[ALB]

He doesn't actually say that Christian villages are amongst those to be wiped off the map, only Shiite and Alawite ones.

[ALB]

Here's the review  in the Socialist Standard of one of John Holloway's books:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1274-october-2010/book-reviews

[ALB]

Here's the wording of the leaflet:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1306-june-2013/socialism-only-alternative

[ALB]

Members did go to both these events. The one in Hyde Park had some 40,000 or so, mainly churchgoers and with no "political" presence apart from us. At least those there could see the contradiction between the world being capable of producing enough food for all and millions going undernourished or starving, even if they didn't attribute this to capitalism. Even Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, who spoke, could see this. But even if he gave all of his millions to the starving it wouldn't solve the problem.About 80 people attended the ex-SWPers meeting. The only other group leafletting the meeting were the AWL but they didn't seem too satisfied with it.

[ALB]

There's also this from the Pathfinders column in this month's Socialist Standard:

Quote:

Bones of ContentionA fuss has apparently broken out over where to rebury the newly disinterred remains of Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, who has been failing to push up daisies under a crypt and then a concrete car park in Leicester for 500 years until his recent sensational rediscovery. Plans to stick the semi-fossilised ex-sponger in Leicester Cathedral are being challenged by his avowed relatives who prefer York Minster. But what relatives would these be after 500 years, given that Richard had no children and was not famous for even liking them? A BBC Radio 4 programme on mathematics (More or Less, 10 May) has estimated that if Richard’s near kin produced 2 children each, and this output continued at a steady rate, there would be a million relatives by now. However if they had bred at the average rate for the period, at 2.3 children, this number would jump to 17 million. The programme went on to cite a respected 1970s study which suggested that everyone in the UK not from foreign extraction was probably descended from Edward III, Richard’s own ancestor. So what gives these ‘relatives’ the right to start arguing the toss over where to bury the bones, the programme wanted to know? Well quite. But then, what gives any of these royals or privileged poseurs the right to anything based on inheritance? Any given set of genes has a half-life of one generation, so genetically speaking, their connection to their distant forebears is at homeopathic levels anyway. You, dear reader, are probably just as ‘royal’ as they are. But that’s capitalism for you, fetishising utter silliness in the service of the elitist rich.

If this is true and that most of us on this island off the North West coast of the European mainland will be descendants of Richard III or at least of Edward III, then perhaps a referendum should be held to decide where his bones should be reburied: York or Leicester?

[ALB]

One witty opponent once summed up our definition of the working class as:

Quote:

"everybody's working class apart from the fat controller".

It was a caricature of course but not far off, but the idea seems to catching on that, as the Occupy Movement put it, it's the 99% against the top 1%,Someone who had been to some event left a copy at Head Office of a magazine they had picked up called The Platybus Review (you'll have to ask JohnD who they are). It contained an interview with an American academic called Jodi Dean in which the following question was put to her:

Quote:

Besides sovereignty, the other component in your reformulation of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” as “the sovereignty of the people” is “the people.” Following Hardt and Negri and Badiou, you distance yourself from the classical Marxist notion, elaborated by Lukács, of the proletariat as the “subject” of communism or history. Instead, you “offer the notion of ‘the people as the rest of us,’ the people as a divided and divisive force, as an alternative to some of the other names for the subject of communism—proletariat, multitude, part-of-no-part” (18–19). How does this amendment to the traditional concept of the “subject” of communism or history help to improve Marx’s theory, or at least bring it up to date?

To which she replies:

Quote:

One of the ways it brings Marx’s theory up to date is really pragmatic. When you’re talking to a bunch of people today, almost no one says that he’s a member of “the proletariat.” They may say they’re part of “the people.” (This, even though Marx and Lenin are very clear that “the proletariat” is not an empirical category). The term “proletarianization” is still accurate and useful, however, so I think it’s important to keep that concept and think of “the people” as “the proletarianized people.” For folks in the US, “proletariat” suggests factory labor too strongly. There are many people who don’t feel like they’re proletarians, even as they might recognize their existence as proletarianized, especially today because we’ve lost so many manufacturing jobs. There are so many precarious workers, fragile workers, so many non-workers—widespread unemployment, people who are underemployed. It’s hard for those folks to think of themselves as “the proletariat.” The sense of “the people” as a divided group better encompasses our own time. Frankly, I also think it includes more of the “reserve army” of the unemployed, the Lumpenproletariat that classical communism had mistakenly abandoned.

