a whole lot of possible Harrys disappeared from my imagining - and the possible Harrys that disappeared were far more likely to be trans than cis. Again I'm not saying that he's not trans - just that it seems less likely. But if you disagree with that - or have other thoughts I'd love to hear them.

Finally, I think the last paragraph is very wise and true.

[rotzaprachim]

from @littledoggy-girlcollar

Yeah this is a whole range of sentences but dear lord. If you have to name a language that’s evil, maybe don’t choose modern Hebrew? There’s a lot happening here for fucks sake

a) we can and should critique the language policy of modern hebraists and the state of Israel, but to only list modern Hebrew as a reason that Yiddish and ladino were “deliberately wiped out” is straight up bHolocaust erasure. The thing that deliberately wiped out Yiddish and ladino was the deliberate wiping out of the populations that spoke Yiddish and ladino when people murdered Jews in a violent and organized fashion and stripped the Yiddish and ladino social, artistic, and cultural realms from the face of modern Europe and forced the survivors into exile and out of the homelands they’d lived in for thousands of years. The Hebrew-centric policy of the state of Israel, the actions of the Soviet Union, and mass movement to the U.S., Latin America and other locales should all be critiqued, obviously, but to act like anything other than the Shoah was the most significant reason for the decline of Yiddish and ladino and the most significant reason why they are now endangered (oversimplifying a little - ladino society continued outside of the areas of Europe affected by the Shoah, in Turkey, but the ladino speaking heartland of Greece was absolutely stripped from the earth) is Shoah erasure.

also. “Only in this metaphor Venetian was seen as the language of the people among Trotsky-ite communists in the Soviet Union.” I don’t even know what’s going on here, but it’s also very wrong - or at least oversimplification on a massive level - to claim this. First up, Hebrew and Hebrew revitalization, along with the interlinked but by no means fully one-and-the-same political movement of Zionism, were damn popular with an awful lot of left wingers and communists. Second, Yiddish might have been seen as the language of the people by the Jewish labour bund, and Jewish socialists, but that’s a long way from being one and the same with the Soviet Union. These things were big issues and caused big rifts within the pre-war Jewish community, but Jewish diasporic leftism and socialism took a big hit from a) the Shoah working hard to wipe all Jews out, regardless of ethnic origin and b) the fact the Soviet Union ended up not liking Jewish attempts at establishing autonomous and more liberal forms of Jewish leftism and independence in Eastern Europe. Like, really weren’t fans - they murdered or exiled a bunch of leaders of this movement, and then a bunch of Yiddish language leaders.

C) “it’s not even the same as Biblical Hebrew” of course it isn’t. Two thousand years does shit to a language. Hebrew is actually remarkably conservative, which doesn’t mean it’s going to be one and the same across time, only that it’s remarkably possible to connect biblical texts to the (different, but related) modern form, as a lot of modern Hebrew poets and writers play with

d) no language is bad

e) modern Hebrew has greater complexity - as noted, it was actually quite a widespread language in the diaspora, esp prior to the Shoah and exile of the mizrachim, you can find modern Hebrew papers and presses from Odessa and Berlin. The destruction of many forms of modern Hebrew outside the state of Israel is as well part of the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole that was carried out during the Shoah

f) Hebrew kept changing after the biblical period, due to natural development, exile, and contact with other languages. While we can say something specific changed within the Hebrew soundscape with the revernacularization into a spoken vernacular modern tongue, the fact that Hebrew kept living and changing is a 2000+ year continuity in which EVERY form of Hebrew was modern to the people of that period

g) it’s genuinely hysterical this person chose Italian for their example of “hey wouldn’t it be crazy if” given that… thats pretty much exactly what did happen following the risorgimento, except for the medieval florentine dialect rather than Latin. Like. That’s what happened. It was Dante, rather than the Bible but. That’s what went down.

(there are probably things that are unique to Italian and Hebrew in these situations, but there are also a lot of things that are not. The bloom of nation-state nationalisms in the 19th century along with the push for literacy lead to many mass movements to create a “national language,” often through dialect leveling, and this process continued into the 20th century and present with, in particular, decolonial attempts to create new national languages to replace or fight the dominance of English, Spanish, French etc. These movements are by their nature extremely complicated, as nationalism is complicated - they destroyed local cultures and minority languages, they also often saved minority languages, they allowed for mass literacy and education, they created mass feelings of both shame and pride. This is the complexity of history. You can look into the histories of modern Turkish, Persian, Tagalog and/or Filipino, guaraní, basque batua, Irish… the list is endless and the language planning decisions endlessly messy) it’s kinda interesting they consider Hebrew but not Italian to be “bad,” no?

not only are there no bad languages there are also no bad or annoying dialects

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.8.6 How did working people view the rise of capitalism?

