ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I see he's the author this bookhttps://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-Century-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776991which presumably criticises the Zionist project from a Jewish religious point of view.
This statement is not bad, despite its origin:http://www.ihrc.org.uk/publications/briefings/11860-what-antisemitism-is-and-what-it-is-not/
Quote:and very importantly they have no staples which means we can get them into prisons.Does this mean that stapled magazines sent to prisoners don't get through and that the Standards we occasionally send to prisoners are not given them (or only when they are released)?
ALB wrote:The witch-hunt is now getting out of hand and there are other victims. This poor sod, who merely stated a historical fact, might even lose his job. He's a member of the Weekly Worker lot. We've met him at various meetings and whatever else the "CPGB" is it's not anti-semitic. Be interesting to see what their paper out tomorrow has say on it:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-council-officer-suspended-for-nazizionist-comments-a3804626.htmlWhat a nasty little shit that Tory MP is.Edit: Just remembered we actually debated Stan Keable in September 2013.Here is the latest development in this disturbing case:http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/the-case-of-stan-keable-no-criticism-permitted/
Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of "intersectionality";
Quote:The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.And here, revealingly, is the example they give of its use:
Quote:‘through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us’Yes, exactly, but what we socialists want is to bring out the common class interest workers have irrespective of their "race" or gender.It seems to have begun as a split within the radical feminist movement between "blacks" and "whites" with the black feminists guilt-tripping the white ones on the grounds that they were more discriminated against. Not a debate of any interest or relevance to us.Anyway, how would it work in practice to improve things for the "disadvantaged"? Presumably everybody would have to be given a score for being discriminated against, with those with the highest being given priority for top and cushy jobs and those with the lowest (presumably, white, male, non-gay, protestant, university graduates) getting an equal share of the shitty jobs and being unemployed. It's bonkers and a recipe for setting worker against worker. It's not going to happen under capitalism as employers will always be interested in employing those best qualified for the job whatever the historical or social reasons for this. And of course in socialism it will be meaningless since, with the implementation of the principle from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", nobody will be discriminated against.Nothing against debating the idea so that it can be shot down in flames as anti-working-class and anti-socialist.
Neither the CPGB nor its successor the CPB are "tankies" in the accepted sense of the word. It was coined to refer to those in the CPGB who disagreed with the leadership's decision to criticise the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia 50 years ago this August as it happens. Those who remained loyal to Moscow left and set up the New Communist Party and were dubbed "tankies".It does not refer to Maoists either. The NCP still exists but are now loyal to North Korea. These sort of people are no more likely to be interested in genuine socialism than neo-nazis. There is no point in spotlighting them. Everybody lampoons them anyway.We would make fools of ourselves if we used the word to cover the CPB and the various Mao sects. The correct term to refer to all of them including the trots is "Leninist"
Not sure about that at least as far as the tankies are concerned.Those are the battles of yesterday and we won. More than ever before, it's now accepted that Marx's views and Lenin's were not the same. What's the point in flogging a dead horse except perhaps for training or amusement.
alanjjohnstone wrote:That Iran certainly is not officially anti-semitic can be read here although like many other nations including its allies, Israel's policies no doubt provoke anti-semitic attitudeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_JewsI didn't know that. That's really interesting. More here:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/irans-jews-on-life-inside-israels-enemy-state-we-feel-secure-and-happy-a6934931.htmlSo, the Israel-Iran war — which has already started with Israel's almost daily bombings of Iranian military installations in Syria — is not about the persecution of Jews in Iran. It's part of the geopolitical conflict over control of the Middle East and its oil, with Israel backing the US which sees growing Iranian influence in the area as a threat to its "vital interests" there. And Iran wanting to dismantle the "Zionist entity" that is Israel as an obstacle to their domination of the area. A clash of "malign influences".
A good article on "Zionism and anti-semitism" from the January 2007 Socialist Standard:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/zionism-and-anti-semitism-2007.html
Aagh "intersectionality" ! As the doctrine that "I am more oppressed than thou" it is identity politics gone mad, a dangerous recipe for different sections of the working class to engage in a free-for-all for a bigger share for their section of the crumbs capitalism has to offer. It has nothing to do with the class struggle between the owning, capitalst class and the non-owning, wage and salary working class nor to the struggle for socialism. Quite the opposite. It is a diversion from it, a dangerous, divisive doctrine and practice that Socialists should oppose. An understanding of this is indeed crucial.
The issue concerned was March 1988 and the article "Hate and its Causes" (subtitles: "Horror in Ulster" and "Sinn Fein policies"). The comment, appended at the end of the article, said:
Quote:The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Calvert's Press.The sequence of events was then:April 1988: letter from a member under the heading "Were we censored?"May 1988: letter from "Some members of Calvert's Press" under the heading "Calvert's reply" which began:
Quote:The article "Hate and Its Cause" (Socialist Standard March 1988) contains inaccuracies and unsubstantiateed generalisations concerning the republican movement in Northern Ireland.and went on, over two columns, to defend Sinn Fein and the IRA against the criticisms in the article.June 1988: long letter under the heading "IRA again" from the author, Richard Montague (of Belfast), dealing with the Calvert members' objections in detail.September 1988: last issue of the Socialist Standard printed by Calverts.
Calverts are not to be trusted. We shouldn't give them the time of day. They used to print the Socialist Standard until one of their typesetters took it upon themself to add a dissenting comment to a criticism of the IRA in one of the articles. In other words, to express support for the IRA's anti-working-class bombing campaign (remember Birmingham, Wigan, etc?) that was going on at the time. It was the last issue they pinted for us as we immediately changed printers.
Quote:If you haven’t started a new language by the age of 10, you have no chance of achieving fluency and that even basic learning abilities fade by 17 or 18.I read that too but I don't believe it as it's belied by the facts. Millions and millions of the world's opulation are bilingual but I suppose the get-out clause is that they haven't achieved "fluency" in the second language. But what is fluency? The bar here seems to have been set very high, as the ability to understand, speak, write, read and think in the second language to the same standard as your first. Maybe only a few achieve that but that's not necessary as long as you can understand and read it and make yourself understood in it in speech.
They're all at it:http://theconversation.com/is-it-time-for-israel-to-reveal-the-truth-about-its-chemical-weapons-95604When it comes to states defending vital capitalist interests it's all hypocrisy and lies.
