alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As you say, Robbo…utter shambles…According to the theory, the UK want to impose a No Fly Zone…as ISIS has no air force this can only be meant to apply against Syrian government…so we have UK/Coalition planes bombing ISIS but when Syria bombs ISIS, UK/Coalition will act as de facto ISIS air force and deter Syrian air-attacks.Since Syrian government is not at war with the Kurds but Turkey is, we have No Fly Zone being flouted by the Turks who are then are permitted to attack Kurdish positions by its NATO allies.Since Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States are financing and supplying Al Nusra jihadists, this group too can be assumed to be under the protection of the No Fly Zone Also whenever the Israeli's decide that a stray shell from Syrian government or their hot pursuit into the Golan Heights is deserving of "retaliatory" attack, do you imagine the No Fly Zone being extended to include them and that RAF jets would engage Israli Air Force – of course, not. We do see an escalation or as they put it in their terminology – mission creep. While this is no defence of terrorists, we have Cameron authorising the use of British drones in Syria when Parliament voted against any military involvement. Of course, his argument is that he could not permit British citizens to plan and perhaps carry out terrorist acts in Britain from their base in Syria. This was deemed lawful by the government's Solicitor General, the same office that decided the Iraq invasion was legal and, as back then, the justification under law is not to be published so we don't know either if the threat was credible or what grounds there was to stop it. No doubt teams of SASA are on the ground reay to undertake assassinations when the drones are not able to. We are to take the PMs word and trust in his judgement since there will not be any oversight by the Parliamentary Intelligence Committee.And naturally the revelations of those targeted assassinations is given in a statement about humanitarian response to refugees just to create the link.And we see the 20,000 headline figure but the small print is that it is over 5 years, that it is not full refugee status and when toddlers are 18 having spent all their lives in the UK, they will get kicked out, as what have been happening with some Afghan refugee youths. shameful
Many socialists will be asked, as i have, how can we expect Britain/Europe cope with millions of refugees and the assumption is that it cannot so Fortress Europe and British fences at Calais are justified. I recall long ago reading about post-war German forced migrations so i looked up wiki. By 1950, a total of approximately 12 million Germans had fled or been expelled from east-central Europe. Some sources put the total at 14 million. The largest numbers came from territories ultimately ceded to Poland and the Soviet Union (about 7 million), and from Czechoslovakia (about 3 million). The death toll attributable to the flight and expulsions is disputed, with estimates ranging from at least 473,000 confirmed deaths up to a demographic estimate from the 1950s of 2.2 million. More recent estimates by some German historians put the total at 500-600,000 attested deaths. The German Historical Museum puts the figure at 600,000 victims: they maintain that the figure of 2 million deaths in the previous government studies cannot be supported. Nonetheless, the official positions of the German government and the German Red Cross are that the death toll resulting from expulsions ranged from 2 to 2.5 million civilians. The German Federal Agency for Civic Education puts the figure at 2 million. There was horrible retribution and revenge taken against many Germans post-war plus one of the coldest winters in history taking its toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)“I am free to confess to you that my heart is saddened by the tales of the masses of German women and children flying along the roads everywhere in 40-mile long columns to the West before the advancing armies. I am clearly convinced that they deserve it; but that does not remove it from one’s gaze. The misery of the whole world appals me and I fear increasingly that new struggles may arise out of those we are successfully ending.” – ChurchillIn 1938 about 309,000 Japanese lived in Taiwan. By the end of World War II, there were over 850,000 Japanese in Korea and more than 2 million in China. After World War II, most of these overseas Japanese repatriated to Japan. The Allied powers repatriated over 6 million Japanese nationals from colonies and battlefields throughout Asia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_diasporaMy point is that when there is political will there is a way. Accommodating even millions of newcomers is possible if you are willing to accept them and accept the cost.Fact is many in the UK aren't and present these inaccurate arguments that we cannot take large numbers when it simply isn't true.We recall 27,000 Ugandan Asians were relocated in the UK…not in 5 years as Cameron plans for 20,000 Syrians but within days as Idi Amin gave 90 days for their deportation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_UgandaCameron made political choices not humanitarian ones.
Ummm…i did say paraphrase, jist and implication, relying on memory…In the context of the question, "these other parties" were those claiming to be socialist parties, as listed by Neil…not just any other political party raising general political questions…(i'll pass by the throwaway remark that we may have anarchistic elements in the Party… )And to be honest i don't think my interpretation of Howard's intended meaning is that far wrong nor my conclusion that regards Corbyn who has re-drafted the agenda of political debate and brought the prospect of socialism back to the table the election comments of Howard are also applicable . Again not much different from the analyses being presented by various members firstly on Piketty and then on Brand…although i do generalise a little bit. But i'm not a party lawyer who will dwell on the crossing of t and dotting of i …I do take on board your inference that the tone of Howard might differ from that of Gnome…isn't it positive that we are not all clones and can differ…and i certainly hope KSRB has lively discussions…If a branch is not then something is sadly amiss.