The best example of how hated capitalism was can be seen by the rise and spread of the labour and socialist movements, in all their many forms, across the world. It is no coincidence that the development of capitalism also saw the rise of socialist theories. Nor was it a coincidence that the rising workers movement was subjected to extensive state repression, with unions, strikes and other protests being systematically repressed. Only once capital was firmly entrenched in its market position could economic power come to replace political force (although, of course, that always remained ready in the background to defend capitalist property and power).

The rise of unions, socialism and other reform movements and their repression was a feature of all capitalist countries. While America is sometime portrayed as an exception to this, in reality that country was also marked by numerous popular movements which challenged the rise of capitalism and the transformation of social relationships within the economy from artisanal self-management to capitalist wage slavery. As in other countries, the state was always quick to support the capitalist class against their rebellious wage slaves, using first conspiracy and then anti-trust laws against working class people and their organisations. So, in order to fully understand how different capitalism was from previous economic systems, we will consider early capitalism in the US, which for many right-“libertarians” is the example of the “capitalism-equals-freedom” argument.

Early America was pervaded by artisan production — individual ownership of the means of production. Unlike capitalism, this system is not marked by the separation of the worker from the means of life. Most people did not have to work for another, and so did not. As Jeremy Brecher notes, in 1831 the “great majority of Americans were farmers working their own land, primarily for their own needs. Most of the rest were self-employed artisans, merchants, traders, and professionals. Other classes — employees and industrialists in the North, slaves and planters in the South — were relatively small. The great majority of Americans were independent and free from anybody’s command.” [Strike!, p. xxi] So the availability of land ensured that in America, slavery and indentured servants were the only means by which capitalists could get people to work for them. This was because slaves and servants were not able to leave their masters and become self-employed farmers or artisans. As noted in the last section this material base was, ironically, acknowledged by Rothbard but the implications for freedom when it disappeared was not. While he did not ponder what would happen when that supply of land ended and whether the libertarian aspects of early American society would survive, contemporary politicians, bosses, and economists did. Unsurprisingly, they turned to the state to ensure that capitalism grew on the grave of artisan and farmer property.

Toward the middle of the 19th century the economy began to change. Capitalism began to be imported into American society as the infrastructure was improved by state aid and tariff walls were constructed which allowed home-grown manufacturing companies to develop. Soon, due to (state-supported) capitalist competition, artisan production was replaced by wage labour. Thus “evolved” modern capitalism. Many workers understood, resented, and opposed their increasing subjugation to their employers, which could not be reconciled with the principles of freedom and economic independence that had marked American life and had sunk deeply into mass consciousness during the days of the early economy. In 1854, for example, a group of skilled piano makers hoped that “the day is far distant when they [wage earners] will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced upon them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect. May the piano trade be spared such exhibitions of the degrading power of the day [wage] system.” [quoted by Brecher and Costello, Common Sense for Hard Times, p. 26]

Clearly the working class did not consider working for a daily wage, in contrast to working for themselves and selling their own product, to be a step forward for liberty or individual dignity. The difference between selling the product of one’s labour and selling one’s labour (i.e. oneself) was seen and condemned (”[w]hen the producer … sold his product, he retained himself. But when he came to sell his labour, he sold himself … the extension [of wage labour] to the skilled worker was regarded by him as a symbol of a deeper change.” [Norman Ware, The Industrial Worker, 1840–1860, p. xiv]). Indeed, one group of workers argued that they were “slaves in the strictest sense of the word” as they had “to toil from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same for our masters — aye, masters, and for our daily bread.” [quoted by Ware, Op. Cit., p. 42] Another group argued that “the factory system contains in itself the elements of slavery, we think no sound reasoning can deny, and everyday continues to add power to its incorporate sovereignty, while the sovereignty of the working people decreases in the same degree.” [quoted by Brecher and Costello, Op. Cit., p. 29] For working class people, free labour meant something radically different than that subscribed to by employers and economists. For workers, free labour meant economic independence through the ownership of productive equipment or land. For bosses, it meant workers being free of any alternative to consenting to authoritarian organisations within their workplaces — if that required state intervention (and it did), then so be it.

