Companies like Walmart and SoulCycle are facing more boycotts than ever in the Trump era, but many are still clueless in how to respond

Michael Gordon

Protesters chant slogans and hold signs outside the luxury gym Equinox

 in West Hollywood, California, August 9, 2019, during a protest against 

the gym and fitness company SoulCycle as well as against

President Trump and his benefactor Stephen Ross 

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)




Company boycotts are becoming more prevalent in our highly-politicized culture.
Companies like Walmart and SoulCycle have faced boycotts.
Companies can no longer ignore their customers when it comes to boycotts and hope it blows over. They must act definitively to address customer concerns.
Michael Gordon is a long-time Democratic strategist and the principal for the strategic communications firm, Group Gordon.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Boycotts seem to be a dime a dozen in our culture. With the gale-force influence of social media as the wind in their sails, boycotts spur a media blitz that quickly subsides in our whiplash-inducing news cycle. Then, media and public attention shift to the next big scandal.


But the ubiquity of boycotts does not diminish their seriousness. They remain a powerful form of consumer advocacy that tests the values and standards businesses purport to represent.

This means that businesses need to not only prepare to ride out a boycott but also respond swiftly with definitive actions that address consumers' concerns.
Consumers are expecting more from companies politically

Today, 64% of consumers think it's important that the companies whose products and services they purchase have values aligned with their own. Moreover, 44% of Americans would stop doing business with a company they disagreed with politically.

As brands increasingly become embedded into our everyday lives, consumers are right to use a boycott as a warning flare to brands that they have some explaining to do if they expect to be intimately associated with a person's self-identity. Brands that don't heed that warning can face serious consequences.


Too often when faced with a boycott, corporate America opts to ride out the outrage, taking advantage of our tightened news cycle and the short attention spans it fosters.

Only about 25% of brands publicly respond to boycotts. From a bottom-line perspective, there is some merit to this strategy: boycotts today rarely have an immediate economic impact on brands. However, in a climate in which consumers increasingly look to brands for moral and social leadership, being called out for failing to do the "right" thing can leave a nasty scar on a brand's reputation long after the initial wound has healed, given this reality brands should be armed with a three-part strategy to respond to political snafus.
Doing nothing is not an acceptable response

Brands need to treat a call for a boycott as a call to action: an opportunity to make clear where their social and political values lie and how they are acting according to those values now and in the future.

If it's clear that what consumers are upset about goes against the brand identity, fix it. As a cautionary tale, consider SoulCycle. The brand was put on notice by consumers after revelations of investor Stephen Ross's fundraising for Trump.


While the fitness chain's attendance numbers fell in the days after the boycott, worse for the brand is the betrayal of its adherents. Though the brand issued a statement about the situation, SoulCycle missed an opportunity to back up its words with action. Now, it faces a long climb to regain its previous status—a potentially unreachable target as long as the not-so-"passive" association with Ross continues.
Consumers want real corrective action

Forward-thinking brands understand the long-term benefit of demonstrating values and make the strategic decision to take a stand even when it means alienating some customers in the short term. In these cases, a boycott can actually help a brand prove its bona fides on an issue by not backing down from the pressure.

For example, Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart both took immediate action on gun control after mass shootings that horrified the nation. Though some consumers boycotted, the companies' quick action, meaningful policy changes, and advocacy for gun control measures were ultimately received positively by consumers.

While Dick's saw a 2% decline in sales in the months following the announcement, today its stock is up more than 13%, and sales have since rebounded with the biggest quarterly increase since 2016. Now, almost 150 companies aren't waiting for calls from consumers to urge Congress to pass gun control measures.


As opposed to SoulCycle, Dick's took action in the face of a politically challenging issue and it came out the better for it. More companies should take heed and to take a stand.
Consumers don't forget, and neither should companies

Boycotts inevitably lose steam, but they can continue to haunt brands long into the future. The damage inflicted can have lingering effects on a brand's reputation, as we saw with Uber's struggles since a viral #DeleteUber campaign in January 2017.

The brand was criticized for breaking a taxi strike during protests at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport over President Trump's immigration policy, and a series of additional missteps throughout the year regularly brought the movement back to the fore and cemented Uber as Silicon Valley's bad guy.

