Letters from our readers
17 March 2009
I experienced both the year long miners' strike, and then later the struggles that were experienced during the significant split with the WRP. I fully endorse both these articles. Both of these struggles were indeed intrinsically linked, at the time of the year long miners strike. From the role of the Thatcher government, to the role played by the leaders of the working class; from the alliance of Kinnock with Thatcher and his constant attack on miners (now Lord Kinnock, this being his reward for betrayals against the working class), to the subsequent role played by the unions, and in particular the TUC—all of this led to the eventual defeat of the miners strike. As stated in these articles, none of these could have been played out, had it not been for the role of the WRP leadership, its political axis eventually exposed by the international leadership of the ICFI. The WRP insisted that no pressure be exerted on the NUM leadership or the TUC. These cowardly leaders are now responsible for the economic depravation that is about to be and is placed on the backs of millions of workers. Jobs in their thousands will be decimated. Workers and large sections of middle class Britain will experience poverty, as the world political and economic crisis of a failed system starts to bite.
11 March 2009
Mr. Paul Volcker as the head advisor to Obama has no answer to the present financial crisis. No surprises there. The previous crisis he was involved in he had no answer for either, so he drove the interest rate into the ionosphere.
Having been around the world working, studying, and living the past sixty years, the answer for Obama can be found in history as far back as 1600 years ago in the days of Byzantium, the Roman Empire, and Attila the Hun. America is trapped in a cycle of conquest, from which retreat means failure, ignominy, poverty and collapse.
The only way to get out of this trap is socialism (read correctly it says socialism not Communism, Stalinism or Maoism) takes over the running of America.
12 March 2009
* * *
Volcker claims, "Even the experts don't know what's going on." That's the biggest lie of all. The nervous confessions are just more acting. The epitome of Orwellian deception.
Last fall I came across Mike Montagne's pages at www.perfecteconomy.com and learned that he had shown at least thirty years ago that any currency subject to interest is guaranteed to multiply debt irreversibly until terminal debt is reached and monetary collapse occurs. It appeared to me that this was the monetary and mathematical essence of capitalism's self-destructive nature, and a coherent account of what is actually happening. It is literally inconceivable that the captains of finance do not know exactly what the problem is; that the economic crisis is fundamentally a global monetary collapse caused by debt-based currency subject to interest. Perhaps in socialist terms one could say that a debt-based currency subject to interest is a monetary tool which forces the perpetual and accelerating creation and pre-extraction (as it were, being tied to multiplied debt) of surplus value.
12 March 2009
An even worse fate awaits when those meager unemployment benefits are exhausted. A friend sent me this article and the accompanying photos of a tent city springing up in Sacramento. A similar tent city emerged in St Petersburg, Florida a couple of years ago, and the local officials dismantled it. What happened to the people is anyone's guess.
13 March 2009
Comments: I very much appreciated your comments on Plateforme, by Michel Houellebecq. I have only read one Houellebecq novel Atomised and my reactions were similar to yours. What struck me was that, underneath an air of subversion and trendy decadence, Houellebecq was basically presenting an extremely conservative outlook. In Atomised, Houellebecq gives us a bitter, caustic and sometimes horrific picture of the disintegration of society, which he seems to trace back to the cults and drug inspired visions of the 1960s. Any neoconservative would warm to the book but of course, Houellebecq is far too cunning to present the customary antidote: a return to the "good old days" of simple faith in paternal authority.
Thus, like a lot of pseudo-radicals, Houellebecq works through a double negative: since he cannot obviously come out in support of reactionary notions, he can nevertheless say that the progressive ideas are bad. He cannot appear conservative, but he can be anti-anti-conservative.
This is a common manoeuvre nowadays. You cannot be openly racist, but in complaining about that supposedly pedantic anti-racism known as political correctness, you can be anti-anti-racist. Similarly you cannot be openly imperialist but, in complaining about those left-wingers "soft on terror", you can be anti-anti-imperialist.
11 March 2009
Dear Mr. Walsh,
I have been an avid reader of your site for a good 10 years or so and have been enlightened by the insightful articles you and your colleagues have written, but I fail to see how this review really helps your cause in anyway. I think your initial description of the film as "empty and pointless," "juvenile and pretentious" is a more apt description of your review. In a socialist society—of the one you envisage—would there be no place for fantasy art? If anything, the film shows the utter hopelessness of the current state of society and with its morally grey characters, prompts you to think what would be a better approach to healing society.
A disappointed reader,
13 March 2009