alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hmmm?…What about a fair-go fisty-cuffs boxing match between Dawkins and the Pope. Dalai Lama to referee.
No democracy for anarchists…and no keeping secrets from the statehttp://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201412171427-0024441http://en.squat.net/2014/12/16/cops-arrest-11-raid-anarchist-social-centres-16-solidarity-demos-already/http://www.telesurtv.net/english/contenidos/2014/12/27/noticia_0013.htmlhttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/security-not-crime-unless-youre-anarchist
Quote:Four of the detainees have been released, but seven have been jailed pending trial. The reasons given by the judge for their continued detention include the possession of certain books, "the production of publications and forms of communication”, and the fact that the defendants “used emails with extreme security measures, such as the RISE UP server.I found it more like an election video rather than tacking..(tacky?)I thought these two links were also good, explanatory videos. I think i suggested before reviving John Bisset's Socialist TV concept and all three could be included. http://socialist-tv.blogspot.com/I would love it to be 'streaming' video tv station, nearest i can imagine to live tv without the complications and hassle. Clips of various news programmes such as Democracy Now could be included too to make it feel current…I'm sure tech has given us better options rather than simply a series of links to videos but damned if i know what they are.
The ememy within?Troops on the streets of Belgium, and once again synagogues are singled out for defence. In the UK extra security at potental Jewish targets. Is this really to assure the community? Or will it merely increase the paranoia? A Standard article i recall said the justification of Israel was it was a safe haven from ant-semiticism but reality its creation and existence has been the major cause of that anti-semiticism. Its been pointed out that Charlie Hebdo magazine is now no longer a critical satire magazine but its incredibly increased circulation has been financed partly by the French government and by the establishment media corporations like Google.I note Hollande calls for the burning of the French Tricolour to be punishable in his defence of free speech.Each day all my earlier concerns are being confirmed.A Morroccan stabbed to death in a retaliatory attack in France…his assailant shouting "i am your god , i am your islam" He isn't a terrorist…but schizophrenic. But what if he had been Muslim and his victim Jewish? His religion would be the headline, not his mental health state. As for incitement …who was financing and giving ISIS a respectable face…. Who was the cheer-leaders for terrorism in Syria? Should we therefore be surprised by the rush of volunteers to go fight there?Someone on the htread said we should listen to what they say and indeed we have the actual recorded words of what Coulibay said as he held people hostage in the supermarket..the only religious justification offered was an eye for an eye…a belief common tochristians, jews and muslims, but more importantly he said, “I was born in France. If they didn’t attack other countries, I wouldn’t be here”. The Charles Hebro killers in their earlier court appearances didn't quote religion as motive but Iraq and Abu Graib. The Islamic teacher they followed actually condemned 9/11 and it was only the aftermath of 2003 that he declared jihad. Politics not theology is the cause of this terrorism yet it is still discussed as religious terms. So is it no wonder when the blame is placed on a particular religion there is a religious backlash from christian, jewish and muslims across the world. Socialists explain why the French and others are in wars, the media and the governments lie about that. That is our role. To keep giving the material economic-related cause of wars, and exposing the ideological camoflage that they are waged under. What to do about it is not to mirror the state violence but to abolish it. That is our message. But it is not being heard by that many. And even if we did have a press release, no coverage of it would be given, and it be ignored like all the repudiation statements of practically every islamic committee and community. Sad, ain't it? But what can we do but do what we do.
I impatiently wait for that believers socialist party arising to assist in the struggle for revolution.In the meantime, as you suggest, all that is happening is added confusion to an already confused battlefield of ideas. " I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."…and to be a nuisance…when i read the source of the quote i also read this" I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." but also "We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited."
