ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It does not surprise me that they haven’t given him bail on the grounds that he might abscond. That’s what he ought to do ! The final decision rests with that Patel women who is Home Secretary and we know she would hand him over now if she could. Remember Theresa May sacked her as a minister for visiting the Golan Heights, occupied by the rogue state that is America’s main ally in the region. Sorry to sound like Private Fraser but poor Assange is doomed.
Well they let him off for the time being but it could well be overturned as the judge’s reasoning does not seem all that tight from a legal point of view (she ruled that he should normally have been extradited except for his health…). Not sure that would be upheld by a higher court. So, if he gets bail on Wednesday, he’d be well advised to start planning how to get to Russia.
In the meantime I’ve been listening to some of his podcasts. I think we would agree with every word in #3 (on human nature) while there is a good criticism of capitalism and some interesting ideas on a “post-scarcity economy” in #11. Follow the link in the last previous post here.
I see Johnson is saying that he wants the government’s post-Brexit economy policy to be a combination of “state activism” with “free market capitalism”. Poor Labour Party ! He has stolen what was their programme, even under Corbyn and McDonnell.
But of course you can’t believe a word he says. It wouldn’t work as intended anyway. And if it involves too much “state activism” in the form state aids it will come up against the terms of the trade treaty that he has just signed with the EU. Because it restricted state aids (too much state capitalism) was one of the reasons Corbyn,like his mentor Wedgwood Benn, always used to be anti-EU.
Head Office also gets that stuff fom the “International Communist Party”. Not only is it turgid but it shows just how far off beam are some of the “Communit Left”. This lot are dyed-in-the-wool Bordigists, i.e super-Leninists who contemptuously reject democacy as a mere “counting of noses” and so make Lenin stand for “organic” rather than “democratic” centralism.
Their only saving grace is that they know what the future society beyond capitalism is (a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless world society of no-ownership) but this is far outweighed by how they envisage it being established — by a small compact and highly diciplined vanguard party leading “the insurgent masses”.
By coincidence someone just send me this on the birth of council communism:
https://www.academia.edu/39010222/The_Birth_of_Council_Communism_chapter_?email_work_card=title
Actually, despite the different and perhaps pretentious language of the introduction, if you listen to this podcast (I have just done this) he is making the same point as we do —- that activism within the system (what he calls “in-system activism” and we might call “something-now reformism”) cannot succeed as its comes up against the basic structure of the present economic system (of “group dominance” and production for the market and profit where people have to get money one way or the other to survive). It is this system which causes the problems they are active against and rules out these being solved within it. He says that activism should aim rather at the complete “demarketization” of the economy and society generally if these problems are to become solvable.
I also listened to podcast #10 and that was quite good too.
I would say that he is still stands for the same system of society as we do, even if he doesn’t and won’t call it socialism. What is not so clear is how he envisages this coming about. Even so he is calling for “Revolution Now!”
Anyone, have a listen to it and see what you think:
To tell the truth, I have always had my doubts about this thread as abortion is in an ethical issue on which the Party does not have a position other than that it should not be illegal.
Some members feel strongly about this such as one who has sent in this complaint:
“I should be grateful if clarification could be provided on the contents of two articles in recent editions of the “Socialist Standard”.(…) The second article was called “Population Growth: Women Choose” and was in the September edition of the “Socialist Standard”. The article stated, “All women should have full access to contraception and safe abortion as part of overall health services.” Is this support for abortion the official position of the “Socialist Party” or merely the view of the author of the article ?”
and
“Your reply to the second query was, “Some reforms do benefit workers and making abortion legal (ending it being a criminal offence) and providing for any to be carried out safely is one if them.” As a worker, I cannot see the benefit to me of giving anyone the legal right to decide whether I live or die at any phase of my life which began with the coalescence of my mother’s egg and my father’s sperm. It is immaterial whether this right is categorised as abortion, euthanasia or eugenics. I should be obliged, therefore, if you were to explain how abortion benefits me as a worker.”
I didn’t think the UK government, in its anti rest of Europe mode, would actually agree to a part of the UK joining the Schengen free movement area (which the UK itself never did) and to being subject to EU regulations but I see they have. I wonder if the workers of Gibraltar are going to have to suffer the “tyranny” of the European Court of Justice?
It’s a sign of the weakness of the newly “independent”, “sovereign” UK’s bargaining position. In any event “sovereignty” is a paper right. What counts is economic reality.
As Michael McParland, a QC specialising in international civil and commercial law, put it in a letter writer to the Times yesterday:
“a fundamental point of all free trade agreements: concepts of national sovereignty ultimately count for nothing in such negotiations. The sole determinants are economic interests and muscle and the UK will always be smaller than the EU. We’ll be dancing to its tune for the foreseeable future.”
“We” is of course the UK state representing its capitalist class. Workers have no interest in the “sovereignty” of a capitalist state and the Union Jack is just a rag on the end of a pole. As is the EU flag of course.
I thought she might have been talking of Trevor Phillips who, unlike her, is actually mostly quite good on this issue:
Wonderful example here of the absurdity of these “racial”/“ethnic” questionnaires we are always being asked to fill in. I always either answer Other/Human or refuse to answer. In fact it is official Party policy to members to answer that question on the Census as “member of the human species”.
Anyway, here’s the news item from a couple of days ago:
I see. Actually, whisper it, but some Party members did vote against Brexit, ie vote Remain, in that 2016 referendum. But it is a valid question, given our criticism here of MPs today, how would a minority of Socialist MP, if there were some, vote on Wednesday on the Brexit trade deal?
I would say abstain. We couldn’t go into the voting lobby alongside the motley collection of Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists and the pathetic LibDems who will be voting
against, could we?“But if you can actually put in more black and minority leaders pushing hard on white nationalism, [it’s] much harder to challenge … It’s really important that we understand why these leaders are appointed. It is not to promote inclusiveness, it is actually to promote divisions.”
It was this passage that struck me. Who are the black leaders she thinks have been appointed to promote divisions? Or has she just got a big chip on her shoulder or got out of bed the wrong side that day?
Runnymede? Isn’t that where the Magna Carta was signed. I wonder whether they chose that title because they saw themselves as the same as demanding equal exploitation for white and black serfs instead of for the abolition of serfdom.
Although this is presented in terms of the lesser evil argument (an evil deal is better than the greater evil of no deal) it is really just rank opportunism — it’s a vote-catching ploy to try to win back the votes of those traditional Labour voters who voted Tory in last year’s general election.
You call them as “a sorry useless bunch”. I can think of other ways of expressing contempt for this bunch of self-serving professional politicians. The Labour Party, shouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.
