ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, the ICC had a “security service” even now under capitalism, at least the French section did, which took those accused of transgressing to interrogations by the leadership.
“In 2000 a group of ex-members of the French section of the ICC published a pamphlet Que Ne Pas Faire? (‘What Is Not To Be Done?’) which exposed similar practices to some of those described by Lalich in the DWP (an older, charismatic leader; adoption of a new name; an order-giving hierarchy; interrogations; a security service).”
Incidentally, one of those ex-ICCers behind that pamphlet was Raoul Victor who has written a quite good criticism of the Labour time voucher idea:
https://libcom.org/library/economy-transition-communist-society
That’s a good find, especially coming from a witch doctor and a supreme one at that. It shows that even he accepts a materialist (as opposed to a religious) explanation for the conflict in the Middle East.
Here for the record (and it’s worth recording for future use) is what his official website says what he said:
“The insistence of the US and its allies on ensuring the safety of the usurping regime serves as a cover for their lethal policy of changing the [Zionist] regime into a tool for seizing all the resources of this region and using it [that regime] in major global conflicts.
Their policy is to turn the [Zionist] regime into a gateway for exporting energy from the region to the Western world while facilitating the import of goods and technology from the West to the region. This [approach] ensures the survival of the usurping regime and increases the entire region’s dependency on it.”There is a council by-election in Ealing in London next Thursday 10 October. Both SPEW and Galloway’s party are standing, so it seemed worth leafletting. 500 of our End Capitalism leaflets were distributed through letter boxes today. A further 500 will be before election day.
Others have been out leafletting too. A SPEW leaflet on behalf of the TUSC candidate is completely reformist as well as being contradictory. Unfortunately it says “Vote Socialist”. The nearest it gets to saying what they mean by “socialism” is:
“We need a true socialist alternative that will enact real change and raise the standard of living for the majority, not continue to line the pockets of the rich with profits.”
The leaflet calls to “Fund public services” saying “Make the rich 1% pay for it — not ordinary people”.
So the rich are still going to exist and make profits but some of these are going to be taxed to restore public services that have been cut.
This is just leftwing populism. Tax the rich to “raise the standard of living of the majority”. As if this is possible under capitalism with its division of society into the rich and the rest of us. Trying to do this would provoke an economic crisis as it goes against what drives the capitalist economy — making profits to re-invest in making more profits. Cut profits too much and capitalist firms won’t invest and production will fall.
Speaking of populists, Reform UK have a candidate. They too are complaining that “32,500 pensioners in Ealing to lose Winter Fuel Allowance” and calling to “campaign for better local health care including social care.”
Be interesting to see who gets the populist vote.
Looks like another of your scarce stories with a tendentious title for the thread which even the article doesn’t claim.
It merely says “right now it’s impossible to say that it won’t be seriously considered.” And you yourself summarised it as that it something that the Orthodox Church “urges” (though in fact it seems to be an extremist priest with a bee in his bonnet about it).
I imagine any such move would be strenuously opposed by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
I am not sure that it is the official theology of Orthodox Christianity that Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species is to be rejected (any more that Roman Catholicism teaches thus) but you’re the expert here on Orthodox Christianity. So perhaps you can throw some light on this.
Ps. Do you want to change the title of this thread to something like: “Not impossible that removing Darwin from Russia might be considered”.
Yes, the G8 became the G7 again when they booted out Russia in 2014. And their meeting in Glenragles was in 2005.
We were saying that long before 2008. For instance, this from 1970:
What a surprise. Not. Another entry in the Black Book of the record of the Starmer Labour government:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2krlgekpxo.amp
UK military support for the Nutty Yahoo regime as part of course to maintain Western capitalist control of the Middle East oil resources and trade routes.
Review here in this month’s Socialist Standard:
A comrade in the US has dug out this;
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1992
Here is the Carter Doctrine:
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
And here is the Qualitative Military Edge for Israel Doctrine:
“We are required by statute to guarantee that Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement, and it is one that we are committed to. So there is also an important deterrent effect to the United States continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it.”
Taken together they explain US policy in the Middle East and Israel’s role in it. As can be seen, the US is just as much a “malign influence” in the area as Iran. But this sort of thing is par for the course under capitalism when a source of a key raw material and the trade routes to get it out are at stake.
It appears to be this:
The author of that article seems to have been quoting what Matthew Miller, a spokesperson for the US Department of State, said at a press conference on 19 September. The official account of the press conference has him saying:
“By the way, we are mandated – we are required by statute to guarantee that Congress has a – I’m sorry – that Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement, and it is one that we are committed to. So there is also an important deterrent effect to the United States continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it. And that’s a message that we will continue to send loud and clear.”
See: https://www.state.gov/?post_type=state_briefing&%3Bp=92333
You’re right. It would be interesting to track down what particular law he was referring to.
As that article from the weekend i paper is behind a paywall, below is the key part. Together with the Carter Doctrine (that the US will go to war if any state in the region threatens its domination of the Middle East oilfields and the trade routes out), it explains US policy in the region –Israel is its guard dog there and they are committed to it being militaruily superior to any other state or combination of states in the area.
Anyway, here’s the key passage:
“Washington did oppose Israel’s nuclear weapons activities in the 1950s and 1960s. After the June 1967 war, however, a quid pro quo with Israel was established. In return for Israel maintaining a policy of nuclear weapons ambiguity, Washington would guarantee what was termed Israel’s “qualitative military edge”, or QME.
That is, Washington will ensure that as long as Israel keeps its “bombs in the basement” -undeclared, unacknowledged,
and unused – Washington will guarantee Israel the conventional weapons arsenal necessary to defeat any combination of regional enemies.
In the decades since, every change in US political or defence policy, eveiy diplomatic or military engagement with Israel, has featured a ritualistic reaffirmation of Washington’s commitment to maintain Israel’s QME.
The State Department recently reaffirmed that “the US is by statute mandated… to guarantee that… Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement… There is also an important deterrent effect to the US continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it.”That’s why the US supports and arms Israel with the most up to date and dealiest “conventional” weapons. Without that support Israel would be nothing or rather just another small and weak state like Lebanon.
Manchester branch report the same kind of thing. The announced demonstration was cancelled as it clashed with an anti-Gaza war one. So our members distributed our leaflet there.
The more like this that comes out about the current leaders of the Labour Party the more it becomes clear that in opposition they were just exploiting people’s problems to further their own lust for power and pelf (I think that’s the right word).
At least one Labour MP has now come to see this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vkdy997rko
Of course even if they were saints it wouldn’t make any difference; they would still have to apply the economic laws of capitalism and put profit-making first, though so early and so eagerly as the current crop of Labour bleeders.
The trouble is that, historically, when people realise that they have been hoodwinked by Labour they have tended to turn to the right not the left. So the main beneficiary is likely to be Farage — though, hopefully, some will turn to socialism.
