ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marcos wrote:The Iranian government has denied the attack to Golan Heights
That'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
alanjjohnstone wrote:Maybe do Sylvia Pankhurst's two essays Future Society and Socialism with an intro by ourselves?Just an ideaI don't think we need to reprint anything by Pannekoek, but those two articles by Pankhurst is a good idea. At the May Day rally in Clerkenwell the "Revolutionary Communist Group" (who publish Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism and think that workers in Britain share in the exploitation of workers in the Third World) had a banner with portraits of Sylvia Pankhurst and John Maclean. I'm not sure why they like her but in any event it's publicity for her name.
I don't think unfortunately we can do that as, following being scammed by people in Uganda and Ukraine there's a Conference Resolution saying we can't send actual money to socialists abroad. Here's what was voted in 2006:
Quote:This Conference rules that the Party shall cease sending money grants to overseas groups or individuals, but shall continue to give every assistance to socialist activities abroad by way of printing and dispatching campaign material from Head Office.I am sure the EC can find other ways of helping the SPC financially, e.g. not charging them for the Standard and pamphlets, inviting individuals to direct send money to Canada.
Including a copy of Martov's State and the Socialist Revolution. Three more are being despatched from Head Office to Cardiff. We always sell at least one of these at this sort of meeting (as at Clerkenwell on this 1 May). There seems to be some interest amongst Leninists and ex-Leninists in Marx without Lenin.