The company's recent IPO filing detailed not only the hundreds of thousands of customers lost to the boycott but also how the movement "adversely affected" the brand's reputation and "fueled distrust" among consumers. Now, almost three years and $500 million in marketing spending later, the brand is still struggling to rebuild consumer trust.

The modern boycott plays an important role in our current social and political climate. While it may not dramatically hurt the bottom line in the short term, a boycott is still a lever for consumers to exert pressure on brands.

Businesses that think they've gotten off easy because sales or users didn't plummet drastically after a boycott are fooling themselves and risking long-term damage to their brands. The smartest companies will look beyond the immediate horizon. To thrive, and also to just survive, in the current political climate, companies must respond to boycotts and other political pressures with clear action and a commitment to show consumers them what the brand really stands for.


This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author(s).

INVASION OF SNAKEHEADS!

CTHULHU'S CHILDREN

Woman Is Attacked by Octopus She Was Trying to Eat on Chinese Livestreaming Site

The woman was reportedly attempting to eat the creature live


Woman Is Attacked by Octopus She Was Trying to Eat on Chinese Livestreaming Site: Watch the Scary Video https://people.com/pets/woman-attacked-by-octopus-video-china/

Warning: The above video is graphic and may be disturbing to some

According to the Daily Mail, a Chinese vlogger known as ‘seaside girl Little Seven’ planned to livestream a video of herself eating a live octopus. The animal, however, had different plans, and soon after her camera started rolling, it used its sticky tentacles to attach to her face — and wouldn’t let go.

The struggle lasted for nearly a minute as the woman worked desperately to peel the creature from her face. Once she was able to, she saw herself on screen — and noticed the octopus had punctured her skin.

According to the Daily Mail, the vlogger ended the clip by saying, “I’ll eat it in the next video,” seemingly undeterred by her experience. She regularly posts on the Chinese video platform Kuaishou, and though previous videos she’s taken of herself eating and playing with sea creatures haven’t taken off, this one has gone viral around the world, earning her backlash on the Chinese microblogging site, Weibo.

Trump's fast-tracking of oil pipelines hits legal roadblocks

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Trump administration’s effort to cut red tape and speed up major energy projects has backfired in the case of the three biggest U.S. pipelines now planned or under construction.

All three have been stalled by successful legal challenges by environmental groups alleging the administration failed to apply the regulatory scrutiny required under the law.

The Republican administration tried to accelerate permits for two multi-billion-dollar natural gas lines and jumpstart the long-stalled Keystone XL crude oil pipeline that would start in Canada. Judges halted construction on all three over the past two years, ruling that the administration granted permits without conducting adequate studies or providing enough alternatives to protect endangered species or national forests.

The delays have caused the two giant gas pipelines - Dominion Energy Inc’s Atlantic Coast and EQM Midstream Partners LP’s Mountain Valley - to increase their cost estimates by hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the companies. The Atlantic Coast pipeline may never be completed unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns a lower-court decision blocking its planned route, analysts said.

Lawsuits alleging regulatory lapses are not new, but they were unsuccessful during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama. Plaintiffs lost five separate lawsuits alleging regulatory failures during Obama’s administration, according to a Reuters review of court filings for major interstate gas pipes built since 2010.

“Environmental groups definitely have been going after these pipelines more aggressively,” said Amy Vazquez, Houston-based partner at the law firm of Jones Walker, who specializes in energy litigation. “It’s probably because they’re having a fair bit of success.”

The White House declined to comment. An Energy Department spokeswoman did not comment on the litigation but said the administration remains committed to streamlining energy infrastructure development.


D.J. Gerken, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Asheville, North Carolina, represented the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in cases challenging the Atlantic Coast pipeline. He said the administration’s rush to help industry move faster invited the legal challenges.

“Pressure from the utilities that stand to benefit from this project and the Trump administration produced flawed permits,” he said.

‘MYSTERIOUS’ REGULATORY REVERSAL

In the case of Dominion’s 600-mile (966-km) Atlantic Coast gas pipeline, from West Virginia to North Carolina, the U.S. Forest Service originally expressed skepticism about the project in 2016 when Obama was president, requesting alternative designs. But after Trump took office, the Forest Service changed course, and issued permits and a waiver for the line to cross the Appalachian Trail on national forestland in Virginia.

