ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
They held a 9 hour conference on Zoom on Thursday (it doesn’t say if there were any breaks; hope there are for our Zoom conference on 18 July):
A two-thirds majority seems difficult ie having to overcome a blocking minority of one third plus one. It’s probably not in their electoral interests anyway as everywhere Green parties have taken part in running capitalism their voters have punished them at the next election, not so much for their minor achievements like more cycle lanes or less plastic bags as for the other things that the government they are part of has had to do.
The Green ministers concentrate on the minor reforms they want while leaving their openly pro-capitalist senior partners deal with the managing the economy side of things, inevitably on capitalist lines with the restraints on what can be done that this involves. No “Green deals” financed by taxing profits or anything like that.
But then if you are a career politician as the leaders of Green parties are or an ordinary party member who believes in “practical politics” then you find it hard to resist being “in power” and having a chance to have a go at implementing some of your reforms.
If they do decide to go into government it will be worth chronicling their failure to use against the Green Party here on the mainland.
The US armed forces were segregated in WW2 as well so there was the hypocritical situation of the US claiming to fight against the racism of the Nazis while practising it themselves. Of course they were really fighting for world domination against the attempt by Germany and Japan to get a place in the sun like Britain, France and them.
As the money accumulated as a result of the slave trade contributed in large measure to the “primitive (= original) accumulation of capital” needed before capitalism could take off, will those benefiting from capitalism apologise and agree to take down statues to capitalism?
Rhetorical question of course as what is needed is not apologies and taking down statues but taking down the system itself.
This is the bit I was referring to:
“The TPP also gives global corporations an international tribunal of private attorneys, outside any nation’s legal system, who can order compensation for any “unjust expropriation” of foreign assets. The tribunal can order compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation’s regulations.”
Not sure that even the ECJ could order that. But the point is that the UK would be subject to the jurisdiction of an outside legal body and so not completely ”independent” as in the Brexiteers’ dreams.
Some of the criticisms seem to have been scaremongering on the part of reformists and in any event irrelevant from a worker’s point of view, later revived by Remainers as part of their campaign for the capitalist Britain to stay in the EU.
And of course in the end the US under Trump refused to ratify it ( Trump Sanders — Same Fight) and so the US is not a part of it. The papers are saying that the UK government is banking on Trump losing and Biden then ratifying the US joining. And so getting a trade deal with the US via the backdoor.
Like we said over the EU, the trading arrangements of the British capitalist class are for them to settle and no concern of the working class.
What did they expect? New Zealand only has a population of less than 5 million.
Now the government says it wants to join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-approach-to-joining-the-cptpp-trade-agreement
I wonder what they think of its notorious provisions to allow companies to sue governments that had people jumping up and down? I can’t remember the exact terms but maybe there was something on our blog about them.
So Britain would be no more a sovereign lawmaker than when subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
No. It’s arguing about whether vegetable lives matter that is. But you have already derailed this thread enough. Best to go back to the animalist thread.
At least they are putting it to a vote of the membership:
No ALB didn’t post that link to negate your plea. He just felt that you left yourself open to that comment.
You need to be more precise with your slogan which (it seems) should be:
ONLY LIFE WITH A CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM MATTERS
Having said that, Lord Finklestein in his column in today’s Times enunciates a sensible rule;
”Every ridiculous view has at least one person that supports it, and every person supports at least one ridiculous view, and it’s not necessary to take part in every ridiculous argument.”
Yes France seems to have the right idea, on paper and of course what they are saying is that the only identity politics that is acceptable is French identity.
It has also been suggested that we remove the word “race” from our constitution for the same (correct) reasons that some want to remove it from the French constitution. I suspect though that in 1900 the word meant more like “nation” than “race” in its later meaning. In fact isn’t it taken from the statutes of the First International that were drawn up in 1864 when “race” would have meant “nation” even more?
Not all football fans are right wing hooligans. These aren’t.
The French law is not new. It has always been French government policy not to distinguish French citizens by so-called race. For them these are all French full stop just like for us all humans are humans full stop or all workers are workers.
The whole concept of “ethnic origin” (“ethnic” is just a less contentious word for “racial”) is absurd and politically motivated. In apartheid South Africa everybody was “racially” classified. Not a good idea.
Just read that France has a law banning those annoying, divisive and unscientific questionnaires about “ethnic origin” that we are always been asked to fill in (but which I never do). In fact it is Party policy not to answer such questions on the Census except by “human”.
In France it is:
”forbidden to collect or to treat data of a personal nature that reveals directly or indirectly the racial or ethnic origin, the political, philosophical or religious opinions or union membership of people, or which concern their health or sexual life.”
Pity such a law doesn’t exist here too. There is only one working class and only one human species.
“I would like to ask what you think of LLM’s demolition of the myth of ‘war “communism” ‘ vs that of Binay Sarkar. (I find the latter’s nearly incomprehensible.)”
I have re-read both and they are both making the same point that a cashless society is not a moneyless society. This is obvious today but wasn’t so obvious at the time. The Marxian analysis adds that if money exists so does value. A point — in fact the point — both make.
In fact a comparison of the two texts suggests that Binay Sarkar had a copy of L.L. Men’s pamphlet in front of him when he wrote that chapter. The quotes and descriptions are essentially the same (see pages 178-190 of Men’s pamphlet). The only difference is that Binay is not in favour of labour-time vouchers which Men favours.
This is not surprising as a large part of Men’s pamphlet is a polemic against the CWO which Binay was associated with before he saw through “left communism” and joined us “feeble-minded idealists” in the WSM.