The courts, of course, did their part in ensuring that the law reflected and bolstered the power of the boss rather than the worker. “Acting piecemeal,” summarises Tomlins, “the law courts and law writers of the early republic built their approach to the employment relationship on the back of English master/servant law. In the process, they vested in the generality of nineteenth-century employers a controlling authority over the employees founded upon the pre-industrial master’s claim to property in his servant’s personal services.” Courts were “having recourse to master/servant’s language of power and control” as the “preferred strategy for dealing with the employment relation” and so advertised their conclusion that “employment relations were properly to be conceived of as generically hierarchical.” [Op. Cit., p. 231 and p. 225] As we noted in last section the courts, judges and jurists acted to outlaw unions as conspiracies and force workers to work the full length of their contracts. In addition, they also reduced employer liability in industrial accidents (which, of course, helped lower the costs of investment as well as operating costs).

Artisans and farmers correctly saw this as a process of downward mobility toward wage labour and almost as soon as there were wage workers, there were strikes, machine breaking, riots, unions and many other forms of resistance. John Zerzan’s argument that there was a “relentless assault on the worker’s historical rights to free time, self-education, craftsmanship, and play was at the heart of the rise of the factory system” is extremely accurate. [Elements of Refusal, p. 105] And it was an assault that workers resisted with all their might. In response to being subjected to the wage labour, workers rebelled and tried to organise themselves to fight the powers that be and to replace the system with a co-operative one. As the printer’s union argued, its members “regard such an organisation [a union] not only as an agent of immediate relief, but also as an essential to the ultimate destruction of those unnatural relations at present subsisting between the interests of the employing and the employed classes … when labour determines to sell itself no longer to speculators, but to become its own employer, to own and enjoy itself and the fruit thereof, the necessity for scales of prices will have passed away and labour will be forever rescued from the control of the capitalist.” [quoted by Brecher and Costello, Op. Cit., pp. 27–28]

Little wonder, then, why wage labourers considered capitalism as a modified form of slavery and why the term “wage slavery” became so popular in the labour and anarchist movements. It was just reflecting the feelings of those who experienced the wages system at first hand and who created the labour and socialist movements in response. As labour historian Norman Ware notes, the “term ‘wage slave’ had a much better standing in the forties [of the 19th century] than it has today. It was not then regarded as an empty shibboleth of the soap-box orator. This would suggest that it has suffered only the normal degradation of language, has become a cliche, not that it is a grossly misleading characterisation.” [Op. Cit., p. xvf] It is no coincidence that, in America, the first manufacturing complex in Lowell was designed to symbolise its goals and its hierarchical structure nor that its design was emulated by many of the penitentiaries, insane asylums, orphanages and reformatories of the period. [Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 392]

These responses of workers to the experience of wage labour is important as they show that capitalism is by no means “natural.” The fact is the first generation of workers tried to avoid wage labour is at all possible — they hated the restrictions of freedom it imposed upon them. Unlike the bourgeoisie, who positively eulogised the discipline they imposed on others. As one put it with respect to one corporation in Lowell, New England, the factories at Lowell were “a new world, in its police it is imperium in imperio. It has been said that an absolute despotism, justly administered … would be a perfect government … For at the same time that it is an absolute despotism, it is a most perfect democracy. Any of its subjects can depart from it at pleasure . .. Thus all the philosophy of mind which enter vitally into government by the people … is combined with a set of rule which the operatives have no voice in forming or administering, yet of a nature not merely perfectly just, but human, benevolent, patriarchal in a high degree.” Those actually subjected to this “benevolent” dictatorship had a somewhat different perspective. Workers, in contrast, were perfectly aware that wage labour was wage slavery — that they were decidedly unfree during working hours and subjected to the will of another. The workers therefore attacked capitalism precisely because it was despotism (“monarchical principles on democratic soil”) and thought they “who work in the mills ought to own them.” Unsurprisingly, when workers did revolt against the benevolent despots, the workers noted how the bosses responded by marking “every person with intelligence and independence … He is a suspected individual and must be either got rid of or broken in. Hundreds of honest labourers have been dismissed from employment … because they have been suspected of knowing their rights and daring to assert them.” [quoted by Ware, Op. Cit., p. 78, p. 79 and p. 110]