Petitioners including the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy organization, sued the Forest Service, alleging the agency violated three federal acts in issuing a construction permit.

In December 2018, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Forest Service decisions, with Judge Stephanie Thacker noting in her ruling that “the Forest Service’s serious environmental concerns that were suddenly, and mysteriously, assuaged in time to meet a private pipeline company’s deadlines.”

The court said the Forest Service lacked authority to allow Dominion to build across the Appalachian Trail, which is administered by the Department of Interior. The Forest Service declined to comment.


In July, in another Atlantic Coast case brought by groups including the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, the Fourth Circuit vacated a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. Chief Judge Roger Gregory ruled that the agency, in “fast-tracking” decisions, lost sight of its mandate to protect threatened species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to comment.

Atlantic Coast’s original cost estimate of $6 billion to $6.5 billion has risen to $7 billion to $7.5 billion, the company said. The projected completion has shifted from late 2019 to late 2021.

The U.S. Supreme Court in October agreed to hear the Appalachian Trail case and could overrule the decision halting construction across that route.

Dominion has stopped construction on the pipe since December 2018. Spokesman Aaron Ruby said the company is confident the high court will rule in its favor and “uphold the longstanding precedent allowing pipeline crossings of the Appalachian Trail.”
RISING COSTS, LEGAL RISKS

The Fourth Circuit appeals court also stopped work on EQM’s 303-mile (488-km) Mountain Valley gas pipe from West Virginia to Virginia in June 2018, agreeing with the Sierra Club and other plaintiffs that permits issued by the Army Corps violated West Virginia rules related to stream crossings.

The state has since altered its rules, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of issuing new permits for this pipeline and Atlantic Coast. But the Sierra Club is still challenging a Fish and Wildlife Service permit in a case that also is being heard by the Fourth Circuit.

EQM originally expected to complete Mountain Valley by the end of 2018 at a cost of $3.5 billion. The company said publicly that it expected the pipeline, which is mostly complete, will cost up to $5 billion and enter service in mid-2020.

Diana Charletta, chief operating officer at EQM, said that recent court decisions “have brought uncertainty and a high-level of scrutiny to the agencies’ decisions.”

Officials at both Dominion and EQM dispute that approvals were fast-tracked. Dominion pointed out that it filed its application to build Atlantic Coast in 2014.

“I don’t think any person can look at the regulatory review process for Atlantic Coast pipeline and say that it was fast-tracked,” said Ruby, the Dominion spokesman.

EFFORT TO REVIVE KEYSTONE STALLS

TC Energy Corp’s $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline, originally blocked by Obama in 2015, was revived by Trump in 2017 with the issuance of a presidential permit for the line, which would ship crude from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Federal Judge Brian Morris in Montana blocked work on the pipe in November 2018, citing a lack of due diligence by federal regulators regarding greenhouse gas emissions and Native American land rights.

The Trump administration tried to circumvent that ruling by rescinding its original presidential permit and issuing a new one in March. That second permit now faces legal challenges from Native American groups.


TC Energy said it continues to monitor U.S. legal and regulatory issues while it plans construction. “We are committed to Keystone XL as it remains an important project for our company and for North America,” said Terry Cunha, spokesman for TC Energy.

Canadian producer Suncor Energy said in early September that the uncertain U.S. political landscape makes it unclear that the pipeline will be built. “That’s one a lot of people are doing soul-searching about right now,” said Suncor CEO Mark Little.


Reporting by Scott DiSavino and Stephanie Kelly; Editing by David Gaffen and Brian Thevenot


Why Duke Energy CEO is optimistic work will resume on halted $7.8B Atlantic Coast Pipeline 

By John Downey  – Senior Staff Writer, Charlotte Business Journal

May 9, 2019, 5:05pm EDT

Pipe laid for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline last November near Dry Branch Stream in the West Virginia Mountains.

