ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don't understand the point he is trying to make in his argument with "conventional Marxists". He seems to be suggesting that, with the introduction of a basic income, we could be in the beginning of a long gradual transformation of capitalism into something else similar to the transition from feudalism to capitalism.It is also not that clear from the interview what he means by "bullshit jobs". Since he rules out jobs that are producing something useful this rules out all the low-paid shitty jobs involved in producing, processing and distributing food. And leaves mainly various paper-shuffling middle management jobs which in comparison are comparatively well-paid.
Marcos wrote:There are articles in the internet which show that Israel, the Zionists and the Mossad are trying to influence in WikipediaI don't doubt for a moment that they've been trying to do this — as will have the secret services of the US, France, Britain, etc. The question is have they succeeded or, rather, have the Zionists succeeded more than the others to the extent that they can be said to be running wikipedia. I don't think so.
More added (taken from Imposs1904's blog). Click on title to read. The one on the CP and the election is interesting as the SWP and SPEW when they used to contest elections before Corbyn came along had exactly the same sort of approach as the CP then. History repeating itself, the second time as a farce.
Quote:Added to the Edgar Hardcastle Internet Archive:Some Shoddy Thoughts of a Superficial Mind, July 1922 The Problem of the Labour Leader, August 1922 Correspondence: The Collapse of Capitalism, November 1922"From Crow-Scaring to Westminster", January 1923 Justice, April 1923 The Paralysing Past, September 1923 What is the Use of Parliament?, January 1929 Points for Propagandists, January 1929 The Socialist Party and National Defence, April 1929 The Communist Party and the General Election, May 1929Marcos wrote:Wikipedia is run by ZionistsYou can't say that. I use wikipedia nearly every day and have never come across any evidence of Zionist influence. What this is saying is that the editors who decide content are either Zionists or people who take instructions from Zionists. I don't think this is an argument that can be sustained or even attempted. I don't doubt that both Zionists and the Israeli secret service try to influence the content of what wikipedia says on Israel. That's par for the course as all governments and corporations and people with an axe to grind will be trying to influence what it says on them. The point, as I understand wikipedia, is that this can be and is challenged by people who don't agree. Which makes wikipedia more reliable as a source of information than most of the stuff on the internet.
Background information about the Golan Heights here:http://www.arabnews.com/node/1300901/middle-east
Marcos wrote:The Iranian government has denied the attack to Golan HeightsThat's odd as a pro-Syrian government site posted tis:https://en.insidesyriamc.com/2018/05/10/syrian-army-launches-new-strtikes-into-occupied-golan-heights/Maybe they got the wrong end of the stick. But, as you point out, the Golan Heights are not part of Israel but a part of Syria occupied and annexed (illegally under international law, even if that's just a scrap of paper and in reality might is right in inter-state relations) by Israel.
What the Zionists won't face up to is the fact that the main cause of modern anti-semitism is the existence and aggressive and sectarian policies pursued by their creation, Israel. Or perhaps they do realise this and hence the intensity of their campaigns and their attempts to impose a wider definition of anti-semitism. Another reason will be to recruit more Jewish settlers to go there.
Quote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/10/labour-mps-back-antisemitism-measures-rejected-by-corbynJewish leaders also argued Labour should adopt the IHRA definition – including all its clauses and examples. However, Labour is concerned about one of the examples of potential antisemitism given in the IHRA definition: “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.As are we. This is a clause sneaked in to try to make anti-Zionism anti-semitc. Apart from that, the definition is more or less ok even if a bit tendentious.
What hypocrites the government and the tame media are. The UK would never engage in such cloak and dagger stuff as Russia. Or would it?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44070304The only reason they are "apologising" power is that the situation in Libya has changed. Incidentally, it happened under a Labour government.
Anyone tempted to take this offer up should be advised that the regulars in the politics section there are a nasty and vicious lot. They specialise in tearing to pieces any newcomers. I've seen it happen many times. It's not like other forums.
Trump says he has revoked that nuclear treaty because of the "malign influence" of Iran in the region. But that's not the only "malign influence" there. There's also the US and its ally Saudi Arabia and the "rogue states" there it can't control, Turkey and Israel. All the states involved there are pursuing the economic and strategic interests of their ruling class, It's capitalism and the conflicts of interest it generates between states that is the real "malign influence" in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Why all this stuff from obscure parts of the US when there's a referendum on the subject being held in a couple of weeks on our doorstep?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43569193
Bijou Drains wrote:The motion states “groups and individuals”, the SPC is neither of things, it is a political party and part of the World Socialist Movement. I would argue that the motion doesn’t and was never intended to cover this situation.I don't know if you were active in internal Party affairs at the time but this matter has a "history". When it was passed it unleashed a huge controversy on spintcom, with accusations that the EC had infringed it, calls for their resignation, etc. See the contributions to Spintcom in June 2006.Here's some extracts:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5624https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5628https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5642https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/messages/5664Ever since the motion has been interpreted as meaning that the Party can't send money to anyone abroad. To change this interpretation now risks re-igniting the controversy.The best way out is to rescind or amend the resolution.
I don't think we can use that argument as the intention of the movers was clear (it goes without saying that we can't give money to non-socialists). Personally I voted against it and didn't and still don't agree with it. I am imagine you are in the same position. In fact at that Conference most of the delegates were against it too, but the membership vote didn't back them and the motion was carried. Democracy is democracy and we have to abide by resolutions that we don't agree with.As I mentioned, when the Indian party asked for money (I think it was them — our retiring Treasurer will know) provision was made for individual members to pay.
Here is somebody who was both a socialist and a pensioner activist:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/14/helen-grew-obituary