While most working class people now are accustomed to wage labour (while often hating their job) the actual process of resistance to the development of capitalism indicates well its inherently authoritarian nature and that people were not inclined to accept it as “economic freedom.” Only once other options were closed off and capitalists given an edge in the “free” market by state action did people accept and become accustomed to wage labour. As E. P. Thompson notes, for British workers at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, the “gap in status between a ‘servant,’ a hired wage-labourer subject to the orders and discipline of the master, and an artisan, who might ‘come and go’ as he pleased, was wide enough for men to shed blood rather than allow themselves to be pushed from one side to the other. And, in the value system of the community, those who resisted degradation were in the right.” [The Making of the English Working Class, p. 599]

Opposition to wage labour and factory fascism was/is widespread and seems to occur wherever it is encountered. “Research has shown”, summarises William Lazonick, “that the ‘free-born Englishman’ of the eighteenth century — even those who, by force of circumstance, had to submit to agricultural wage labour — tenaciously resisted entry into the capitalist workshop.” [Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor, p. 37] British workers shared the dislike of wage labour of their American cousins. A “Member of the Builders’ Union” in the 1830s argued that the trade unions “will not only strike for less work, and more wages, but will ultimately abolish wages, become their own masters and work for each other; labour and capital will no longer be separate but will be indissolubly joined together in the hands of workmen and work-women.” [quoted by E. P. Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 912] This perspective inspired the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union of 1834 which had the “two-fold purpose of syndicalist unions — the protection of the workers under the existing system and the formation of the nuclei of the future society” when the unions “take over the whole industry of the country.” [Geoffrey Ostergaard, The Tradition of Workers’ Control, p. 133] As Thompson noted, “industrial syndicalism” was a major theme of this time in the labour movement. “When Marx was still in his teens,” he noted, British trade unionists had “developed, stage by stage, a theory of syndicalism” in which the “unions themselves could solve the problem of political power” along with wage slavery. This vision was lost “in the terrible defeats of 1834 and 1835.” [Op. Cit., p. 912 and p. 913] In France, the mutualists of Lyons had come to the same conclusions, seeking “the formation of a series of co-operative associations” which would “return to the workers control of their industry.” Proudhon would take up this theme, as would the anarchist movement he helped create. [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Jospeh Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, pp. 162–3] Similar movements and ideas developed elsewhere, as capitalism was imposed (subsequent developments were obviously influenced by the socialist ideas which had arisen earlier and so were more obviously shaped by anarchist and Marxist ideas).

This is unsurprising, the workers then, who had not been swallowed up whole by the industrial revolution, could make critical comparisons between the factory system and what preceded it. “Today, we are so accustomed to this method of production [capitalism] and its concomitant, the wage system, that it requires quite an effort of imagination to appreciate the significance of the change in terms of the lives of ordinary workers … the worker became alienated … from the means of production and the products of his labour … In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the new socialist theories proposed an alternative to the capitalist system which would avoid this alienation.” While wage slavery may seem “natural” today, the first generation of wage labourers saw the transformation of the social relationships they experienced in work, from a situation in which they controlled their own work (and so themselves) to one in which others controlled them, and they did not like it. However, while many modern workers instinctively hate wage labour and having bosses, without the awareness of some other method of working, many put up with it as “inevitable.” The first generation of wage labourers had the awareness of something else (although a flawed and limited something else as it existed in a hierarchical and class system) and this gave then a deep insight into the nature of capitalism and produced a deeply radical response to it and its authoritarian structures. Anarchism (like other forms of socialism) was born of the demand for liberty and resistance to authority which capitalism had provoked in its wage slaves. With our support for workers’ self-management of production, “as in so many others, the anarchists remain guardians of the libertarian aspirations which moved the first rebels against the slavery inherent in the capitalist mode of production.” [Ostergaard, Op. Cit., p. 27 and p. 90]

State action was required produce and protect the momentous changes in social relations which are central to the capitalist system. However, once capital has separated the working class from the means of life, then it no longer had to rely as much on state coercion. With the choice now between wage slavery or starving, then the appearance of voluntary choice could be maintained as economic power was/is usually effective enough to ensure that state violence could be used as a last resort. Coercive practices are still possible, of course, but market forces are usually sufficient as the market is usually skewed against the working class. However, the role of the state remains a key to understanding capitalism as a system rather than just specific periods of it. This is because, as we stressed in section D.1, state action is not associated only with the past, with the transformation from feudalism to capitalism. It happens today and it will continue to happen as long as capitalism continues.