PIPELINE CSI

The full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing today to review a decision made by a three-judge panel in January that has halted construction of the $7.8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

Duke Energy Corp. executives said Thursday they expect the hearing to clear the way for putting key approvals for the pipeline back in place by this summer. That should allow construction of the 600-mile project — a joint venture by Dominion Energy Inc. (NYSE: D), Duke (NYSE: DUK) and The Southern Company (NYSE: SO) — to resume construction on some sections by the fall.

Duke CEO Lynn Good acknowledged that a separate 4th Circuit ruling, which essentially holds that the pipeline must get permission of the U.S. Congress to cross the Appalachian Trail, remains in place. She told analysts on a conference call that Duke and its partners expect to appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court early this summer, and they hope the Trump Administration will support their appeal. She said that construction on parts of the pipeline not impacted by the Appalachian Trail decision will be able to proceed once the other case, which involves an environmental permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is resolved.

D.J. Gerken, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, who was in Richmond, Virginia, for the arguments, says that is overly optimistic.

Leaving aside whether the environmental groups that SELC represents ultimately prevail in the Fish and Wildlife case, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could hold the ban on construction along the entire pipeline in place once that case is resolved.

Convoluted situation

Gerken says FERC has in the past held that construction of a pipeline cannot proceed until the project has secured right-of-way along the entire proposed route. That means the still-pending decision on right-of-way to cross the Appalachian Trail could lead the agency to hold off on allowing construction to move forward.

The current legal situation for the pipeline, designed to transport fracked natural gas from the Utica and Marcellus shale fields of the north and Midwest from West Virginia to southeastern North Carolina, is convoluted.

Thursday's hearing involved an order by a 4th Circuit panel that held the Fish and Wildlife improperly issued what is know as a "take order" for certain endangered species along the pipeline route. The order is supposed to consider all environmental factors to determine a limit on how much damage can be done to the species and allow it to continue to thrive.

Good said the partners expect the court to rule within 90 days whether the three-judge panel erred in its January ruling. She said that even if the court upholds that ruling, the partners believe the problems can be corrected "over a one to two-month period" and a new order can be issued, giving the project all the environmental approvals it needs.

Discussions continue
Gerken says that is a reasonable timeline. But he notes that his groups are arguing that the pipeline route will jeopardize two species — the rusty patched bumblebee and the clubshell mussel. If the court agrees, it could disallow the route and force the project back to the drawing board.

And he notes that the U.S. Park Service withdrew its permit for the pipeline to cross the Blue Ridge Parkway after the Fish and Wildlife decision was struck down. Duke expects the parkway permit to be reissued once a valid Fish and Wildlife order is in place. But Gerken says that is not certain.

The issue involving the Appalachian Trail focuses on whether the U.S. Forest Service had the authority to allow the pipeline to cross the trail. The 4th Circuit ruled late last year that it did not, holding that only Congress had that authority. A related issue is whether the Forest Service could permit the pipeline to cross the Monongahela and George Washington national forests.

"A petition seeking the Supreme Court review will be filed this summer. We’re optimistic that the government will support it," Good said. "And so, we’ll see milestones over the course of the summer on that item."

As that advances, she said, the pipeline is working with customers who have agreed to transport gas through the pipeline to determine the timing and costs for construction of the project, done in phases working around the trail issue.


"Those discussions will continue over the course of the year as well," she said.

17Politics

Trump advisory council recommends expanding private business in national parks

Yahoo News•October 11, 201

Campgrounds in national parks set to be privatized in new Trump plan

The Trump administration is moving forward with an ambitious plan to give private businesses greater access to national parks, according to a memorandum written by an advisory council for the Department of the Interior.

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration advisory panel is recommending an ambitious plan to give private businesses greater access to national parks, according to a memorandum written by an advisory council for the Department of the Interior.

Some price increases could also in the works for park visitors under the plan.

Drafters of the plan say it amounts to little more than a much-needed modernization of aging infrastructure, and that the goal is to make national parks accessible to a younger, more diverse audience. Critics, on the other hand, see corporate influence at work.

Yellowstone Campgrounds sign. (Photo: Getty Images)

There are 419 national parks in the United States, from the National Mall in Washington, D.C., to the Gates of the Arctic in Alaska. All are overseen by the National Park Service, which is part of the Interior Department. That department is headed by David Bernhardt, a former Republican operative and corporate lobbyist who has made no secret of his desire to increase the presence of private enterprise in national parks.

