ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s about t happen again. A group of MPs have proposed the following absurd and dangerous definition of “Islamophobia” which is going to allow bigoted Muslims to denounce any criticism of their religious ideas and practices as “islamophobic”:
Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
This is problematic for two reasons.
First, this assumes that Muslims are a “race” whereas all sorts of people are Muslim, including “Europeans” from Albania and the former Yugoslavia and Islam is a non-racial, universalist religion.
Second, what on earth is this horrible newly-inverted word “Muslimness”? Bigoted and obscurantist Muslim clerics and activists are bound to have a field day with it. We’ll be tarred as “islamophobic” for our criticism of Islam as a religion (as part of our criticism of all religion)
L.B., have you seen this video against UBI that someone posted on our Facebook page? It shows that it wouldn’t work as intended (it would be a subsidy to employers leaving most people no better off as their income from employment would fall) and that, if we want to go down this road of breaking the link between consumption and work, we might as well have free access to the plenty that we have the technology to produce:
You raise a deep question of Marxist political theory there ! What is the relationship of the exploiting class to its state? How do they control it?
It’s not the case that they control it directly either by occupying themselves the top positions in it or by giving direct orders to those who do. One reason for this is that the capitalist class is not a monolithic block but there are different groups of capitalists each with their own sectional interest which might conflict with that of other groups.
Parliament evolved as the arena where these sectional interests confront each other and where either one section gets its way or some solution is found in the general capitalist interest, the so-called “national interest”. In other words, the capitalist class controls the state through its political representatives who don’t have to be capitalists themselves and who, today, are chosen for them by the votes of the people, the great majority of who are members of the working class. This gives the political representatives some leeway (including to pursue their own careers) and why they might not necessarily do what the dominant section of the capitalist class might want. For instance, it is quite clear that even the Prime Minister is putting the interest (preventing a split) of her party before the “national” capitalist interest.
The Tory party used to be the party of big business, but it now seems to have been taken over by representatives of small provincial businesses producing for the home market and so not directly concerned with customs unions and overseas markets. Ironically perhaps, it now seems that on this issue the Labour Party is representing the interests of big, exporting businesses better and it may be that their support, with that of those Tories who still remain committed to the interests of big business and of the Scottish nationalists representing small businesses there, will see Big Business win in the end in the form of a “softer” Brexit that retains unfettered access to the single market. We shall see. The internal argument within the capitalist class, via their proxies in parliament, has not been settled yet.
It is interesting (perhaps) to speculate on how a minority of Socialist MPs might be instructed to vote on the various indicative options MPs could be called to vote on next week. Bearing in mind that the criteria are how any measure might further or harm the interests of the working class and/or the socialist movement and that the issue at stake is the trading arrangements of the capitalist class, how about:
Revoke Article 50: doesn’t really matter except that this could be seen as undemocratic (overturning a referendum result) even if not unconstitutional (the referendum was in law only indicative). Express concern, but not actually vote against?
Second Referendum: this would inconvenience the working class by involving them in arguments about a purely capitalist issue. So, not support. Abstain rather than actually oppose? Wouldn’t matter if it passed because it would provide an opportunity to run a campaign for a mass write-in vote for world socialism.
Leaving without a deal: this would quite unnecessarily inconvenience the working class even if only temporarily. So oppose, maybe even vote against it if there was a chance of it being carried?
Theresa May’s deal, Norway Plus, Common Market 0.2, (re)join EFTA, Canada + and all the rest. Couldn’t care less which one the other MPs choose on behalf of the capitalist class. Irrelevant, so not even take part in the vote, just go fishing? Or maybe make a speech saying this (and advocating world socialism) and then conspicuously leave the chamber?
Five members were out leafletting this. Obviously they ran out of leaflets. One took a photo of this reply to Theresa May’s notorious declaration at the 2017 Tory party conference that “if you believe that you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere”.