So it looks as if others have been thinking along our lines (not that we have ever liked or generally  used the term "proletariat": even a hundred years ago almost no-one would have said they're a member of the proletariat).She expresses some other, quite unacceptable views in the interview (after all, she's a Leninist), but the idea that the basic division in society is between the ruling oligarchy and the rest-of-us seems a sound one. Her reformulation of Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" as meaning the same as the "sovereignity of the people" seems good too.

[ALB]

As we've done a special leaflet on the SWP affair someone will definitely cover this one.

[ALB]

Maybe if volunteers come forward and let Head Office know by email.It's organised by the churches but maybe some non-believers will also turn up. It's definitely an issue on which we have something to say, i.e that the world can produce enough food to feed every man. woman and child on the planet (and more) but that this is being prevented by the capitalist system of production for profit and its rules on "no profit, no production" and "can't pay, can't have".

[ALB]

Reply from the author of the article:The writer of this comment, Jon Griffith, was one of three European mountaineers who in late April were at some 21,000 feet up Mount Everest, working to establish a new route to the summit unassisted by ropes or oxygen, when they were attacked by a group of Sherpas who were laying some fixed ropes nearby. The incident was reported by, among others, Oliver Thring in the Sunday Times of 5 May. In that report Griffith was quoted as saying ‘For people like us the normal route to climb Everest is just like walking.’ He was also reported as expressing negative feelings about those he called ‘commercial climbers’ – presumably referring to people who pay a lot of money to be luxuriously accommodated before being respectfully guided up the mountain. And then there were his thoughts on the restrictions which arise from such arrangements: ‘Being told not to climb on a certain day just because other people are there is against the freedom of the hills.’Jon Griffith also questions the statement in the article that the Nepalese government had intervened. In fact a report by Ed Douglas in the Guardian on 1 May stated that the Nepalese authorities had intervened, by trying to involve all parties to concede that mistakes had been made and that there would be no more violence. But the Europeans rejected the offer and returned home with Griffith saying that he no longer felt safe above base camp on the mountain. In addition the Nepalese police arrested three Sherpas.In its entirety the piece was intended to set out one of many examples of how Mount Everest, once regarded on one side as holy ground and on the other side as a supreme test of moral fortitude, has descended into just another sordid participant in capitalism's commodity culture.

[ALB]

This will be shown at the TUC in London on Thursday 20 June. We've asked for a ticket so we can do a review, but anyone can go as long as you book earlySERTUC FILM CLUB- FREE ADMISSION Screening + Director Q&AA new documentary feature film by Michael Wayne & Deirdre O'Neill- THE CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASSRuntime: 82 mins Everything changes and yet everything stays the same. 1844: Friedrich Engels writes his book 'The Condition of the Working Class in England', a classic denunciation of the appalling living conditions for working people living at the heart of the industrial revolution in Manchester, England.  In 2012: a group of working class people from Manchester and Salford have the job of devising a theatrical show from scratch based on their own experiences and Engels' book. They have 8 weeks before their first performance. The Condition of the Working Class follows the process from the first rehearsal to first night and situates their struggle to get the show on stage in the context of the daily struggles of working people facing economic crisis and austerity politics.Review: http://vimeo.com/66049819Thursday 20 June, 7- 9.30pmLOCATION              TUC Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LSFREE ADMISSION    Booking essentialBOOKINGS:             sertucevents@tuc.org.uk or 020 7467 1220Please book early to attend (all welcome).

[ALB]

That's crap.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Former Co-op Bank chief executive Neville Richardson’s left the bank in 2011 with a package worth £4.6 million, including a £1.4 million payment for ‘loss of office’, and the same amount as ‘compensation’ for leaving.

From yesterday's London Evening Standard:

Quote:

The new chief executive of the Co-op Group, Euan Sutherland, today also saw off his deputy Martyn Wates who had been at the group 16 years. He was paid £970,000 last year including a £164,000 bonus and is likely to receive a year's pay off.

Very ethical! What a bunch of hypocrites.

[ALB]

Thanks, Janet. Interesting stuff. As you are on the ground there can you cast some light on the group behind this leaflet that was handed out at the May Day demonstration we went to in London:

Quote:

No constitution without Alevis. Alevism cannot be forbidden.We Alevis are raising our voice for recognition in Turkey. Alevis are once again protesting Turkey's Alevi policies. We are demanding a "Secular and Democratic Turkey for Equality for all". British Alevis says NO to discrimination, assimilation and Alevi rights violations in Turkey. Freedom for Alevism.This protest is for:(…) compulsory religious lessons to be abolished.To terminate Ministry of Religious Affairs(…) Stop building mosques at Alevi villages and towns.Policies promoting assimilation to be stopped.Stop our homes being marked, threats and blackmailing.Stop alienation of those fasting or not fasting (…)To end Sharia domination in Turkey.To end questioning of people based on their religion, language and ethnic background.