Far from being a “natural” development, then, capitalism was imposed on a society by state action, by and on behalf of ruling elites. Those working class people alive at the time viewed it as “unnatural relations” and organised to overcome it. It is from such movements that all the many forms of socialism sprang, including anarchism. This is the case with the European anarchism associated with Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin as well as the American individualist anarchism of Warren and Tucker. The links between anarchism and working class rebellion against the autocracy of capital and the state is reflected not only in our theory and history, but also in our anarchist symbols. The Black Flag, for example, was first raised by rebel artisans in France and its association with labour insurrection was the reason why anarchists took it up as our symbol (see the appendix on “The Symbols of Anarchy”). So given both the history of capitalism and anarchism, it becomes obvious any the latter has always opposed the former. It is why anarchists today still seek to encourage the desire and hope for political and economic freedom rather than the changing of masters we have under capitalism. Anarchism will continue as long as these feelings and hopes still exist and they will remain until such time as we organise and abolish capitalism and the state.

[noahsbookhoard]

📚June 2024 Book Review (Part 2/2)📚

June had been a very busy month so I read very little. I think in compiled reading time, those three books were less than a week which was frustrating a bit, but July and August will largely make up for it!

Jusqu'à ce que mort s'ensuive by Olivier Rolin

Starting with a one page mention of two real figures in Les Misérables, Olivier Rolin tracks back the two 19th century socialist activists Emmanuel Barthelemy and Frédéric Cournet, their life, their flight to England and their mutual hatred to the point of one killing the other.

This book and I met by total coincidence. The book club I am part of likes to organise bookswaps: we get paired at random and each chose in the other one's wishlist (we are all on the same book tracking site) a book we'd like to read. While reading we take notes to send the other and exchange books this way. This is how I discovered this book.

It isn't exactly a novel, but it isn't exactly a historical research either: the two characters, who are mentioned in one page in Les Misérables, are two real political activist from the 19th century. But their very real life are as fabulous as what Victor Hugo had written for his fictional revolutionaries: there's force Labour prisoners, barricades, daring prison escapes, exile to London, Karl freaking Marx himself and a pistol duel.

The two main revolutionaries, Frédéric Cournet and Emmanuel Barthelemy are more or less on the same side but from very different background (one is a former Navy officer, the second is a factory worker) and with very different methods (the former worked with the Parliament and Victor Hugo in the flesh, no less; the later was more a cudgel and explosive kind of guy). They could never have met if they hadn't had to flee France for London and crossed path. It led to Cournet insulting Barthelemy, Barthelemy to claim compensation, and the both of them to face in a duel. I won't say who won't because that's 50% of the fun in this book: you feel like you are reading the latest adventure historical novel when it all actually happened as is, to the last dialogue line.

Indeed Olivier Rolin did extensive research into both of the men: he found records, letters, minutes... and he transcribes it into an accurate as possible account of their lives an meetings, there aren't any dialogues in less it had been recorded in an trial transcript or another source and he honestly admits when there were gaps in the records, contradicting sources or untrustworthy accounts. He traveled too, to Paris and London to see what remained of the places his protagonists saw or lived in. It makes for some interesting anecdotes about both cities as he apparently can't help but dig the most remarkable yet true stories everywhere he goes.

I goes to show that sometimes life is just so much more like fiction than fiction itself. The book is also a tribute to Victor Hugo's political commitment and those who held the same belief in the Republic during some tumultuous political times in France.

The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller

A retelling of the Trojan War from the point of view of Patroclus, from his childhood to his death, following his life, love and fight alongside Achilles.

One day back in June I got sick and decided to indulge: instead of just staying miserable in bed, I'll be miserable AND crying my eyes out.

I already read The Song of Achilles last year and it was love at first sight. I thought it couldn't get better but I discovered the audiobook and fell in love again. Frazer Douglas has a really soothing voice and infuse it with so much emotion without ever being melodramatic. I listened to the whole thing while half dozing, crying a little (a lot) and enjoying my sick day as much as humanly possible.