I think like i thought with the CPGB, they realise Corbyn won't be able to carry many Labour members and that a civil war within them is likely…and they hope to pick up support from the Corbyn side of the competing factions. They hope he might be pushed left to defend himself…who knows, i don't and i'm guessing like the rest of them…he may compromise so much that everything stays the same….His shadow cabinet will be interesting to watch. It seems likely the predictions that the SNP will become the only "official" opposition being united and coherent may prove to be right if Labour fracture along left and right lines and turn on themselves instead of the Tories. I don't think we are in a position to pick up any of the jetsam and flotsam that will floating around as Labour bicker amongst themselves so we might as well concentrate in putting our own political tactics in target and forget Labour and Corbyn…We can't get any benefits or any advantage right now except to throw brickbats at them all.
The Green Party attitude to Corbyn…another mixed message…https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/what-would-corbyn-win-mean-for-greens
Quote:With the Green Party you will continue to get what it says on the tin, with Corbyn’s Labour you almost certainly won’t. He’s a decent, authentic bloke; but in the end he’s unlikely to actually succeed in doing very much more than pasting a new temporary label over the ‘New Labour’ tin. But there is a way in which he could potentially gain strength: by appealing beyond his party, to like-minded people in the Greens, Plaid and the SNP, to work together for some kind of cross-party rainbow progressive alliance.Let us not overlook what our election candidate for Brighton said on the Andrew Neil programme…i'm paraphrasing but the jist was….we welcome the presence of those other parties that call themselves socialist because it brings the topic of what socialism is into the debate…and by implication that means we very much welcome Corbyn's bid for the leadership of the Labour Party and it has already been pointed out, it has instigated political discussions once again on what is socialism.We cannot advocate our interpretation of socialism without upsetting those who believe their version is the right one or a step towards it.It can be done, however, by a complete absence of personalities and concentrate purely on a historical and theoretical basis. People can draw their own conclusion in regards how that effects Corbyn's position. As i said previously, John Bisset's Clause 4 article, i think, was an example of this approach. Someone mentioned if Corbyn wins we should publish a fresh Labour Party pamphlet, another way of delivering the message without personalising it. But at one point or another, Corbyn's policies must be attacked as against working class and socialist interests and his defenders will care little for our objectiveness. We will also be criticised about merely talking about socialist future and nothing else and certainly not the here and now. I recall during the Scottish Referendum, left nationalists simply dismissed our opposition alongside the unionist Tory and Labour No vote, and as part of the evidence they cited our party name…Socialist Party of GREAT BRITAIN. I will remind the thread that out of millions who voted…near on 90% of those eligible…3,000 spoiled their ballots and we can be pretty sure most of those didn't do that because of our counsel. Our socialism is still as much impossiblism as it as in 1904…perhaps even more so…Back to the beginning, comrades, and look at ourselves with a bit of self-critical self-examination.I'm a part of the confusion of this thread because i simply don't know what direction to take. But i do think we are travelling up the wrong track and scared to either change direct or turn back. I don't find anybody has the full answer … Once more i suggest we ourselves get together and re-fashion our politics…ADM/Conference isn't the forum for this re-shaping of the Party. i think we should dedicate a process to explore new paths forward and re-set our compass.
Then it is our task to get those people discussing issues that they should be getting involved with and participating in…the survival of the planet and the end to claiming bits of the planet as your own.And that does not necessarily mean including Corbyn in the message. Or does Derek Wall think one person is so crucial and must be elected to an opposition party so we can reverse global warming and climate change? If so, then he indeed believes in a saviour of the human species….very unmarxian, if you are asking me.
