ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Not too bad but he comes across as a bit wild-eyed. Hope we don’t when we put our case. Some of what he says is ok as when he says there’s no solution within the present system (which I thought I heard him call capitalism once). You can tell that, while they might be coming towards a similar conclusion to us, it’s from a quite different direction, as with his attacks on banks and from the hints of technocracy. Still, better than many other critics of the present economic system.
This confirms our view that, once protests of this sort go beyond the basic anti-racist assertion that all humans are of equal worth no matter what the colour of their skin or so-called “race”, they get bogged down in the quagmire of reformist politics.
It is not difficult to see what’s going on here with both Republicans and various factions of the Democratic Party exploiting the situation for vote-catching ends, not to mention Leninist and anarchist vanguardists fishing in troubled waters.
The only way, literally, to avoid this is to campaign for socialism of which basic anti-racism is an integral part.
The comment by the person from NAACP about “privileged white people” cannot go unchallenged. There are of course privileged “white” people, ie those who own and control of the means of production, but there are also privileged “black“ people in the same position (even if proportionately less).
But those “white” people demonstrating in Portland are not privileged even if their parents come from the higher-paid section of the wage and salary working class. “Race” is indeed a toxic element in US politics.
Yesterday I heard Nick Robinson on bbc radio 4 trying to browbeat the manager of RT in Britain. At one point he asked her whether RT was financed by the government to which she replied “no more than the bbc”.
That Ofcom has the power to censure and ultimately ban broadcasters for “unbalanced” reporting is an infringement of free speech of course. That wouldn’t happen even in the US where they’ve got the First Amendment (but I imagine that only applies to US citizens?).
Looks as if any review of the book we did would have to be titled “Why Nathan J Robinson Should Be A Socialist”.
William Hawes doesn’t seem any better with his praise of Lenin and of the government of Venezuela. So a follow-up article could be “Why William Hawes Should Be A Socialist”.
Here’s sn illustration that the Greens are not just harmless well-meaning nature lovers but actually entertain mistaken ideas which could harm technological progress from which socialism could benefit:
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Should-people-in-France-be-worried-about-5G
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them will oppose anti-Covid vaccinations.
The rise of Greens with such ideas to positions where they have some decision-making power is a disturbing development
Dream on. That’ll never happen under capitalism. And won’t be needed in socialism as everyone will then have direct access to what they need without, as under capitalism, having to have money before they can satisfy even their basic needs.
Compared with socialism this proposal is a wild fantasy. And they accuse us of being unrealistic.
The JW vision of future society as expressed in their leaflets starts off well saying that there is no need for anyone to go hungry or live in slums etc. True of course and we can agree with that. But then they go on to exaggerate and say that no one will get ill or that nobody will die.
What a despicable bunch of chancers not to say blackmailers. They knew that the Labour Party under its new leader would do all it could to avoid being accused of anti-semitism and played thus to the full, walking away quite a bit richer.Nice one.
I was referring to the situation if a conflict should develop between two sections of the working class over eg jobs and crumbs that fall from the capitalists’ table.
Obviously we are not against, even welcome and support, movements for equal respect and civil rights for any group of workers denied them. And we combat racism and racist attitudes via meetings, leaflets and pamphlets as a party and as individuals calling out work colleagues and relatives who express or entertain them.
Where we draw the line is when such movements demand social reforms for their group only such as quotas, positive discrimination, reparations, etc. How can we support such sectional demands any more than we can defend the position of a section that already benefits from some?
Since we are committed to defending the interests of the working class as a whole there is no way we can support the demands of one section against another or take sides in such sectional disputes.
But aren’t reformist politicians and Trotskyist infiltrators playing the “black card”, respectively to get votes and hi-jack the movement?
How can we as socialists take sides between two sections of the working class? We have no alternative but to assert the common interest of the working class irrespective of language, state nationality or skin colour.
Exactly what is to be expected. Those who play the black card should remember that it can always be trumped by the white one, if only because there are so many more. It’s what minority IdiotPol inevitably risks. The card to play is the worker’s card.
According to yesterday’s papers the Labour MP Lloyd Russel-Moyle has had to resign from Labour’s front bench”after the Sunday Times unearthed Facebook messages in which he called Zionism a ‘dangerous nationalist idea’”.
But that’s what it is ! And why Socialists, including those of Jewish background, were opposed to it from the start. Of course we were also opposed to all nationalism. Irish nationalism, Scottish nationalism, Welsh nationalism and other minority and breakaway nationalisms are equally “dangerous” as they set worker against worker.
Of course his pathetic attempt to play the anti-cahmmunist card probably won’t find much of an echo these days, but unfortunately his view that blacks can only advance at the expense of non-blacks will.
In so far as demanding an equal distribution of unemployment and the other things workers suffer from under capitalism is a demand of the BLM, there is some truth in his claim. For example, since capitalism requires a given rate of unemployment and if (as is the case) there is a higher than average rate amongst black people this anomaly, injustice or whatever you want to call it can only be rectified under capitalism by making more non-blacks unemployed. The same goes for bad housing, ill-health, etc.
The BLM is good as a general expression of the fact that black people are of equal worth but the moment it gets involved in reformist demands for equalising poverty, quotas, reparations etc it opens a can of worms by allowing the likes of Giuliani to play the “white card”, unfortunately, I fear, to some effect.
The only way out of this dilemma is, quite literally, socialism. If the BLM embraces that they would justifiably be able to be labelled Marxist.
That sort of thing might go down well in the “exceptional” (exceptionally backward on religion) USA but will be laughed out of court here and in the rest of Europe.
As to the “fruits of labour” argument, that can easily be turned into an argument for socialism.
So if that’s the best counter-attack that defenders of capitalism can come up with, bring it on. We have nothing to be afraid of.
It’s not just a question of these groups being proportionately represented (by those promoting the idea of course) at the top of the power structure but also at the bottom. Unemployment, bad housing, poor education and ill health are to be proportionately shared out too, but this can only be done by making some non-black people worse off. Obviously they are not going to stand for this and so a squabble, in fact a nasty internecine struggle, will inevitably develop between two sections of the working class. White identity politics is already beginning to get a wider hearing.
The present situation or this are the only alternatives under capitalism and why the way out can only be socialism where there will no poverty and misery to share out evenly.
It is hard to imagine a more blatantly divisive and anti-working-class political doctrine and practice than IdiotPol or misidentity politics. Socialism, on the other hand, promotes working class unity to end capitalism.