I was being deliberately provoctive in my last message, i plead guilty of that …but , no, i disagree that there is no wider devbate at hand ..Our eating habits and manner of food production is not just a personal issue but a social question, as it is an environmental question. I'm a car owner , just as i admit to being a omnivore but will we all have private cars in socialism?…i would say we may well have that individual choice but when it comes to the manufacture of motor vehicles and the building of roads, the detrimental consequences of private motoring will be outweighed by social concerns. If public transport isn't suffice we will have car-sharing pools. As we have i think in our literature discussed having alternatives to our own yachts. Society will limit the freedom to drive, as much as it will to sail. Authoritarianism? Some may well call it that. Vin already said he is cautious about the dictatorship of the majority. But we aren't individualist anarchists or right libertarian defenders of abstract consumer (or producer) rights. We are advocates, as Bookchin said, of social ecology. What i think i am keep saying and i think John did as well…We cannot create a vegan world by individual conversion or changing personal taste inside capitalist society. We are not despite our advocacy of non-meat eating trying to impose a lifestyle on to others…but suggesting that such a conclusion wiill be by collective politics in the interests of society as a whole when socialism is established, in full agreement with your final statement "only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice…"But i would add without despoiling the soil through intensive chemical agriculture since i'm no supporter of present industrial farming methods or even farmers themselves (thats a hangover from being the offspring of an ex-farm labourer brought up in serf-like conditions and i saw for myself the lingering effects of that when i, myself, visited my countryside relations ) I see no reason why such a general aim should be hidden away or relegated to forums and discussion lists. It should be declared quite clearly in our case for socialism. War deserved a devoted chapter in our pamphlet 'Inconvenient Question'..i suggest included in waste should be livestock and monoculture agriculture (there is a mention of impact of agriculure in the earlier 'Ecology and Socialism' pamphlet)I would like to have read something about food in our …'How we could live', in the chapter , Useful Production …And i particularly would have liked to see it mentioned in our 'Socialism as a practical alternative' in the chapter, preserving resources. For me socialism is all about aspiring to live in togetherness with my fellow human beings and from that will arise living in harmony with the planet..whether a wild forest or a tamed farm…As i said i am no defender of the encroachment of farming, whether for cattle or soya when i see the evidence that it is not necessary and is harmful to the environment.Some try to fool us with promises of humanising capitalism…We do not counter enough by emphasising the humanity of socialism. That leads us to the earlier debates all about morals and ethics …but another day..
This article is in support of ALB (albeit a vested interest doing the reporting)Chicken Feed the worldhttp://www.fwi.co.uk/poultry/poultry-has-the-power-to-feed-the-world.htmEvery year we have stories of a person who rushes into a burning house to save a pet…if he survives, he is universally acclaimed a hero…if he dies in the attempt…he is just as equally condemned as a reckless fool. What i want to know is who decided it should be women and children first on a life-boat when a ship is sinking? Sexist and ageist !!And we haven't discussed cannibalism yet…long pig..Soylent Greenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_StephensApparently human flesh is rather tastyhttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/what-does-human-meat-taste-like-9748706.htmlSurely the utilitarians versus the vegetarians have to advocate that it should be permissible, as long as done lawfully ie already dead from another cause…Aren't by-products of foetuses used already in some cosmetics and make-up?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30831145Its all about stress and empathyCutting through all the academic language, i think it says…if capitalism fucks you up, then you are less likely to be a nice person, but if you are happy then you'll try and make others happy.
He's still singing from the same hymn sheet
Quote:Speaking at Friday's welcome ceremony to the Philippine president and other officials, Pope Francis called for leaders "to reject every form of corruption, which diverts resources from the poor" and to make concerted efforts to ensure inclusivity.It is now, more than ever, necessary that political leaders be outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good," he added. He said it was a Christian duty to "break the bonds of injustice and oppression which give rise to glaring, and indeed scandalous, social inequalities".Debate in the Weekly Workers letters with contributions from myself and ALB.However, one non-SPGBer letter by Tom Munday could easily have been written by one of us. While McBurnley of LU parrots the usual line leftist line…an unmarxist sheer will-power overcomes material conditions (i don't want to be mistaken as a determinist but there are limits to what can take place at a particular moment…if wishes were horses, beggars would ride)http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1041/letters/
Quote:If a majority of socialist workers should take power only in a country like the United Kingdom, then there wouldn’t be a socialist revolution; only managing capitalism would be possible.Or, alternatively, remaining in opposition making capitalism ungovernable and unmanagable. See my letter in the current issue of Weekly Worker (although some quotation marks have been omitted in the letter)http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1041/letters/(ALB too has a related letter published)
The Order of the Carmelites…to each according to needs
Quote:None of the brothers is to claim something as his own; everything is to be in common and is to be distributed to each one by the Prior—that is, the brother deputed by him to this office— having regard to the age and needs of each onehttp://www.vocationcarmelites.ie/texts/Carmelite%20Rule.pdf Of course for the more worldly, there is Dhammic socialismhttp://www.suanmokkh.org/ds/what_ds1.htm We know the Dalai Lama has spoke sympathetically of Marxism And some buddhist anarchism herehttp://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/garysnyder.htm I googled Islamic socialism and got a wiki articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism But apart from rules on interest and taxation, they were pretty much committed to wealth and inequality
"Article 38 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England" which led Marx to allude to in Capital"the English Established Church… will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income."