Private businesses — including concessionaires and tour guides — already operate in many national parks, but Bernhardt and a number of his deputies have argued that the parks have $12 billion in deferred maintenance, and that such funds are much more easily found from outside the federal government than within.

Scenic view of Brooks Range, Dietrich River and the Dalton Highway, Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve, Arctic Alaska. (Photo: Getty Images)

Now that plan seems to be rapidly taking shape, despite opposition from conservationists who say it amounts to nothing more than a corporate giveaway. They argue that the Trump administration has exaggerated the need to raise funds in order to justify the sale and lease of public lands outside the national park system, as well as favorable terms for concessionaires inside the parks. Some of the nation’s biggest concessionnaires, such as Delaware North, are headed by significant donors to Trump and the Republican Party.

The Sept. 24 memorandum, which was written for the Department of the Interior’s Subcommittee on Recreation Enhancement Through Reorganization, says the plan should begin as a pilot program “in park units with low levels of visitor services.” But eventually that program would be exported to other agencies within the Interior Department that manage public lands, including the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The memo was subsequently posted to the internet, where it appears to have attracted no notice.

The topic of the memorandum is “campground modernization/expansion.” Although there is no author cited in the two-page document, a metadata analysis performed by conservationist groups that first came upon the file shows that it was written by Derrick Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition.

In a phone conversation with Yahoo News, Crandall confirmed that he was the “chief author” of the memo. He said it has been approved by the appropriate committee and will be endorsed by Bernhardt shortly. Interior officials disputed that characterization, telling Yahoo News, “We have not received formal recommendations from the committee for the department's consideration. We’ll review the report once we receive it and respond accordingly.” A staffer at Interior headquarters said that Crandall’s memorandum was set to undergo additional review and revision, including public deliberation.

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt speaks with park rangers. (Photo: Al Drago/Reuters)

Crandall in turn disputed Interior’s characterization of where the matter stood. He said that his memorandum had, in fact, been “unanimously approved” and will go to Bernhardt next week “in its current form.”

The American Recreation Coalition lobbies for private industry in public parks. Crandall worked in the Republican administrations of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. He is currently a member of the Made in America Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee, which was started by Bernhardt’s predecessor, Ryan Zinke, who was forced from office for a variety of ethical lapses. Other members of the industry-heavy committee include Jeremy Jacobs of Delaware North, the nation’s most prominent concessions operator in national parks, and Bruce Fears of Aramark Leisure, another major operator in that industry.

Crandall forcefully disputed suggestions of a corporate giveaway while expressing an admiration for public lands.

“It is not privatization,” he said of his plan. He said that the “idea of cooperation” between the federal government and private enterprise has been integral to the national parks since their founding a century ago.

Crandall’s memorandum specifically focuses on the national parks’ campgrounds, of which there are 130 nationwide. Zinke said in 2017 that he did not “want to be in the business of running campgrounds.” Among the members of the recreation advisory committee he formed is Jim Rogers, who until 2015 was the head of Kampgrounds of America, the nation’s largest private campground operator.

Crandall also suggests changes that would greatly expand the footprint of private enterprises like KOA and Delaware North within the national park system. If leases and agreements are signed while Trump is in office, it would be difficult — if not impossible — for a subsequent Democratic administration to nullify or curtail such contracts, meaning that a plan the critics call privatization could become a virtually permanent feature of parks like Yellowstone or Shenandoah.

A bison crosses the road in Lamar Valley, Yellowstone National Park, Wyo. (Photo: Getty Images)

The memo opens by asserting that campgrounds are “excellent candidates for partner management under concessions and leases.” It then approvingly cites KOA research that people find visiting campgrounds “rewarding and desirable.” Crandall proceeds to argue that federally operated campgrounds suffer from “inadequate and outmoded visitor infrastructure.” As one example, he cites the lack of wireless internet service, as well as a dearth of places to shop.

The document also recommends that campgrounds on national parks permit food trucks, which have become highly popular in urban settings but tend to be rare in the wilderness.

