[DEMO Edinburgh] Bank bail out... Where's OUR bailout?
Oct 19 2008 23:37
http://scotland.indymedia.org/sites/def ... isdemo.pdf
Image of flier: http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... is3ko6.jpg
Scottish Financial Crisis
We bailed-out the Banks.
Now we own them.
Where is OUR bailout?
This country is entering a recession. Our jobs, wages, homes, pensions, benefits and public services are all under threat. We did not cause this crisis. It was the financial elite of wealthy bankers, investors and speculators who have put us in this situation; it was the banks that we just bailed-out who are responsible.
Without a discussion or vote in parliament, the British government has spent £537bn of OUR money bailing-out these banks, about 5 times the amount of money spent on our NHS each year.
"Where is OUR bailout?"
The British government bailed the banks out with OUR money. The banks are part-nationalised, now being managed by the British government. This means that WE own them, and they should be being run in the public interest. We must start making demands of the government and the banks, so they don’t return to 'business as usual'.
Demonstrate: Fri., 24th Oct, 5pm, meet at the Mound
• We demand guarantees that our jobs, wages homes, pensions, benefits, and public services will not be cut or lost completely.
• We demand large investments in our important public services, like the NHS and public transport.
• We demand windfall taxes on the wealthy electricity companies and our bills kept low, so that we dont suffer from fuel poverty this winter.
• We demand investment in social housing that is free from the chaos inherent in the markets.
Make YOUR demands heard!
Demonstrate, Edinburgh, Friday 24th of October. Gather 5pm at the top of the mound. Bring your banners, placards, and demands.
--
See also:-
* http://scotland.indymedia.org/node/11368 (Edinburgh Financial Crisis Protest: "We wont pay for your crisis!")
* http://scotland.indymedia.org/node/11394 (What does this bail-out mean for us?)
* http://anarchistblackcat.org/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=1923 (ABC discussion of the same topic)
Oct 22 2008 15:04
#2
Steven. wrote:
Do you seriously think that the government buying shares in something means that "we" therefore own it?
i raised this on another thread, to no response. i don't think 'blaming the bankers' is any better either. lest i be accused of 'sniping from the sidelines' or bein unconstructive etc, here is my original response (with some constructive suggestions).
Joseph K. wrote:
Dundee_United wrote:
We bailed-out the Banks.Now we own them.
i understand the tempatation to adopt populist slogans, but this does require a remarkable identification with the state
i mean demands refusing cuts are fair enough (though i'm wary of demanding specific policies, i couldn't give a shit if my gas bills are kept down by windfall taxes or cutting the number of troops in iraq or by issuing new treasury bonds - it's not the job of communists to make government policy).
so rather than complaining about 'taxpayers money' and reinforcing illusions that the state represents or ever can represent our interests, i think a more consistent line would be pointing out how our needs are always 'unnaffordable' while the needs of capital are always met whatever the cost (mostly to us, of course).
In terms of the indymedia article, blaming "greedy bankers" is not just poor analysis, it's echoing the line of large sections of the bourgeoisie. you needen't write an impenetrable marxist tract to discuss the class nature and 'real economy' roots of the current crisis, e.g. this i wrote for Tea Break. blaming the "greedy bankers" is a reactionary pro-capitalist fig leaf with some vary unsavoury historical antecedents.
Please note i'm not saying nothing should be done around the financial crisis, or that we should replace accessible slogans with impenetrable paragraphs of ultra-left theory, just that a rush to populism appears misguided.
since i wrote that the global financial crisis has apparently also been localised to a "scottish financial crisis," which does look like an otherwise redundant populist pandering to national sentiments 
Oct 22 2008 15:19
#3
actually this call-out out-does the indymedia post i was criticising with reactionary leftism. i mean do you honestly think banks can be "run in the public interest"? do you honestly think the state represents or ever can represent our interests?
like i said above i think the current crisis does provide an opportunity to put forward libertarian communist ideas, but this is why i'm perplexed at anarchists using it to peddle reactionary social democratic nonsense that they presumably don't even believe themselves 
and this doesn't even make sense if you think state ownership means ownership by workers...
Dundee United wrote:
The banks are part-nationalised, now being managed by the British government. This means that WE own them.
surely "WE" would only own 8.5% or whatever the percentage is anyway?
Oct 22 2008 16:49
#4
Joseph, the banks got bailed out the other day the government bought a controlling stake in one of them, and 43% odd of the merged Lloyds TSB and HBOS. Add that to Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley which were totally nationalised and it is a significant proportion. But of course it's not "ours". Also, most of £500 billion was not actually "spent" either.
Oct 22 2008 18:14
#5
the govt has not yet bought any stakes in RBS, Lloyds TSB or HBOS, and their ownership of northern rock and bradford & bingley was brought about by a payment of zero to the previous owners of those banks
none of the 500 billion has been 'spent', it is however at risk
Oct 22 2008 18:17
#6
so maybe this demo is a bit early
Oct 22 2008 20:29
#7
You nasty, counter-productive, over critical libcom b*stards!
