[ALB]

ZJW wrote:

And here, for those interested is a definition from an introduction to the Bauer book (not by Bauer but by some latter-day academic) of what Austro-Marxism's national autonomy meant. (As a reformist/bourgeois utopian notion, not an unattractive idea.)

I agree that some sort of non-territorial cultural autonomy is a not unttractive idea. It can be imagined that this could be applied in socialism to language groups rather than to "nations" (of course), with people speaking the same language having autonomy when it comes to education and culural (theatre, films, publishing, etc) matters; particpation in the democratic decision-making would not be based on where people lived but on what language they spoke.Although, under capitalism, it would be a reformist measure, it is not that "utopian" in the sense of unrealisable. It is applied in the inner part of Greater Brussels where people choose which language "community" to be in (Dutch or French) and voted for its bodies that administer education and culture. So people in the same street can be voting for different bodies dealing with these matters. It is certainly better than ethnic cleansing and to what applies in other parts of Greater Brussels outside the centre which are also linguistically diverse and where the minority (in some communes even the majority) of French-speakers enjoy considerably less "facilities". That's because there things are based on territory and the French-speakers find themselves on Dutch-speaking territory.

[ALB]

Isn't it the same as what Positive Money propose?  As such, something that is not necessary as already banks cannot lend more than they have (or can get quickly) and only "create money" as this is how granting a loan is defined; and bank lending depends on the state of the economy not on what banks might want to lend.It could be implemented (it's not pure currency crankism) but would make day-to-day living more troublesome (you'd have to pay for every transaction on your current account since banks won't be able to lend money from such accounts to bring in some interest to run them, and if you put anything into an interest-bearing savings account it won't be protected if the bank folds). I doubt if Swiss voters will vote to shoot themselves in the foot (or, rather, graze their foot) in this way.

[ALB]

I take it you have alerted Comrade Shannon to this too so that he can take into account this criticism of "intersectionality" and its implications (the thin end of a slippery slope away from class politics).I liked the conclusion:

Mike Mcnair wrote:

A workers’ class movement which aims for class political independence from the capitalists can offer the approach of the 1880 Programme of the Parti Ouvrier that “The emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of sex or race.” The policy of the broad front and intersectionality, by sacrificing the politics of class to those of gender, race and all the others, fails in its own aims.

The clause he quotes from the programme of the French Parti Ouvrier (drawn up in Marx's presence) is of course almost word for word the same as part of Clause 4 of our declaration of principles (and no doubt from where we got it):

Quote:

That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.

 

[ALB]

I wonder if he will tell Macron that he's a self-loathing Jew for not being a Zionist?

[ALB]

This article from the January 2007 Socialist Standard noted a similar pattern:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2007/no-1229-january-2007/zionism-and-anti-semitism

[ALB]

Are you referring to this sort of argument?http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47950It doesn't seem convincing enough to call him a Zionist. Ironically, he seems to be taking a position that the Bundists might have accepted. Anyway, what I had in mind was his decision before 1917  to join the mainstream Russian Social Democratic Party rather than the Bund. Obviously, from what he writes here, he couldn't have joined the Bund as he says that his mother tongue was Russian not Yiddish.

[ALB]

I see she's a Tory but she can't be a very active one as it was the death of one of the Tory candidates that caused the election to be postponed. Not that the Tories count in Southwark any more than we do. They haven't got any councillors there. The election is a two-horse race between Labour and the LibDems. Nice of her, though, to publicise a picture of our leaflet.

[ALB]

The article itself does make the same point:

Quote:

Although they were essentially Social Democratic reformists they never fell for Jewish nation-statism. They certainly weren’t anti-Semitic. In fact they were criticised by other Jewish opponents of Zionism for being too nationalist themselves.

By, for instance, Martov, Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg.

[ALB]

Yes, it is us. But that's a quick reaction as we only finished distributing them a couple of hours or so ago. Due to the death of one of the candidates in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey ward of Southwark Council, the election there was postponed from 3 May to 14 June. The tweeter, who presmably lives in the ward as that's where the leaflets were distributed, appears to be unaware of this. There is no free postal distribution for local elections.As this was the ward next to the one we contested we decided to disribute the 400 or so of the leaflets left over from May. I expect the other parties will be doing the same. We did see a couple of Labour posters. Anyway, we got a reaction.

[ALB]

Here is President Macron’s contribution to this discussion in an interview on French television yesterday:

Quote:

Macron warned that “economic nationalism leads to war. This is exactly what happened in the 1930s.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news/macron-warns-trump-economic-nationalism-leads-to-warAnd here he is actually saying it:https://www.centralcharts.com/fr/news/1536595-pour-macron-le-nationalisme-economique-c-est-la-guerre

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

This statement is not bad, despite its origin:http://www.ihrc.org.uk/publications/briefings/11860-what-antisemitism-is-and-what-it-is-not/

[ALB]

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]

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/

[ALB]

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.

[Author]

Posts