Here is Twitter’s reply. It is what we expected:
Hello, We’ve investigated the reported account and have determined that it is not in violation of Twitter’s impersonation policy. In order for an account to be in violation of the policy, it must portray another person or business in a misleading or deceptive manner. Read the full policy here: https://support.twitter.com/articles/18366 Thank you for your report, and please note that any documents you may have uploaded will be deleted. Twitter Support
Indicative votes. We’ve got them too:
“This conference resolves that from 2014 indicative votes of delegates at conference shall be recorded in the conference report for all instructed resolutions and amendments.”
Afrosocialist
What’s that? Sounds a bit racist rather than socialist. I thought socialism was about uniting all workers and, in socialism. all people.
Parliament wouldn’t dare do that, i.e. withdraw the request to leave, as that would blantantly be over-riding the result of a referendum. From a democratic point of view this could only be done by another referendum. But what this shows that is tomorrow’s anti-Brexit demonstration in London could well be the biggest one since that against the Iraq War in 2003. That’s why we will be there, not of course to support the demand for a second referendum, but to leaflet the hundreds of thousands who will also be protesting against the xenophobia of the Brexiteers (not that we have got that many leaflets). Meet at Speakers Corner Marble Arch at 12 noon.
So, after last night’s EU decision and if/when May’s deal is rejected, then the choice, by 12 April, will be no deal or taking part in the European parliamentary elections in May. From our own narrow party interest, the UK having to take part in the Euroelections would give us another chance to get our name of the ballot paper in an area with millions of electors like we did last time in 2014 in the South East Region (electorate nearly 7 million, i.e. bigger than many EU countries, including Ireland). A no-deal would be an unnecessary nuisance and disruption of everyday life for a while, even though things would eventually settle back to humdrum normality with nobody noticing the difference.
According to a recent opinion poll, “half of young Americans would rather live in a socialist society”. But what do the mean by “socialism”? Another poll result:
This increased visibility of socialism and the prevalence of candidates who in one way or the other are associated with the socialist label makes it important to understand how this concept is understood by average Americans — the objective of the current research.
The broad group of responses defining socialism as dealing with “equality” are quite varied — ranging from views that socialism means controls on incomes and wealth, to a more general conception of equality of opportunity, or equal status as citizens.
In addition to the 17% of Americans who define socialism as government ownership of the means of production, other more traditional or historical views of socialism include those who say it means modified communism (6%) or restrictions on freedom (3%).
That leaves 19% of all mentions which are focused on a “gentler, lighter” view of socialism — government provision of benefits and services, liberal government or some type of cooperative plan. In addition to 6% non-specific derogatory comments, 6% describe it as getting along with other people, 8% give miscellaneous responses, and about a quarter of Americans (23%) said they couldn’t answer the question.
Still, better that more people there are coming to see the word “socialism” as something “good” rather than the object of “non-specific derogatory comments”. At least that should allow us a better hearing.
The front page of today’s Sun compares her to Wolfie Smith of the Tooting Popular Front proclaiming “Power to the People”.
Did anybody else notice that when that “stupid woman” made her populist appeal to “the nation” last night the union jack rags behind her were arranged to look like the English one, which was also the favourite of the National Front and the BNP on their marches? No wonder some MPs are now in fear of their life. A provincial clergyman’s daughter as a rival to Tommy Robinson, what next?
A new conspiracy theory is born. A fruit case has posted a clip on our facebook page claiming that the video the nutter took of his massacre must have been doctored or perhaps is a fake.
I’ve got to concede Alan, that you might have picked a winner there. It’s not just the Grauniad but the other papers that have been highlighting him. Texas is a big state (population nearly 30 million) and he seems to be well known there, more than some of the UK political non-entities (population not much more than twice that of Texas) we have been discussing are known here, the one called Ummana or something like that for instance. So, it could possibly be “All Hail to President O’Rourke” but, as Marcus keeps reminding us, it’s the horse not the rider that’s the problem.
