ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
More added. Click on title to read:
Quote:The Finance of War, September 1959 We are all Socialists now, April 1962 A Tale of Two Simpletons: Good man gone wrong, September 1962 The Common Market and the old Corn Laws, October 1962 Forerunner of Common Market, November 1962 Marx and the Sunday Times, November 1963 The Founding of the Trades Union Congress, June 1968 Capitalism's Dilemma, January 1974 The Strike Weapon, May 1976 The Future of Unemployment, August 1976 A useful introduction to Marx, June 1978Quote:How to abolish wage labor within 5 years in five simple steps:STEP ONE: In the first year, add one three day weekend. Each week activists would target one working day to disrupt all wage labor. The work week will now be reduced to four days and all wage labor beyond this point will be targeted.STEP TWO: In the second year, add one four day weekend. Each week activists would target two working days to disrupt all wage labor. The work week will now be reduced to three days and all wage labor beyond this point will be targeted.STEP THREE: In the third year, add one 5 day weekend. Each week activists would target three working days to disrupt all wage labor. The work week will now be reduced to two days and all wage labor beyond this point will be targeted.STEP FOUR: In the 4th year, add one six day weekend. Each week activists would target four working days to disrupt all wage labor. The work week will now be reduced to two days and all wage labor beyond this point will be targeted.STEP FIVE: In the 5th year, add one full week off. Each week activists would target all five working days to disrupt all wage labor. The work week will now be reduced to zero days and all wage labor will be targeted.If you can persuade workers to do that, you could persuade them also to go through the front door and vote the political representatives of capitalism, who currently uphold capitalist rule and private property, out of office too. Then they withdraw the state's support for the existence of private and corporate property rights, lop off its coercive and undemocratic parts, and use what's left to coordinate the change-over to the communist society described (what we also call socialism). In any event, not all of the admittedly large increase in state spending over the past 100 years is just on the coercive aspects of the state (armed forces, police, courts, prisons, etc). Much of it is on things that are at least in principle socially useful such as education and health; local councils also run lots of useful services; and there's also resources (very far from adequate of course) to maintain those who don't work for one reason of the other. To deprive the existing state of the resources to keep all this going would be suicidal and, anyway, would never get majority support. Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.
And Thomas More didn't envisage a basic "income" in his "utopia" but a society that didn't use money. Not at all the same.
They are all terrible. They can't have a maple leaf on a socialist banner. That would be like us having a union jack on ours.
Here's the link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/08/labour-antisemitism-opinion-pollIncredible. I don't believe it. A relentless smear campaign conducted by the media has managed to persuade a third of the population that Corbyn himself is an anti-semite, i.e that he hates Jews, wants to discriminte against them and/or thinks that they control things from behind the scenes. Not even the journalists who participated in the campaign will believe that that's what he thinks. As you point out, the real reason why the Board of Deputies has been out to get him is his pro-Palestine stance in the Israel/Palestine conflict. It could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for them, though, as over a third of voters still support the Labour Party; which suggets that they don't think that anti-semitism in its illegitimately extended sense of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel is that reprehensible or that important or relevant.
For the record, ex-comrade Gareth Thomas is standing for the Labour Party in the Coombe Vale ward of Kingston Council. The last time he stood in a local election was in Uplands ward in Swansea in 1987. In his manifesto he declared:
Quote:On May 7th you have a choice to make. You can vote Labour, Tory, Alliance, Plaid Cymru … or Socialist. The first four parties will be making promises. They'll be promising to fight for Singleton hospital, They'll be promising to keep rates down. They'll be promising to povide better local services, like pavements, schools and rubbish collection. And they'll all be blaming the othe parties for the things that aren't right. (…) The plain fact is that all these parties are committed to running a system where the single most important factor in decision-making at all levels is, and must be, "how much does it cost?" — profit takes priority and human needs come a poor second.And they're committed to running the system — because it can't be run in any other way — for the benefit of the smalll minority of people (about 10 per cent) who own most of the wealth of society and to whom the profit from the labour of the majority goes.Good suff but no doubt this time he'll be promising to fight for Kingston hospital, to keep the rates down ….
I think he's more what Marx called a "crude communist".https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htmandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks_communism
Well, that's one conspiracy theory exposed — the Board of Deputies didn't coordinate their campaign with the Israeli government. In fact, they must be annoyed that their campaign has been undermined by the weekly killings by the Israeli state on the border with Gaza.
