Seeds of ‘Good Living’ in Ecuador? (LH)

在資本主義框架之下，政府的唯一任務是要為國內外高盈利資本累積創造條件。資本落入誰的手中，最後如何使用，政府一概不會過問。由是觀之，政府不過是商業運作的一個小配件，能從中撈一些油水亦不足為奇。是故從香港到美國，官商勾結已成為政府施政的代名詞。

本文介紹厄瓜多爾，一個遙遠的拉美國家實行社會主義的一些可能性，包括最近的公投，能源政策，以及對“美好生活”的重新界定。

5月7日厄瓜多爾舉行了一次公投，表决是否通過改革司法制度、加強對傳媒與銀行結盟的監管，以及取締鬥牛及賭博。西方傳媒集中報導當中涉及侵犯言論自由的第九條——政府應否成立專責委員會審查電視電臺廣播及出版物是否含有色情、暴力、及歧視成份，並且授權委員會追究發行人，卻忽略了監管企業及私有財產的第三條及第六條。

第三條：你是否同意立例禁止私人金融機構的總裁及主要股份持有人同時擁有傳媒企業的股權，反之亦然？

第六條：你是否同意應立即取締不合法的財富累積？

這兩條問題揭示資本主義的兩個盲點。首先，跨國企業的興起真正令“富可敵國”實現。一個富商能夠同時擁有零售，交通，金融等生意，從各方面掌管人民的日常生計；更能透過擁有傳媒美化自身製造輿論，逼使政府推行有利於己的政策。第三條正是針對這種情況而設。第六條指出官商勾結，以及企業透過自身的有利位置從合法非法途經取得更多財產導致權力越加傾斜的狀況，顯示貪污腐敗雖是國營官僚架構的流弊，在私人企業層面亦不容忽視。

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/good_living_in_rafael_correas_ecuador

Seeds of ‘Good Living’ in Ecuador?by René Ramírez, Roberto Navarrete

René Ramírez is Ecuador’s National Secretary of Planning and Development. He previously worked as an academic and is the author of several books related to alternative views on economic and human development. Ramirez spoke to Roberto Navarrete during a recent visit to the UK about what his government is trying to achieve in the wider context of Latin American politics.

《一九二四年以前台灣社會主義運動的萌芽》序一（林書揚）(東)

其實我睇「邱士杰的普羅列塔利亞科學」呢個網，
佢都係提供台灣早國民前期、初期的史料主。
此文主要是想述說當時兩種意識形態的張力

1./ 社會主義 VS 民族主義　　（一八九五～一九一五）
2./ 社會主義 VS 無政府主義

前者於台灣抗日時期則較突出，到日本正式殖民台灣後，後者的張力才見明顯。
作者的看法是，依一般社會形成論言，階級系列之成型在先，而民族必須以經濟紐帶為形成因而出現，社會衝突的內部因素自然會有好多，但在眾多範圍的社會關係中最屬根本者，亦即說在歷史上得以延續的唯一基本條件者──生存資料之集體生產外無他。

而無政府主義者的興起則是因為當時的知識人、農村小地主、小工商人被編入了「小資產階級」，不熱衷社會主義，但又想反想殖民政權，所以便投入無政府主義，以自由結合為主旨的安那其主義團體。

---------------------------
http://scienco-proleta.blog.ntu.edu.tw/1924/12/31/ekanta1924-lin/

邱士杰君的勞作碩士論文另以《一九二四年以前台灣社會主義運動的萌芽》為題而改寫成冊了。邀我一篇序，因時間上有所緊湊，請邱君容以數段感想以代。

按帝國主義控制下的殖民地，之所以每有反殖民主義運動，幾乎可說是物理上作用反作用的社會動態化，是不論兩造間的文明文化距離之大小的。但這類主要以民族群員為單位對象的壓迫方式（殖民方式）在資本帝國主義時段，因殖民本國社會性質之直接規定，（亦即金融寡佔的境外壓榨體制之設計或控御方式）是大同小異外，