Quote:SP "Here's an outrageous suggestion, why not leave the "left" alone"Not so outrageous, SP because i have already raised this option that we ignore Corbyn completely and concentrate upon what i consider the 2 most important issues facing workers world wide – the environment and nationalism (including migration)
Quote:Message #320 The other strategy to employ is to place Corbyn in the context of the Big Picture, and say its all a side-show, not worthy of engaging in and right now the two most pressing issues for the working class and socialists are environment and nationalism, neither of which Corbyn can do much about particularly the former and can influence the latter marginally, and focus our attention on those. We can relegate Corbyn to non-importance and defend that attitude from the Big Scheme of things in the world going on.Such an attitude would still not satisfy those who want to get engaging in the day-to-day political fighting of reformism such as Derek Wall who will continue to accuse us of doing nothing…as if all his political activities have changed things fundamentally…We cannot simply yield our principles for popularity…But we could concentrate our energy and time on what i have said…offering socialist analyse of those two problems but pushing the gear up to actually participating in the protests and demonsrations…even if it is simply being present clutching our copies of th Socialist Standard and to hand out leaflets. The other group who engages on the Left but still get called sectarian from its rivals for not always toeing the popular line is the CPGB. The latest issue of Weekly Worker also criticise Clause 4 Worshippers …
Quote:clause four was mainly for show. A red ribbon around what was the standing programme of social liberalism. Yet, even if it had been put into effect, clause four socialism would remain statist, elitist and antithetical to working class self-liberation. Capitalism without capitalists does not count amongst our goals.And they too share our scepticism of Corbyn
Quote:Real Marxists, not fake Marxists, have never talked of reclaiming Labour. It has never been ours in the sense of being a “political weapon for the workers’ movement”…The CPGB moreorless see Corbyn as a catalyst for political in-fighting for the control of the Labour Party and not as someone who will usher in any socialistic UK but declare that the situation and circumstances may well drive Corbyn even more leftwards…Our view is different in that we might not all dispute CPGB scenario "the right will resort to unconstitutional methods in an attempt to undermine, discredit, isolate and then finally oust Corbyn. In this it will be aided and abetted not only by the City, the military-industrial complex and the capitalist press and media. Special branch, MI5 and their American cousins will provide information, advisors and coordination." We already knew from Peter Wright's autobiography that there was a dirty campaign against Harold Wilson and he was prime minister at the time…But our campaign is one of raising consciousness and self-organisation, and that does make us different from those seeking political power for a political party to run capitalism and hope their failure will create socialists…More can be said on this and i haven't completely presented a full argument…but it is vital that we hold a special gathering to design and devise an approach for ourselves, rather different from the 1904 one we gave ourselves,when we were optimistically thinking we would be the banner workers and other socialist would quickly muster under…it ain't so… so we need to start once more from the beginning and see what we can build upon from what we have so far achieve.We have to discuss and debate amongst ourselves or we will continually run into this obstacle we facing now on the thread misunderstanding and opposing other party members and comrades…Perhaps Derek Wall is right….and that we are do nothing and think nothing Party and change is our enemy..think upon that, comrades and reflect on the progress of the Party and wonder why that is… If he is wrong, then lets take some steps to prove him wrong…
Quote:Now, as a result of the blog item, it's been re-tweeted (scroll down): https://twitter.com/officialspgb People will think we're proud of it and that we are indeed waging a "ferocious media campaign" against Corbyn. Why don't members think before they shoot?Quote:there are many more members who profoundly disagree that we should "disavow" the Marmite image and are more than content to be part of a "ferocious" campaign against Corbyn and all that he represents.ALB, Gnome, SOYMB blog will remove the relevant blog-post if instructed to do so by today's EC meeting, as it seems that an EC decision would be the most democratic (albeit imperfect) way the blog can judge the views of the Party on the issue.I don't think we can be fairer than that in attempting to follow the Party's general wishes.
Vin, we have a media committee whose remit is exactly that..to circulate press releases as they see fit and there are no conditions upon the committee that imposes any restrictions upon them. But with all committees in the party, we should not expect hard-pressed volunteers to bear all the weighty burden and responsibility upon their shoulders.The blog offers some help but members could be also assisting by linking to the relevant blog-posts as a poor substitute as a Party "statement" and adding their own comments wherever they can on the web.
I know it is not our task to come up with partial solutions to the problems of capitalism but have you ever wondered why they are refugee “boat-people” placing their lives of themselves and their families into the hands of people-smugglers and paying thousands of euros for a place on a leaky rusty boat, while an air-ticket costs only a few hundred?The EU subject the airlines to laws that fine them if they fly people without the appropriate papers. Airlines could very easily accept asylum-seeker passengers and fly them safely to European cities. No need for people smuggling extorting thousands of euros nor the hazard of drowning. Why is this option not being discussed or even raised by the media?Those who sympathise with the refugees should demand the relaxation of those regulations and that the commercial airlines begin an humanitarian airlift. Or perhaps the refugees could begin to occupy the airports and the aircraft similar to what they did in Budapest at the train station until they are transported to sanctuaries.
Our blogs have been doing just that, Vin, for quite a long while and repeatedly, in fact. We have also been trying to combat the differentiation of the more deserving migrant – the asylum-seeker fleeing persecution – and the so-called less deserving – the person fleeing poverty.It would be useful, as i always seem to suggest these days, of an EC statement and press release. Personally, i have conducted in the past an exchange of letters on WW with some on the Left who seek to reject economic migrants and just this moment fired off another to them which touch wood will appear next week edition.
Quote:I think it is the opinion of more than one member.Vin, i have already acknowledged that.
Quote:Yours is just one critical voice but i don't doubt there are others who will agree with you.But i am also aware that his opinion is not unanimous. As i have said in the past, anyone who disagrees with a specific post on the SOYMB blog is very welcome, nay, urged , to make use of the blog's comment facility to place their opinion on the blog itself. .
