ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interesting development, if true: Russia helping the Kurdish Nationalists to fight here not just against ISIS but also against the so-called non-ISIS "moderates" the West wants to benefit from "regime change" in Syria:http://ekurd.net/kurdish-forces-advance-in-syria-2015-11-28
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:I agree and that's a good quote. Have you the details of where and when he said it (so it can be requoted)?He may not have said it. I can't find the quote but he says similar.
That's a pity as it would have been a good quote (more celebrity endorsement for what we say !). The others from him are not so good as he believes that wars can be avoided under capitalism through the UN, etc even though he might know what causes them.
Good article here from an Irish paper under the headline "Bombing Syria may hit some targets, but many innocents will perish" putting in effect a case against bombing which, apparently, and surprisingly, appeared in the Daily Telegraph but with the not so surprising headline "There is a case for bombing Syria. But it's not as simple as Cameron sayshttp://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/bombing-syria-may-hit-some-targets-but-many-innocents-will-perish-34241829.htmlThe main case against bombing is that it will result in the loss of working class lives, both in Syriand here in Britain. But the war-mongers, including, it seems, a majority of Labour MPS. I knew they were a load of careerist shits but not that they would be prepared to sacrifice working class lives just to play internal party politics and/or sway with the media wind.It looks as if the main lesson of the Corbyn experiment is going to be that the Labour Party can't be transformed even into the party it used to be years ago, let alone into a socialist party or a party that can serve working class interests. But we knew that. Perhaps the time has come to say "We told you so".
That's not as good, if only because wars are inevitable under capitalism. And will last as long as capitalism does.
Vin wrote:"War is caused by a profit seeking money obsessed economic system." I don't know about you but I agree with him and It is good that workers are responding to that. Just because we didn't say it doesn't make it any less true. Absolutely rediculous to oppose an opinion on the basis of who holds it.I agree and that's a good quote. Have you the details of where and when he said it (so it can be requoted)?
Interesting development and another nail in the coffin of TUSC and its attempt to create a trade-union based, Labour Party Mark 2. The final nail will be when RMT reaffiliates to Labour. OK, there'll still be the Prison Officers Association.I recall hearing Mick Wrack speaking in October 2012. Here's what he said:
Quote:The best speaker was Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, who said that besides and beyond action to prevent cuts and privatisation there was also a need to win the battle of ideas and convince people that the answer was to reject capitalism and establish socialism. Ok, he didn't define it, but at least he made the point.He probably meant nationalisation or a sanitised version of the old USSR, so not really surprising he's going back to Labour under Corbyn. Pity, though. Trade unions shouldn't be affiliated to any political party (except, perhaps, in the future, to a genuinely socialist onee).
Who takes that position? Not me. I just doubted whether Jeremy Corbyn's election had anything to do with it. Surely you don't think that had something to do with the class struggle?
This US law goes against the opposite principle of "common heritage of mankind" embodied in the 1979 Moon Treaty and the previous Outer Space Treatry:
Article 11 wrote:1. The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind,
which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement and in
particular in paragraph 5 or this article.
2. The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.But, then, the USA never signed it. What was envisaged was the "the moon and other celestial bodies" should be owned in common not by mankind but rather by all the States into which the Earth is divided. All the same. "common heritage of mankind" is a concept we can embrace since we think this should apply to the planet Earth too.Actually, paragraph 3 could be adapted to express a legal enactment of world socialism:
Quote:The surface and the subsurface of the Earth, and any part thereof or natural or industrial resources in place, shall cease to be property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.Text of Corbyn's anti-bombing letter to his fellow Labour MPs here:http://labourlist.org/2015/11/full-text-of-jeremy-corbyns-letter-to-labour-mps-about-airstrikes-on-syria/It will be interesting to see how many of them are warmongers.
My brother-in-law was against the Iraq war on the grounds that it would mean more refugees and asylum seekers coming to Britain. I've not spoken to him about the Syria war but I imagine he's against it for the same reason. I think that's UKIP's position too, isn't it?
There's also this in Glosa (don't know how many people speak it though):http://www.worldsocialism.org/glosa/plu-qestio-e-responde-de-socialismo
Jean-Pierre Gorges will have voted against. According to this, he was the only deputy to have voted against the Iraq war.His reasons for voting against bombing Syria are not on general anti-war grounds. He's the mayor of Chartres for the opposition conservatives. His reason seems to be that it wouldn't make things any better and would be a waste of money:https://www.facebook.com/jeanpierregorges/posts/928687167217263
Quote:A quoi bon aller jeter quelques bombes en Syrie ? C’est cher, et cela ne nous protège en rien, bien au contraire, puisque cela diminue l’argent disponible pour le combat intérieur. Et cela provoque les représailles de nos adversairesQuote:What's the point of dropping some bombs in Syria? That's expensive and doesn't protect us at all. Quite the opposite because it reduces the money available for the fight at home. And it provokes reprisals from our adversaries.Mind you, his last point is valid.So, it's down to just 2 against. A bit like the votes in 1914 in the Reichstag on Germany going to war.
I'd say the protests, including (and perhaps especially?) from the Lords and some Tories, would of course had had something to do with it. Doubt, though, if Corbyn's election as Labour Leader would have had.
I suppose we should record that the Tory government has done a U-turn on this, whatever the reason.Another thing Osborne has done is to allow local councils to increase council tax to pay for social care for the elderly — which is precisely what the Green Party in Brighton floated the idea of a local referendum on to get round the central government ban on councils increasing the rates by more than 2%.It seems that even the Tories have come to realise that there are limits to bashing the poor and the vulnerable, if only for fear of losing public support.
Young Master Smeet wrote:They don't appear to have spoke in the debate:The Ecologiste Isabelle Attard has explained her vote on her website/blog headed "For an effective anti-terrorist struggle, I will not sign a blank cheque to the government":
Quote:Je voterai donc contre la poursuite des bombardements en Syrie, dans l’attente d’éléments sérieux démontrant l’avantage de cette solution sur toutes les autres. Ce vote contre ne signifie pas que je défends l’inaction face au terrorisme. Bien au contraire. Je suis pour une lutte anti-terroriste efficace, pour protéger tous les Français de futurs attentats.Rough translation:[
Quote:I will therefore vote against the bombings in Syria while awaiting serious elements demonstrating the advantage of this solution over all others. This vote does not mean that I am defending inaction in the face of terrorism. Quite the opposite. I am for an effective anti-terrorist struggle, to protect all French people from future attacks.The deputies who abstained were members of "Gauche démocrate et républicaine" (Democratic and Republican Left ) which is composed of members of the French Communist Party, of the Left Party and diverse other leftwingers. That makes sense. I wouldn't have expected them (the equivalent of Corbyn and McDonnell here) to have voted for.