Quilting point , from LENIN'S TOMB（Ulysses)

文章連結 : http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/05/quilting-point.html#disqus_thread


最近Lenin tomb都沒有新文章貼出來，故找了一篇五月份的文章貼出來。說是文章，其實內裡是某幾段引自　Ernesto Laclau的Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism - Fascism - Populism的文字。

其主要帶出了幾個有關意識形態(Ideology)與階級(Class)的關係的討論，如其認為意識形態本身並無任何階級的成分，任何階級也能透過「Articulating」去利用某種意識形態，如文中便以國家主義(Nationalism)來作例子。

另外，佢亦有論述意識形態如何作為某階級的統治工具，指出「A class is hegemonic not so much to the extent that it is able to impose a uniform conception of the world on the rest of society, but to the extent that it can articulate different visions of the world in such a way that their potential antagonism is neutralised.」

不過最為有趣的是，文章下面一連串的討論，當中如essentialism與idealism的爭論均對我們極其重要。尤其作為一個馬克思主義者－－一種在香港被長期忽略的論述，我們更需要對這些問題作出深刻的思考，以建構一套更為完整的論述以說服其他人，並且防範那些來自不同敵人的抹黑又或偷換概念之舉。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quilting point posted by lenin

"The class character of an ideological discourse is revealed in what we could call its specific articulating principle. Let us take an example: nationalism. Is it a feudal, bourgeois or proletarian ideology? Considered in itself it has no class connotation. The latter only derives from its specific articulation with other ideological elements. A feudal class, for example, can link nationalism to the maintenance of a hierarchical-authoritarian system of a traditional type - we need only think of Bismarck’s Germany. A bourgeois class may link nationalism to the development of a centralised nation-state in fighting against feudal particularism, and at the same time appeal to national unity as a means of neutralising class conflicts - think of the case of France. Finally, a communist movement can denounce the betrayal by capitalist classes of a nationalist cause and articulate nationalism and socialism in a single ideological discourse - think of Mao, for example. One could say that we understand by nationalism something distinct in the three cases. This is true, but our aim is precisely to determine where this difference lies. Is it the case that nationalism refers to such diverse contents that it is not possible to find a common element of meaning in them all? Or rather is it that certain common nuclei of meaning are connotatively linked to diverse ideological-articulatory domains? If the first solution were accepted, we would have to conclude that ideological struggle as such is impossible, since classes can only compete at the ideological level if there exists a common framework of meaning shared by all forces in struggle. It is precisely this background of shared meanings that enables antagonistic discourses to establish their difference. The political discourses of various classes, for example, will consist of antagonistic efforts of articulation in which each class presents itself as the authentic representative of ‘the people’, of ‘the national interest’, and so on. If, therefore, the second solution - which we consider to be the correct answer - is accepted, it is necessary to conclude that classes exist at the ideological and political level in a process of ar ticulation and not of reduction.

沒有罷工？那最少嘗試想想它能綻放的力量（Cham）

http://thecommune.co.uk/2011/06/18/on-the-march-at-work/

一說到抗爭行動，我們不是想起在街頭的衝突，就是那些遊行示威——罷工幾近沒有進入我們的視角（講開，維他奶罷工也未見明朗）。作為馬克思主義者的我一方面很不是味兒，但另一方面有知道必須認清工人組織在港非常薄弱，Militancy的傳統就更不用說。

但現實並不阻止我們去幻想。就如現在會做堵路或激進行動的，比盡三四百人，其效甚微。但正如我從前說過，試想像如果有數千人塞在彌敦道，那是甚麼樣的力度？如果現實不成，那最少我們需要去想像。