Other proposals that Crandall floats include ending senior discounts during certain times of the year; a “market pricing” model that would have an adjustment for inflation and, in all probability, raise prices for all users of campgrounds in national parks; opening up more of the campgrounds to private concessions; and giving concessions operators free housing in the public parks.

In explaining his plan to Yahoo News, Crandall said it was only “logical” to invite experts in recreation to update national parks to suit 21st century needs. He said that federal park employees had “little expertise” in areas like food and housing services, and that privatizing such operations would free up staff to focus on their work.

Conservationists were aghast at the plan, which has not been finalized but does appear to be moving briskly toward implementation.

“David Bernhardt and President Trump won’t quit until the American people are left totally empty-handed and private special interests own our outdoor heritage,” said Jayson O’Neill, the deputy director of the Western Values Project, a conservation group that has been a frequent critic of the current administration.

“Privatizing America’s public campgrounds,” O’Neill continued, “and jacking up national park fees to appease private concessionaires and powerful corporate campaign donors is just the administration's latest egregious attempt to rip public lands out of public hands.”

Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that the advisory council’s memo is a recommendation to the Trump administration, and has not been adopted as policy by the Department of Interior.

_____

RUINS: The Foundations of Ethics: Marx on Epicurean Mate...

RUINS: The Foundations of Ethics: Marx on Epicurean Mate...: Originally published in Found Object , Winter/Spring Issue, Number 2 ( January/February 2001) The Origins of Ethics in Marx&#39...

TECHNOLOGY NEWS
OCTOBER 7, 2019
Paralyzed man hails 'feat' of walking again with robot exoskeleton

GRENOBLE, France (Reuters) - The French tetraplegic man who has been able to walk again using a pioneering four-limb robotic system, or exoskeleton, said walking was a major feat for him after being immobile for years.

The French scientists behind the system, which was publicly unveiled last week, use a system of sensors implanted near the brain which send signals to the robotic system, moving the patient’s legs and arms.

Speaking to media on Monday in the French city of Grenoble, the 28-year-old patient, who was identified only by his first name, Thibault, said he had to re-educate to use his brain when he started to try the whole-body exoskeleton.


“As I hadn’t moved for two years I had to re-learn to use my brain,” he said.

“At the beginning, walking was very difficult. Now I can stand up for two hours in the exoskeleton and I can do walking cycles for a very long time”, he also said. “This is a feat for me.”

In a two-year-long trial, two recording devices were implanted, one either side of Thibault’s head between the brain and the skin, spanning the region of the brain that controls sensation and motor function.


Each recorder contained 64 electrodes which collected brain signals and transmitted them to a decoding algorithm. The system translated the brain signals into the movements the patient thought about, and sent his commands to the exoskeleton.

Over 24 months, the patient carried out various mental tasks to train the algorithm to understand his thoughts and to progressively increase the number of movements he could make. For now the exoskeleton is purely an experimental prototype.

The pioneering four-limb robotic system, or exoskeleton, that is commanded and controlled by signals from the patient's brain is seen following a news conference after Thibault, a 28-year-old man, paralyzed from the shoulders down, had been able to walk using it at the French research center Clinatec in Grenoble, France, October 7, 2019. REUTERS/Emmanuel Foudrot

https://epdf.pub/the-scientific-american-brave-new-brain.html

https://epdf.pub/wearable-robots-biomechatronic-exoskeletons64c067c953280dad528dd2974da286e624721.html

Socialist Standard Past & Present: Socialism and Planning Part 2: ‘Feedback’ (2019)

Socialist Standard Past & Present: Socialism and Planning Part 2: ‘Feedback’ (2019): From the August 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard Link to Part 1 Socialism and Planning: The Need for Feedback Last month ...

Socialist Standard Past & Present: Socialism and Planning: What Can Work (2019)

Socialist Standard Past & Present: Socialism and Planning: What Can Work (2019): From the July 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard The impossibility of ‘One Big Plan’ In any kind of society, people need to plan...

Socialist Standard Past & Present: The Scale Of It All (2019)

Socialist Standard Past & Present: The Scale Of It All (2019): The Wood for the Trees Column from the September 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard ‘We are going to die – and that makes us the l...