ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Makes you wonder what would have happened to the Jews if an “anarchist” insurrection led by his secret society had succeeded.
The first part of the claim is true (established by reputable research) — Marx is distantly related to the Rothschilds — but of marginal interest and of no political significance. It has already been known that Marx was a first cousin of Frederick Philips who set up the Philips electrical (later electronics) firm. Good material for pub quizzes.
The second part is fake history concocted by antisemites and not worth the paper it was first printed on. We haven’t the time to refute every example of fake history or every conspiracy theory, but don’t even need to in a case like this one.
Quite part from the difficulty of calculating this so-called “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” it is based on the false assumption that it is wage increases that cause inflation (as a rise in the general price level) whereas we know that the main reason for a rise in the general price level is governments’ currency/monetary policy.
At present the aim of government policy is to maintain a rate of inflation of around 2 percent. This is compatible with various different rates of unemployment. If applied strictly enough, it could be maintained even if unemployment rose above the NAIRU, or “natural” rate of unemployment as some economists have chosen to call it. From a Marxist point of view, it is capitalism’s nature to require a pool of unemployed as a “reserve army of labour” to be mobilised in times of boom, but there is no particular rate of this.
What the endorsement of this theory as a policy aim does show, however, is the hypocrisy of governments in imposing draconian conditions for the granting of as little unemployment pay as possible on the grounds that everybody could get a job if they wanted, whereas they know perfectly well that everybody can’t and that its their declared policy aim that they shouldn’t.
According to the papers, Boris Johnson’s great-great-grandfather was Haci Ahmet Riza born in Central Turkey in 1813. This means that in all probability he will have 3rd cousins living in Turkey. So what? Just as irrelevant as Marx being the 3rd cousin of the founder of the UK Rothschild dynasty.
A no deal Brexit will certainly impose completely unnecessary hardship on ordinary people, brought about purely because the political representatives of the capitalist class can’t agree on the trading arrangements of UK PLC. Or even as a deliberate policy by the government. Even if this hardship proves to be temporary and things eventually settle down it will be a case of capitalism imposing unnecessary hardship.
Of course it is by no means settled that this will happen. The new prime minister may be the leader of the Leave campaign but he hasn’t got a majority in parliament or probably the country nor even a mandate from the 2016 referendum for no deal. So it might not happen.
Something similar to May’s deal (which only dealt with technicalities anyway, not the substance of a future UK – Europe trade deal) still seems the more likely outcome. It might be under yet another prime minister and/or after a referendum or general election. We shall see.
I have just made an important historical discovery: Eleanor Marx was the 4th cousin of the first Baron Rothschild. And vice versa of course. Not sure of the significance, though. Actually I am: None.
Incidentally those DNA tests are fun but not terribly reliable or meaningful:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/05/seven-big-misconceptions-about-heredity/
Bakunin would be in trouble if he was a member of the Labour Party. No wonder he was kicked out of the IWMA.
So what? Anyone here know who their third cousins are let alone met them. What is a third cousin anyway?
Will that be before the world comes to an end through global overheating? I don’t suppose it matters as it seems that one way or another we’re doomed (and gloomed) 🙂
Here is the “educational material” on antisemitism that the Labour Party has just put out. Not bad, to tell the truth (though it still supports the “right” of mythical “nations” to so-called “self-determination”):
http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/No-Place-for-Antisemitism.pdf
I will believe that Facebook is a threat to States when Zuckerberg announces a Facebook Army and gets the permission of states to start recruiting.
If Facebook is so powerful vis-a-vis states why are they asking states for permission to set up their new international payments system?
There was an article in last Wednesday’s Times which neatly illustrated that the ruling class is well aware that wars are not fought over ideologies or for humanitarian reasons but over material reasons such as sources of raw materials, markets, investment outlets and trade routes, as socialists have always said.
Headed “In the next war, we’ll need the Royal Marines. Other nations are scaling up for an amphibious conflict over trade but Britain is ill-prepared“, the author (Roger Boyes) argued that British capitalism would need marines to protect trade routes, e not just the Hormuz strait in the Persian Gulf “through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes”, but also the Bab el-Mandeh strait linking the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, and the Malaccan straits “through which 80 per cent of China’s oil passes from the Indian Ocean”.
And of course Gibraltar, a convenient place from which to seize Iranian tankers without taking into consideration that two can play at that game, as the seizure of a UK tanker passing through the Hormuz strait shows. The UK, which is playing in the same League as Iran despite its imperial(ist) pretensions, is in a weak position here as more UK and other tankers pass through Hormuz strait than Iranian ones through the straits of Gibraltar. They are going to have to back down unless they want to provoke a war in the Persian Gulf which not even Trump wants.
There were a number of motions about feminism, patriarchy, sex equality, gender oppression that were voted on. Some were carried. Some were not. The one you are referring to reads:
“This Conference is of the view that a person can be a socialist as well as a feminist”
and was carried by 63 to 27.
The other resolutions that were carried were:
“This Conference rejects the definition of capitalism as “male-dominated class society” and the view that “capitalism and patriarchy are aspects of the same thing”. Capitalism is based on the subordination of the working class to the capitalist class, which is not the same thing as the subordination of women to men. Conference further notes that the more advanced capitalism is the less the discrimination against women.” (Carried 84 votes to 10).
“This Conference reaffirms that the abolition of class oppression will itself entail the abolition of gender oppression”. (Carried 83 votes to 9).
“This Conference repudiates the view that capitalism will itself abolish the oppression of women.” (Carried 60 votes to 18).
“This Conference instructs the EC to establish an ad-hoc committee to look into ways of encouraging more female membership, to report to Conference 2020.” (Carried 64 votes to 30).