It's sweet, it's soft, it's sad, it's a strong contender for favorite book of all time in my list. And that time it made a shitty day a little less shitty.

Having now read the Illiad I could appreciate the story so much more (I wasn't in any state for comparative analysis but I noticed what scene inspired Madeline Miller) and feel the sad scenes twice as hard. The foreshadowing (can it be called foreshadowing when the story has been known for a few thousand years?) and the knowledge that what must happened would happen because Fate spares no one is just as heartbreaking the second time around. Madeline Miller's poetry makes it so poignant, it just took my heart out and did whatever it wanted with it for 11 hours and 15 minutes.

Tangential rant but my only regret about this book is the cover: I hate all of the english edition cover; the breastplate (above), the helmet and the bow and arrow, I like neither of them. But the french pocket edition is soooo pretty...

Look at this! It's a crime I can't have this on an english edition...

The Umbrella Academy Vol. 1 to 3 by Gerard Way and Gabriel Ba

On October 1st 1989, 43 children are born of mothers who had not been pregnant the minute before. Sir Reginal Hargreeves adopts seven of them, certain that they wouldn't be ordinary, and raise them to become a team of child vigilantes: the Umbrella Academy. Years later the team has broken down but the siblings come together for their father's funeral. In the meantime a menace looms over the planet.

Just this once won't hurt: I watched the show before reading the book! So, once again, my opinion will be tinted. I haven't watched the last season and the few reviews on this site do not encourage me too but at least the comic was a really fun read!

Season one of the show follows the first volume of the comic pretty well, but I liked how the graphic style of Gabriel Ba added to the alien atmosphere of the story, which was lost in the adaptation. Luther's half monkey body and Vanya's human violin form were a big plus in the book.

The Second one was fun, I loved getting for of Five and his space travel adventures. The treatment of the aftermath of volume 1 was really good too, it takes its time while the show rushes on a little. It also has all the gory dark stuff that never would have made the cut with Netflix but add to the danger of Hazel and Cha-Cha.

I was less convinced by the third volume. I felt it less cohesive somehow. I liked some of the plot, the Hotel is a really cool idea but the rest of it fell a bit flat. There's too much different story to follow you can't focus on everyone, the book can't either so some were less developed than they deserved to be. It might be because it was so long in production but this was sad, I wanted to like it more than I did.

However I discovered while digging a little for this review that a fourth volume is in production! I am really excited to get more time in this universe!

[macrotiis]

Ppl rly don't understand that the redistribution of wealth isn't JUST for those of us in wealthy "first world" countries.

For the destruction of capitalism to mean anything, for socialism to mean anything, we in the global north need to be comfortable with giving up a lot of luxuries because all of those luxuries come from the theft of wealth from the global south.

Throw out the idea of post scarcity luxury communism, because that is not what's going to happen.

Learn & understand what socialists mean when we talk about imperialism. Learn & understand where your food, clothes, tools, everything you use in your day to day life. Where the food is grown, where the cloth is made, where the minerals are extracted from the earth. Learn who is doing the work to make what you are using now & learn who is forcing that labour on to people, learn how much these laborers are being payed, IF they're being payed at all & not just forced to work under threat of death.

Actually engage with the history of colonialism in places like Africa & South America. Colonialism is more than just settlers moving in & displacing people, it is also enslaving, forcing people to work to fund the economy of empire somewhere else while the enslaved don't get to see any of it.

You do actually need to acknowledge the blood that went into creating your smartphone or your laptop. Just because you never asked for these people to be harmed doesn't absolve you of complacency & when the time comes, are you willing to go without these comforts you've grown accustomed to so that the people who mined the ores, who weaved your clothes, who picked your food can live freely?

If you're expecting these people to continue doing all that work to fuel your lifestyle so you can live comfortably & you think that somehow they'll get a leg up, you're not being realistic.

Redistributing wealth means redistributing the wealth from the US, Western Europe & its colonies back to the places it was stolen from.

a lot of self professed socialists and left wing people have absolutely no consciousness on imperialism and when it comes down to it could easily be convinced of being fascists

[newsingit]

On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant by David Graeber

In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). But, of course, this is the sort of very problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don't really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

 (Answer: if 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call ‘the market’ reflects what they think is useful or important, not anybody else.)

This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one's job should not exist?

It's even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It's as if they are being told ‘but you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?’

The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)