"How are you going to establish a society free of exploitation if you are riddled with it yourself?"I cannot magine that even as socialists we can free ourselves completely of its ideologies. But upon saying that, we shouldn't use it an an excuse not to aspire to greater ideals that we personally don't possess ourselves. This is the hard part about being a socialist…to paraphrase Marx, how do we wash off the shit of our past. I think because we are children of our time, that we grew up being conditioned and brainashed, being confronted with images we will never ever free ourselves totally of pre-conceptions, prejudice and bias.When Scotland play England at football, the irrational nationalist emerges from me…it is no longer may the best team win …but…even if it is league club level, we can each be subject to the local tribalism. With emotional and sexual relationships it even more complicated…we can be as someone once said not sexist but a bodyist…society's norms of what is beauty is being imposed upon us and we respond to those signals, often being unaware of them. We can also be ageist, criticising both younger and older than ourselves, one section still to learn…another for being too old to learn. Animal rights has the same complication. I often use the analogy of animal intelligence…pigs are cleverer than dogs but in animal IQ tests octopuses are also cleverer than dogs but we dismiss their intelligence or any empathy with a squid. Our crime isn't exactly what DJP criticises but the opposite…for not relating to animals more…for not anthromorphising…don't they say never ever give you animals names if they are eventually heading to be slaughtered but we always name our pets (although i did name a cat i had "Cat" less embarrassing than going out at night and shouting for "Tiddles")It will not be for a generation or two born inside a socialist society that we will see the full potential of people realised and revealed, totally freed from the effects of exploitations. Today, apart from some speculative sci-fi imaginings like News From Nowhere or Woman on the Edge of Time…who knows how we will behave … ..For now the more anonymous the origins of the food we eat, the better we seem to appreciate it …we don't have the burden of responsibility…whether it is the suffering of the beast of the field or the suffering of the field-hand, poisoned by pesticides and fertilisers…even vegetarians cannot escape social culpability unless they only eat what they themselves grow…or only choose organic but this being capitalism, money and economics will always come first both for producer and consumer and i cannot afford to be choosey and particular…i go for budget, the cheapest…chemicalised or not…flavour can always be enhanced by sauces and whatnot.
Trouble with the history of Christianity is it is as contradictory as its theology is. We can cherry-pick evidence to justify any of our theses. We shouldn't forget that early but slightly later christianity soon became a state religion. After all, the word pagan meant peasant ie the ordinary people did not adopt this new religion until forced and it was the elite who quickly became the converts to it, not the anecdotal slaves.I am also minded that Christianity was also accused of being "atheistic"…in the sense that it went against the community and a city's local gods…which led to its persecution, not so much for its appeal to the poor. In a sense, anti-statist but seen as intolerant and against the common good where local observance of the city's favourite deity guaranteed good harvest …(shades of wicker man)…Christians were actually seen as anti-social cultists. Wealthy women, particularly widows, were predominantly involved and frequently the first church funders despite Pauls mysogny because it gave them a higher status and i'm sure i read some where about offering them inheritance rights. Just as the US plantation slaves and the slaves of jews in Ethiopia followed their masters religion, this association of slaves and christianity is created but i merely speculate.Once in power the repression and terror used by Christians dwarved the martyrdom they previously experienced and made the iniquisition pale in comparison. Obviously many of the Jewish diaspora converts were of the merchant class…because they were by definition settled abroad to trade. The map on Wiki is interesting showing the urban nature of Christianity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_ChristianityThis PDF is worth a read and challenges the accepted wisdom that Christianity started as a religion of the poor."Early Christianity: Opiate of the Privileged?"https://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/F&EF09Stark.pdf
Quote:Karl Marx was merely reflecting the conventional wisdom of the day when he wrote that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature … the opium of the people. But he might better have said that “religion often is the opium of the dissatisfied upper classes, the sigh of wealthy creatures depressed by materialism.” Of course, given his relentless intellectual as well as personal materialism, Marx couldn’t conceive of such a thing. Neither can far too many social scientists. Fortunately, most New Testament historians no longer believe that the early Christians were a motley crew of slaves and the down-trodden. Had that really been the case, the rise of Christianity would most certainly have required miracles.Too psychological explanation for sure…conversions by the powerful to religion as far as i see has rarely been for personal salvation but social control…Wasn't that partly Constantine's purpose, to wield political power, (although he didn't formally convert and still publically adhered to his army's popular religion mithraism, another sign of acquiescence to the reality of worshipping all gods…just as the Queen changes her religion wheneve she crosses the border…from anglican catholic Church of England to presbyterian Church of Scotland.)