而想像是需要某些原料的。以下的一篇就是記述一個英國普通公僕的一些心路歷程。講述的是她與她的同工越來越不滿英國政府的緊縮措拖，看著一個又一個的同事被炒，到了某一刻她們即將決定行動。但大家還是很害怕，於是就建議一個小行動——就是大家一起闖進管理層的會議說明訴求。這一個小小的行動，卻給了那位公僕非常大的鼓舞:

The person who went in first said the manager didn't look too bothered at first- until he saw just how many people were pouring in, basically the whole department. People were excited but also very tense and emotional, rather than shouting or making noise the atmosphere was very somber and serious. We made our prepared points, although we got the jitters and forgot our lines, we got everything basically said. Anyway the important thing was that the whole department was there, doing something which was very scary and confrontational for a lot of people, that was way outside of the known for a lot of them, but they did it, everybody went in and stood shoulder to shoulder in front of managers that a lot of people are scared of, managers that will be picking from amongst us for redundancies. We left when we had said our piece, we left when we chose to and not before, and despite the total lack of jumping fences,shouting, running or vandalism it was actually one of the most inspiring bits of direct action of my life.

這不是甚麼個人英雄主義式的抗爭，而是實實在在的打工仔願以risk被炒來進行的集體抗爭。我知道在這一刻的香港下，這些都很難發生。但我覺得，我們最少需要去想像，認可這種最在地、最有力，直指資本主義核心的挑戰方式。

THE SPANISH MODEL by蕭

http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2895

文好撚長，唔貼鳥。

是咁的，這一篇是有關西班牙經濟模式的長文。
留意今天西班牙的局勢，當前的示威毫無疑問是針對政府無力處理的經濟困境。
而這一篇文章則嘗試解釋在08年金融海嘯以前西班牙的「經濟奇跡」，以及解釋08年金融海嘯如何令西班牙玩撚猿。

要追溯西班牙既經濟成果，要回到50年代以來佛朗哥的經濟政策，在此不贅。但明顯的是在75年佛朗哥魂歸天國以後，西班牙是緊隨列根同戴八婆兩條仆街的新自由主義政策。其基調都是那些東西──金融化、私有化、商品化等等。

西班牙在新自由主義改革以後的經濟狀況極佳(譬如07年接近9成人有私有物業，fucking crazy)，九七至零七年間更加是房地產市場急劇膨脹的時期，其間物業價格暴升220%。
依作者所言，整個西班牙經濟奇跡就是建立在房地產行業產生的wealth effect，具體是甚麼我也不知道，在此請教各位。

更加具體地說，作者指出西班牙經濟發展是建立在四個原因之上。

第一，低利率（我睇唔明依到）。
第二，進入歐盟，依靠歐盟強大的購買力。
第三，私有化本土公營部門。
第四，私有化在拉丁美洲的企業。


這一篇文章是比較難看的，因為金融業運作的機構實在複雜過複製人。而且金融海嘯的整個美國連帶歐洲的效應都很難掌握，真係睇到嘔。



還有，這一篇文講的東西很多很多，當中包括西班牙的移民潮、西班牙的政治局勢（我竟然見到有socialist government的字樣）等等，再結合經濟方面講的。

解釋一下兩個名詞：psoe指西班牙社會主義工人黨，是目前西班牙最大黨，行的是實社會民主路線。基本上是一個典型的中間偏左福利黨。
pp即係People's party，人民黨，又一個典型保守黨。目前第二大的在野黨。
當然，金融海嘯一殺到，一切煙消雲散，地產仆街，一切仆街。然後就是政府試圖推出狠削公共開支的財政方案，引發巨大民憤，在一零年中己經有上萬人佔領tahir square反政府，搞搞到就變到今日的局面。

魯迅：一九二七年四月十五日 (東)