I see that discussion on ABC linked to has a critical content of exactly zero - way to go ABC.
Oct 22 2008 22:56
#8
Steven. wrote:
Joseph, the banks got bailed out the other day the government bought a controlling stake in one of them, and 43% odd of the merged Lloyds TSB and HBOS. Add that to Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley which were totally nationalised and it is a significant proportion. But of course it's not "ours". Also, most of £500 billion was not actually "spent" either.
oisleep wrote:
none of the 500 billion has been 'spent', it is however at risk
fair points, as you say the point is that even full nationalisation doesn't mean "we" own them anyway, anymore than we did before, what with the our class creating all the wealth of nations and all that - the logical inconsistency of part-nationalisation equalling full control is somewhat superfluous compared to this.
Oct 23 2008 04:52
#9
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
You nasty, counter-productive, over critical libcom b*stards!I see that discussion on ABC linked to has a critical content of exactly zero - way to go ABC.
thats the good old abc way, be critical and you get a warning, over critical and yor banned. its the way ahead for all forums!!!
Oct 23 2008 06:20
#10
found out last night that a miscellaneous bunch of local trots and fellow travellers are organising a march like this in brighton, with a mixture of fairly sensible demands (no service/wage/job cuts) and terrible 'blame the bankers' populist analysis. i assume it's just a lazy analysis rather than an ideological one - it's a financial crisis so it must be the financiers fault. brighton solfed will be attending the march and are doing a leaflet, which should have an accessible but decent analysis on it.
Oct 23 2008 06:48
#11
it does imply that if these few 'bad eggs' in the system were flushed out/dealt with then everything would be hunky dory, which is a diametrically opposed view to the principles you'd expect anyone coming out of the marxist tradition to hold
at best it implies a complete lack of critical analysis, at worst it implies an explicit tabloid type dumbing down of the issues (and through that, the people that this is aimed at) in an attempt to gain popular support for their 19th century approach to solving 21st century problems
we've seen the same approach taken by anarchists, communists and trots over the last month or so further showing what an irrelevant shower the majority of them are
Oct 23 2008 08:00
#12
oisleep wrote:
we've seen the same approach taken by anarchists, communists and trots over the last month or so further showing what an irrelevant shower the majority of them are
Ironic considering how relevant a shower would be for so many of them.
Oct 23 2008 08:51
#13
badoom, tsschh.
although to be fair those spouting leftist nonsense and those who smell like the anarchist bookfair aren't neccessarily the same people.
Oct 23 2008 10:08
#14
true, although they share numerous other attributes
Oct 25 2008 13:17
#15
So this was actually promoted by anarchists?? I thought it was the SWP or some other leftist outfit, but I see on the blackcat threads that our friendly erstwhile 'platformists' seem to be the originators. Is this another example of a genuine and commendable desire by anarchists for more theoretical and tactical unity simply ending up in the same outdated neotrotskysist hole? There is sadly a past history of this in Britain viz the AWA etc.
Oct 26 2008 09:33
#16
i think you have probably got this in one spikeymike.
Oct 26 2008 22:51
#17
Spikeymike wrote:
So this was actually promoted by anarchists?? I thought it was the SWP or some other leftist outfit, but I see on the blackcat threads that our friendly erstwhile 'platformists' seem to be the originators.
on the anarchist black cat thread, Dundee says the leaflet/call-out was produced by an ad hoc group (presumably including leftists), isn't therefore libertarian communist, but he doesn't see a problem with this if it gets numbers on the streets. so it wasn't produced by a platormist organisation or distributed by one - it's been stressed it's not an L&S thing. the discussion there has moved on to whether libertarian communists should ever support nationalisation - i took this as an obvious no, Andrew F disagrees. i'll be getting back to the discussion hopefully tomorrow.
Oct 27 2008 18:25
#18
I see Dundee United seems completely incapable of defending his politics here...
Oct 27 2008 18:40
#19
actually i was being too fair to Dundee, apparently the call-out was produced by libertarian communists. i'd link to the ABC thread but don't want it to look like i'm encouraging board wars or trying to win an argument by volume of posts. I'm sure anyone sufficiently bothered can find it.
Oct 27 2008 23:20
#20
JK - it's linked to in the opening post on this thread.
Oct 27 2008 23:23
#21
i definitely read that post before laying into it 
Oct 28 2008 09:02
#22
I think that the point is not just what they are saying, it is also what they are doing. I don't really see a point to demos like this at all. It seems like activism for the sake of it to me.
Devrim
Oct 29 2008 13:29
#23
God Joeblack's posts really suck out your will to live don't they? Such relentless pomposity. At least Dundee Utd has a kinda mentalist appeal...
Do you seriously think that the government buying shares in something means that "we" therefore own it?
Do you think that "we" own the army, or the police, or the NHS, or the Houses of Parliament?
Do you not see a differentiation between the government, and the general working population?
There are some other minor issues with that call out, but this I think is a key one.