It was signed "Alevi Cultural Centre and Cemevi".According to wikipedia "Alevis" are a breakaway group from mainstream islam (similar to the Alawites who are said to hold sway in Syria). They seem an enlightened lot. Wikipedia says they could make up as much as 25% of the population of Turkey. In which case they could be a bulwark against the re-islamisation of Turkish society pursued by the present government there.Have you come across them? Are they involved in the current unrest?

[ALB]

The EC Minutes for the period December 1917 to June 1918 shed some interesting light on the background to the August 1918 article.The first mention of the "Bolshevik Revolution" is in the Minutes for 11 December 1917 when Tottenham branch send in a resolution:

Quote:

Re: Bolshevik Revolution: That the EC be asked if they have any evidence on the nature of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. If not, this Branch requests that they take steps to obtain this and to make an Official Statement as to the Socialist Party's position regarding the Bolshevik movement.

To which the EC replied:

Quote:

That Tottenham Branch be informed that the EC have no evidence on the so-called Bolshevik Revolution that would warrant an official pronouncement from the EC at the present juncture. If however members of the Tottenham Branch are in possession of such evidence we should be pleased to have same forwarded to HO.

The Minutes of the 18 January meeting recorded Tottenham's reply:

Quote:

Re: Bolshevik Party. Tottenham Branch stating that information re the Bolshevik Party in Russia can be obtained from their accredited representative, M. Litvinoff, at present resident in London.Fitzgerald & Fryer moved: -"That the Tottenham Branch be informed that the EC have no reason to believe that Litvinoff is allowed to obtain any more information with reference to the Bolshevik movement than any non-governmental person in this country, nor has the EC any means of verifying what information he might give. The EC  see no reason to assume that any good would accrue from an interview with Litvinoff." Cd. 10-0.

Tottenham branch persisted in asking the EC to approach Litvinoff, supported by Walthamstow branch, and the EC considered the matter again on 22 January:

Quote:

Re; Litvinoff and Russia: (…) Substantive Resolution now reads: "That no action be taken in view of the difficulty of verifying any information that might be got from Litvinoff".Webb & Dryer moved as amendment: "That a series of questions to be hereafter decided upon be sent to Litvinoff". After much discussion Webb & Dyer moved: "That the vote be taken". Lost 5-5. After further discussion. Amend: Lost 4-7. Resol: Cd 6-3.

Further exchanges took place between the EC and Tottenham and Hackney branches on the matter. The 18 June Minutes record:

Quote:

Re: Bolshevik :Tottenham  Branch encl following resolution:- "The EC be informed that a booklet on Russian Revolution by Maxim Litvinoff and a pamphlet by Leon Trotsky called 'War and Revolution' are now available & the Tottenham  Branch thinks that the EC might obtain information as to the nature of the Bolshevik Movement in Russia from a perusal of the above mentioned publications."Dryer & C. Morrison moved: – "That Tottenham be informed that the 2 works mentioned in their letter of 17/6/18 will probably be reviewed in the next issue of the SS." Cd 5-0.

Hence the article that appeared in August 1918.The EC were evidently concerned that, due to the censorship then in force, it would be difficult to obtain reliable information about what had happened in Russia, not even from the Bolshevik representative in London.Maxim Litvinov became a top Russian diplomat and was Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1930 till 1939. In 1951 he was assassinated on Stalin's orders.

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The AKP government, however reactionary, is democratically elected (As far as I understand), except that it relies on a large conservative rural vote.  The worry I have is that some of the protestors would support a dictatorship in the name of liberalism and secularism.

Incidentally, why? Why should the secularised and generally more politically advanced people of the large cities and towns accept to be "islamised" by a government relying on a "conservative rural vote"?Under these circumstances formal political democracy is merely what Marx called a "means of dupery". After all, he had first-hand experience of what happens when the vote is extended to everyone in a country with a rural conservative majority: a nephew of Napoleon won a landslide victory in the presidential election and within a couple of years proclaimed himself an emporer and suppressed radical dissent in Paris. We've recently seen the same sort of thing happen in Egypt.I agree with you, though, that the best that can come out of this is to force the government in Turkey to back down and not try to impose backward ideas and practices on the big towns.  Otherwise the ghost of Ataturk might well return and put the Islamisers back in their place. Remember that the last "democratically elected" Turkish prime minister who took re-islamisation too far, Adnan Menderes, was deposed in an army coup and hanged. A similar fate might await Erdogan. I wouldn't shed any tears.

[Author]

Posts