ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:what i have learned of the Jewish Bund and Yiddish, certainly opened my eyes to a whole new aspect of Jewish history that is rarely revealed
Steve Coleman once explained that there are two Jewish traditions, one based on Hebrew (a revived religious language) and Yiddish (a European language, written in Hebrew letters), with the first tending to be religious and the second tending to be secular. Naturally, all the Jewish people who have joined the Party over the years have been from the Yiddish tradition. Mind you, this didn't stop Steve being berated once in Hyde Park for being a Cohen (apparently a priesly caste in Judaism) who couldn't speak Hebrew.
There's a sympathtiser whose father was a Party members who told me that when Israel was established in 1948 his father was beaten up by some of his Jewish fellow-workers in the East End of London for, as a socialist, refusing to endorse this. The Zionists are nasty nationalists but then they are not the only nationalists to behave in this way.
That's a brilliant article from the New York Times so here's a direct link to it:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/george-soros-israel-hungary.html
Quote:Mr. Soros’s humanitarianism and universalism represent an expression of post-Holocaust Jewish identity that is anathema to the hard-line nationalism of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition, which adheres to the classic Zionist mission that sought to end anti-Semitism and diaspora existence by gathering all Jews in the historic land of Israel. As in this case with Hungary, Mr. Netanyahu is increasingly aligning Israel with illiberal, autocratic states like Russia, Turkey and Egypt. The ultimate cynicism of such alliances is visible in Mr. Netanyahu’s willingness to tolerate the anti-Semitism of the global right-wing nationalist camp if it will bolster the Greater Israel movement.So, the longstanding anti-Zionist tendency amongst Jews is still alive (and in Israel too). Anti-Zionism is indeed not anti-semitism.In the meantime, incidentally, Soros's instiute has been driven out of Hungary and has had to move to Berlin.Forgot to add that Hungary was one of the states represented at the ceremony to celebrate the moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
In one debate on Syria the US ambassador to the UN asked her Russian counterpart how he could sleep at night for supporting the "monster Assad" who killed children and criticised him for using his veto to stop UN endorsement of a US-led bombing of Syria. But when it comes to Gaza what happens? No denunciaton of the "monster Netanyahu" for shooting unarmed civilians including children or calling the Israeli government a mere "regime". No, the US exercises its veto to prevent a mild statement calling for an investigation of what happened:www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5732039/Kuwait-wants-draft-Gaza-resolution-US-defends-Israel.htmlAlso, note that she put all the blame for what happened on Hamas for "cynically" organising the protests.But there was no criticism of the Jihadis of Douma for "cynically" organising the actual bombing of civilians in Damascus.Hopefully, people may be beginning to see that none of the "Great Powers" are really interested in what happens to civilians but only in protecting and furthering their economic and strategic interests, as always under capitalism.
Just remembered, when we reviewed his book on Debt in the August 2012 Socialist Standard Graeber sent in a reply that was published in the October issue. It makes the same point as in his answer to the final question in the interview (scroll down, it's the second letter):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1298-october-2012/letters
Quote:What I was mainly trying to address in the section on capitalism is a question that to my knowledge no Marxist analysis has really been able to resolve: why, if capitalism is a system based on factories and free wage labor, did most of the financial institutions that we associate with it – stocks, bonds, futures trading, semi-private central banking systems, and so on – actually arise in the 17th century, long before either factories or (any significant amount of) free wage labor made an appearance. The whole idea of "merchant capitalism" which is supposed to characterize the period from roughly 1500 to 1750 (or even 1800 in most of Europe) has always been a puzzle. If capitalism is a system based on wage labor, then it wasn't capitalism at all. But if so most bourgeois revolutions happened before capitalism had even appeared! If merchant capitalism is capitalism, then capitalism does not have to be based on wage labor, and certainly not free wage labor, at all. Claiming that merchant capitalism was capitalism because European elites were somehow trying to create a system that didn't exist and there is no evidence they were even capable of imagining, seems absurd. The obvious answer is that capitalism is not in fact necessarily based on free wage labor contracts.To which we replied:
Quote:We can’t see how anyone can deny that central to Marx’s analysis of capitalism (“the capitalist mode of production”) is the capital/wage-labour relationship, whether or not they agree with this. But this is not the only feature of capitalism; it is also a market economy where goods are produced to be sold. In fact, capitalism can be defined as a system where all the elements of production, including in particular the human ability to work (labour power), are bought and sold, which only becomes general once the direct producers have been separated from the means of production, whether land or machines. This didn’t come about suddenly in one go; it developed over time. Historically, the world market – as an inter-national market – first came into being in the 16th century and then market relations spread internally within countries producing for it as there were put change the more they got involved in it. Those in control of political power in these countries faced a choice: either to try to resist the changes or to encourage them. The “European elites” were divided over the issue. Those in favour of change wanted to remove all the barriers to property ownership and production for the market inherited from feudalism. They were, or represented, the up-and-coming bourgeoisie. In the end, they got their way, especially after they won control of political power in the English Revolution in the 17th century and the American and French Revolutions in the 18th century. Whether or not they envisaged a system of production based on wage-labour eventually emerging, they were consciously aiming at the spread of market relations and of the concept of the individual free to enter into market relations with other individuals.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.