魯迅：一九二七年四月十五日（邱士杰）
http://scienco-proleta.blog.ntu.edu.tw/2006/12/31/luxun/

東的短評及簡介：
本文主要說的是歷史，但亦可以當故事咁睇，短短地，幾有趣，當然內容亦有值得留意的地方。

此文章有兩點較為突出。第一是魯迅南下到廣州教書，隨即表示對廣州民眾的憂慮，擔心年青人對革命不嚴肅正視。當時戰事多數發生在北方，南方的學生所經歷的可謂夏蟲不可語冰，「廣州的學生和青年都把革命遊戲化了」。這算是對所有狂熱者、民粹鼓動者的提示，提醒著有些人可以口講革命、改變社會，他人卻視之為「潮流」而已而不探索其根本的價值與關懷......再想下去，香港的六四晚會又會否有同樣的問題？

第二是作者似乎想為魯迅「番案」。當時魯迅已有知名度，初南下有不少歡迎會（但他十分討厭這些活動），之後廣州民眾卻說他不為革命做事。而文章便陳述出魯迅當時與台灣青年革命軍組織的交往，其實魯迅是向台灣進行組織工作，沒有停下來。反而後來的「反革命的反撲卻斬斷了魯迅與這群台灣青年之間的交往」。

摘要：故土淪亡的台灣青年，西渡彼岸為祖國的革命與解放而努力。對於魯迅來說，或許這又是另外一種中國青年的典型。而魯迅自己 ——「只要我能夠」——便竭力扶助，這是魯迅不論在南在北，都會為青年們所盡力而做的罷！但反革命的反撲卻斬斷了魯迅與這群台灣青年之間的交往。六月，國民黨政府開始捕抓台灣革命青年團的成員，命令解散。七月，武漢國民政府正式「分共」，「大革命」宣告失敗。八月，日本殖民當局在台灣島內大肆逮捕青年團成員，組織至此全面潰滅。九月，魯迅離開了廣州。

Lenin's Tomb: The Spanish Tahrir

文章連結：http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/05/spanish-tahrir.html

此文只是一些西班牙革命的初步分析，並無太多深入的論述。其帶出了幾個西班牙革命值得注意的問題。但最值得思考的是－－正如其在文末中指出－－，可以試將西班牙革命的成因及其背後所指向的問題放進近數月內整個歐洲與非洲的脈絡下分析及串連，從而提供一個更為廣闊的國際視野，以全球性的角度下重新理解資本與勞動者的對立，究竟是什麼一回事。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Spanish Tahrir posted by lenin

A guest post on the astonishing uprising in Spain, by quilombosam. Discuss:

“On 15thMay 2011, around 150,000 people took to the streets in 60 Spanish towns and cities to demand “Real Democracy Now”, marching under the slogan “We are not commodities in the hands of bankers and politicians”. The protest was organised through web-based social networks without the involvement of any major unions or political parties. At the end of the march some people decided to stay the night at the Puerta del Sol in Madrid. They were forcefully evacuated by the police in the early hours of the morning. This, in turn, generated a mass call for everyone to occupy his or her local squares that thousands all over Spain took up. As we write, 65 public squares are being occupied, with support protests taking place in Spanish Embassies from Buenos Aires to Vienna and, indeed, London. You probably have not have read about it in the British press, but it is certainly happening. Try #spanishrevolution, #yeswecamp, #nonosvamosor #acampadasolon Twitter and see for yourself. What follows is a text by Emmanuel Rodríguez and Tomás Herreros from the Spanish collectiveUniversidad Nómada.
IT’S THE REAL DEMOCRACY, STUPID

15THMay, from Outrage to Hope
There is no doubt that Sunday 15thMay 2011 has come to mark a turning point: from the web to the street, from conversations around the kitchen table to mass mobilisations, but more than anything else, from outrage to hope. Tens of thousands of people, ordinary citizens responding to a call that started and spread on the internet, have taken the streets with a clear and promising demand: they want a real democracy, a democracy no longer tailored to the greed of the few, but to the needs of the people. They have been unequivocal in their denunciation of a political class that, since the beginning of the crisis, has run the country by turning away from them and obeying the dictates of the euphemistically called “markets”.