Actually, what we said in 1947 in the chapter on Zionism in our pamphlet The Racial Problem could fit the bill (emphasis added):
Quote:Chapter VI : Zionism We cannot deal with the problem of anti-semitism without also discussing Zionism. Again, we can only deal with it on broad, general lines, because of obvious limitations of space.Although the beginning of what we know today as the Zionist movement took place towards the end of the last century, it is only in recent years that the movement has gained any great strength. Today, there are over 550,000 Jews living in Palestine; yet in 1919 there were only some 60,000. In 1919, they constituted 9% of the population of Palestine; today they constitute 33%. The early movement was weak and poorly organised. Most Jews were quite indifferent to the movement; certainly they did not wish to go to Palestine. Of the two million Jews who emigrated from Russia, Austria, and Roumania between the years 1881 and 1908, over one and a-half millions went to the United States, 300,000 went to Western Europe, and only 26,000 went to Palestine. Even among those people who did emigrate to Palestine in the early days, there was little of the active, colonising spirit. Most of the younger element preferred to try their fortunes elsewhere.Since the end of the first World War, conditions have changed. Anti-semitism has become stronger than ever before, with obvious results. First of all, those Jews in countries where anti-semitism was most active tried to emigrate to countries where they would be less badly treated. Secondly, as the tide of anti-semitism rose higher and higher, so did many Jews become more and more interested in the idea of a “National Home”, where, as they thought, they could be together and be free once and for all from the hostility of people around them.Although all manner of places had been suggested for this “National Home”, including British East Africa, British Guiana, and San Domingo—and, more recently, Eritrea and Madagascar have also been mentioned—for various reasons, the final choice of the Zionists has been Palestine.The Zionists themselves do not constitute one united group. At least four separate organisations go to make up the movement. The largest group is the Histadruth, the Trade Union wing. The others are the Revisionists, an extreme group, whose methods and activities are strongly anti-democratic and violent in character; a religious section; and lastly, the Democratic Zionists. Although some of them are now prepared to accept the compromise of Palestine, i.e., the division of Palestine into two separate states, the overwhelming majority, irrespective of the group to which they belong, now want the whole of the country as a Jewish state.The essence of Zionism is escape; escape once and for all from hatred and persecution. Its supporters argue that the main cause of the troubles of the Jews is the fact that they have no country of their own. Only by settling in a country of their own will they be safe from anti-semitism. No longer then will they be a small minority of outcasts, dependent upon the tolerance of others, but members of their own Jewish state. As such they will be free from interference and discrimination.Such beliefs are mere wishful thinking. In the first place, many Jews are not the slightest bit interested in going to Palestine. This is recognised by many Zionists themselves in their more realistic moments. In any case, even if it was a fact that every Jew wanted to go, the country itself is incapable of supporting such an increased population. This, too, was recognised by David Ben-Gurion, a well-known Zionist leader, when he said:“We shall go to Palestine in order to become the majority there. If need be we shall take the country by force. If Palestine proves too small . . . her frontiers will have to be extended” (Manchester Guardian, 3.7.46).The declared and avowed aim of the Zionists is to make Palestine a Jewish state. They are, in short, “nationalists”, looking to solve their problems not by abolishing capitalism but by creating one more national state in a capitalist world of national states and empires. Zionist nationalism, as such, is not different from the other nationalisms and we, as Socialists, are opposed to them all, whether they be British, American, Russian, Polish, Indian, or any other. The most that could be said for nationalist movements where directed against alien rulers was the argument that, with alien rule ended, it would be easier for the workers to grasp the fact that their enemy is capitalism, whether the capitalists are aliens or not. It is, however, clear, that in practice the capitalist class in each country finds it about as easy to set the workers against the workers of other countries as it was to set them against a foreign ruling-class. What are called nationalist movements are essentially the movements of capitalist groups striving to drive out foreign exploiters so that they can mount the vacant saddle.The spokesmen of nationalist movements do not in the main declare their capitalist objectives. British capitalism talked of pacifying the Middle East, or of helping the Jews and Arabs. Actually, British Imperialism was in Palestine for reasons of Imperial strategy and to protect oil interests in that region; which also of course explains the increasing intervention of the USA in the Middle East. With all this, a new factor is becoming of importance, which we shall refer to again later, the factor of rising Arab nationalism.It is against this background that the demand is made for the settlement of Jewish people in Palestine, with the usual irrelevant arguments so beloved of all nationalisms. The Principal Rabbi of the Federation of Synagogues, Kopul Rosen, writing to The Times (13/7/46), claims, for example, that those who work for the return of the Jewish people to Zion, “whether they be Zionists or non-Zionists, are fulfilling not a secular ambition, but the Divine will as revealed in the visions of Israel’s prophets”. Moslem Arabs can, of course, invoke a like “Divine” mission.Similarly the Zionists talk of the “historical connection” of the Jews with Palestine. The Jews, they say, are returning home to the land of their forefathers, which they left many centuries ago. As we have already seen, this is no claim at all. The Jews were certainly not the original inhabitants of Palestine, and, further than that, they have had no contact with the country worth speaking about for almost two thousand years. The Welsh could just as logically argue for taking back England again, or the Red Indians for taking back North America. Such sentimental arguments are always to be found associated with nationalism.The