Hi all, now firstly I really don't want this to be taken the wrong way, it's not meant as an attack, it's meant to be honestly constructive comment and discussion, from the point of view of someone who supports SolFed/IWA and agrees with most of your politics and practise. So I hope it doesn't offend anyone.
But right, basically I was wondering what solfed's aim was with DA magazine? Because it's not immediately apparent in the way that the purpose of AF's Organise! is, for example. It's not a theoretical journal, it's not a news sheet… It obviously takes a lot of time and effort to make and I wonder if the time might be better spent differently?
It seems to have a lot of opinion pieces in which are written in a conversational style which comes off a bit like a pub rant. There's a bit of analysis in it, but I'm sorry I think some of it's not really that great. I mean taking as an example the recent piece on immigration, which states that immigration is needed for the following reasons:
Yet the reality is that both the USA and Europe need immigrant workers. In Europe, the most pressing problem is an ageing workforce; the ratio of people working to retirees is set to fall from its current 4 to 1 to less than 2 to 1 by 2050. If nothing is done, Europe faces not only economic decline but a virtual collapse in welfare provision, as those working will simply not be able to service the welfare bill. The French Institute of International Relations argues that only by admitting at least an extra 30 million people by 2020 can Europe avoid failing economic performance.
This is basically anarchists supporting bourgeois economics. The ageing workforce nonsense is a media smokescreen – the problem is misallocation of resources by capitalism.
I mean obviously the thrust of the piece is good, the message is right – that we should oppose immigration controls, racism, low wages etc. but some of the arguments aren't very solid. Some of the other stuff I disagree with some bits are a bit prolier than thou, more class "in itself" that "for itself", e.g.:
More than this, prejudice, in the form of ‘classism’, is promoted and seen as the way ‘forward’. Old prejudices against the working class are again coming to the fore, just as with the nineteenth century, teetotal puritans. Legislation banning tabs in pubs, standing around having a natter in ‘gangs’ of more than two, standing up and singing at football matches, falling over drunk, farting and laughing – anything these classist bastards don’t like – will have a law against it.
The ‘citizenship’ and ‘English-ness’ that are being promoted, is only done so on the basis that there’s a ‘high’, acceptable culture and that ‘low’, working class, culture should be dumped. This could be because we are now all supposed to be consumers rather than producers, and there’s a blurring of class distinctions. Which means that ‘rough types’ might end up in the same Bistro, drinking the same red wine and getting pissed and laughing instead of sipping it and spitting it out in a bucket while talking about it’s ‘nose’, ‘bouquet’ and their next big pay rise.
But whatever that's a side issue…
The news in brief bits I think have gone now? They weren't great anyway, and were always out of date
Generally I think DA is not very effective at making SF look like a good organisation.
What are other people's views on this, in solfed and out? Does anyone really like it? Does producing it help to tie SF together as an organisation, or bring people in touch with it?
Again I know it must take a lot of energy to do so I hope people don't take this as an attack.
Oh but calling it "Starfucks" is really really lame.
