The latest DA had good selection of well written and interesting articles as usual but the headline article 'Savage Cuts in Spending.....' was a sad disapointment, seeming more like something out of a typical leftist rag like Socialist Worker with its critcism of the bad state policy towards the banks and 'appeals' to the state to intervene more wisely, even apparently praising 'keynesian' approaches as against the supposed 'free market' approach criticised, (When was the market actually ever 'free' or any of the capitalists policies beneficial to workers?).. Didn't seem much like a genuine anarchist critique and perhaps less suprisingly failed to take on board any basic marxist analysis of the functioning of the modern capitalist economy and it's underlying contradictions. It seems it's all down to nasty capitalist politicians and their foolish policies!
The conclusions may be broadly OK but the analysis is woefully lacking.
hey sorry for the delay, this forum is only used by a small amount of SolFed members so if you want a proper response it's probably best to email DA directly.
i don't have the article to hand, but from what i remember it was more pointing out that the 'There is No Alternative' line on cuts is bullshit, since even in capitalist terms there are alternative ways of managing capitalism (such as Keynesianism). however far from 'appealing' to the state to be nicer it stressed they'll only miraculously rediscover the 'impossible' if we struggle against the cuts.
now you could make criticisms of that line of argument, for example saying an expansion of state debt in the current climate could trigger a collapse in confidence and thus a 'double-dip' recession. that's a plausible argument. but pointing out that public spending out of a crisis rather than cuts is not mere fantasy is not the same as advocating 'tax the rich' or any fiscal policy for that matter - it's simply a refutation of 'there is no alternative.'
but like i say without having the article in front of me i can't say how much the article refutes 'TINA' and how much it 'appeals' for alternative ways of managing capitalism. my impression was much more the former though.