Zionists also attempt to bolster up their case by referring to the progress and prosperity they have brought to Palestine. They instance the large increase in the Arab population itself; the higher standard of living of the Palestine Arabs compared with that of Arabs in other countries; and the fact that no Arab has been turned off his land without compensation. But here again, these arguments count very little. They in no way face up to the fact that there is a considerable section of Arab landless labourers in Palestine, many of whom are compelled to work for Jewish farmers and capitalists, and that generally their wages are less than those paid to Jews. Nor should it be forgotten, when comparing the wages of Arabs in Palestine with those earned by Arabs in other countries that the cost of living tends to be considerably higher in Palestine.But, in any case, all these arguments are really incidental to the question. The crux of the matter is that the Zionists are now determined at all costs to make a Jewish National State in Palestine. As such they come into direct conflict with the Arab ruling class in Palestine itself, and, more particularly, they become the objects of hatred of the Arab world generally. The main point of the Zionist case is that by establishing a National Home of their own they would be free from anti-semitism. In this, they have been proved completely mistaken. In their efforts to flee from the anti-semitism in Europe, they have only succeeded in generating another, Arab anti-semitism. Even on the short view of helping the homeless refugees, the wisdom of this policy is more than doubtful.Finally, it must be stressed that Zionism, even if it were to succeed in Palestine, which is doubtful to say the least, is itself no solution to the Jewish problem. To set up a Jewish state in Palestine in no way solves the problem of anti-semitism in Britain, the United States, Russia, Canada, South Africa, or any other country. Whatever happens about the National State in Palestine, the Jews will still be the object of hatred and discrimination in those countries. Anti-semitism will not be eradicated by the founding of Jewish National States, whether they be in Palestine or anywhere else. The root cause of modern anti-semitism, as we have already pointed out, is to be found in the capitalist system of society, and only when capitalism itself is abolished will anti-semitism disappear. If any Jewish worker reading this pamphlet feels himself filled with the need to reproach us for what he thinks is an “unrealistic attitude”, let him reflect for a moment upon the so-called “realistic attitude” of the Zionists in Palestine and the results which have ensued. It is the Zionist policy which is “unrealistic”, as many Jews will find to their bitter cost. Our case to the Jewish workers is that under no circumstances should they allow themselves to be deluded by ideas of nationalism and “race” into supporting such movements as Zionism which will not solve their problems.The only solution to anti-semitism is Socialism, and to the extent that Jewish workers co-operate with other members of their class to bring about Socialism will the complete eradication of anti-semitism be more quickly achieved.This other article, from 1918, also shows that Socialists opposed Zionism from the start:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-166-june-1918/futility-zionism
Another member not on here writes:
Quote:Surely we shouldn't confuse the political shenanigans about Johnson exaggerating what Porton Down had told him (their remit doesn't extend to its exact provenance) with the underlying point that on the overwhelming balance of probability this emanated from Russia one way or the other – and with some sort of state forces assistance somewhere along the line?If this had emanated from the US we all know that the far left would be the first to denounce it as a CIA conspiracy, yet the racist, homophobic Russian regime gets different, special treatment from them on the usual bizarre grounds 'that an enemy of an enemy must be a friend'.The author of thr article replies:
Quote:If the Socialist Standard has to avoid making any statement about anything until positive proof is available, then most of its pages will appear blank. On the balance of probabilities there's hardly any room for doubt. Taking into account motive and means, the simplest explanation is that Russia dunnit, and only a conspiracy nut could give any credence to Russia's desperate and far-fetched counter-accusations.I know some members are quite keen on Russia Today news as some kind of antidote to western propaganda, and I wonder if they've to some extent 'gone native' and forgotten that RT's own propaganda is so blatant as to be verging on the comedic. In any case it's silly to say that the Socialist Standard is joining the Boris bandwagon. We're simply calling it how we see it, even if it means echoing what BoJo says for once. New Scientist gave a more detailed breakdown of the science behind the story, and they came to a similar conclusion (March 13):Quote:'The use of a Novichok in the attack on the Skripals makes it highly likely that Russia was involved, because no one else knows how to make them, says John Lamb at Birmingham City University, UK. "The Novichok family was specifically created by Russia to be unknown in the West and as such it'll be one of their most tightly guarded secrets," he says.But why would Russia employ such an incriminating nerve agent? "It could have been a demonstration of capability," says Lamb. After allegedly poisoning ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium-210 in 2006 without serious consequences, they may simply have felt that they could get away it, he says.'The nomination papers for us to stand in the three wards have now all been accepted, Our candidates (just names for people to put an X against if they want socialism) are:Isligton Junction ward: Bill MartinRichmond Barnes ward: Adam BuickSouthwark Borough & Bankside ward: Kevin ParkinThese are all in areas we contested in he Greater London Council elections in 2016.We won't know who our opponents are till after nominations close at noon on Friday. The election leaflet (based on the inserts we have been putting in national newspapers and magazines) will hopefully be delivered next Friday.
This idea of "equal recompense" for "equal work" is a reflection of the exchange of equal values in commodity society and makes no sense in socialist/communist society where there won't be commodity-production. The basic socialist/communist principle is "from each according to ability, to each according to needs". That's part of the ABC of socialism.
