ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That was not my point at all. It was that, while we oppose religion in general (which we do very well, despite pleas from some quarters not to), it is better to leave it to ex-adherents of particular religions to campaign against their particular ex-religion's patriarchical and anti-woman preachings and practices (shared by the world's two main religions, Christianity and Mohammedanism, as well as by a minor one, Judaism). Thus, organisations like the Council of Ex-Muslims are best placed to denonce the Muslim teaching that husbands can rape and beat their wifes.As to the wording of the petition, I've seen the same reservation expressed on other forums about the word "believing" as expressed by our friends in North-East and the same amendment of replacing this by "taking seriously". I'm not sure, though, that the petition is open to amendment or that those who drafted it would agree to this or any amendment.
SocialistPunk wrote:Of the "bigger fish", what do you propose to counter the negative attitude among religious conservatives?We can leave most of this to these courageous people: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/
This is knocking at an open door. Meanwhile out there, there are bigger fish to fry:http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/muslim-brotherhood-opposes-un-declaration-on-violence-against-women-1.1326515
Whatever you think of the Zeitgeist Movement, you've got to give it to Peter Joseph — he's a good communicator, as in this recent interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZSxeiziMgFor most of the time he's saying much the same as us, about capitalism, abundance, society being out of sync with technology, the need to organise rationally and scientifically production for needs not profit or finance. Ok, we can fault him on some of the "transitional" measures he touches on here and his claim that current unemployment is "entirely" technological (a wild exaggeration), but then he's not a member of the World Socialist Movement. When you listen to him, you can get the impression he's been reading some of our stuff.
SocialistPunk wrote:Do you see a possibility of any "retaliation" from the SWP old guard?They will be hating others much more than us, especially those who have left and who they will be regarding as renegades. It will be interesting to see where most of these go, possibly into the Labour Party even.
We plan to distribute the leaflet (rather than the statement) at this meeting in Vauxhall (just down the road from Clapham) on Saturday 23 March. It has already been emailed to various individuals and groups in and around the SWP. Copies have also been sent to all our branches to distribute to similar or SWP routine meetings in their area. You don't have to be a member to distribute it. If anyone wants bulk copies they should contact Head Office on spgb [at] worldsocialism.org
Interesting article in today's Times about "burnable ice" (methane hydrate). I know Ridley is a free-marketeer but he makes some valid points about what governs which energy sources are used under capitalism (and will be as long as it lasts) and how those controlling the various competing sources seek to protect their vested interests.
Quote:The key will be cost.OGW, as Jond has pointed out, I don't think any ex-SWPers who might be attracted by our leaflet will have any problem with rejecting Leninism. They will have been inoculated against it for life. I think any problems with Leninists will come later, when we are bigger, and they try to "enter" us and "bore from within" as they did with the Labour Party and before that with the old ILP. At that time we'll have to find ways of stopping these parasites joining and, if any get through, of booting them out.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Socialists are not clones but there is a kinship…why else was the SLP called political cousinsBefore anyone gets the wrong end of the stick and uses it to prod us, Alan is of course talking about the SLP of America which was in the "impossibilist" tradition (eg no minumum programme of reforms, not anti-electoral), not the Scargill Labour Party. Rest assured, Arthur Scargill, the Leninist-Stalinist, has not suddenly become our political cousin!
He used to be in the Labour Party but now he's in the Green Party I think, but it's still Old Labour stuff that won't work. Capitalism doesn't work like that, eg what happens when his companies with worker representation on the management board and his workers co-ops make a loss nor a profit?
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Some mentioned this on u75. Pretty sure she doesn't know/understand that the only groups to call themselves "Marxist-Leninist" are those that defend Stalin, Mao etc. and not Trotsky.Why don't you put her right?
Scroll down here to see the comment at 4.13pm and the reply from a character in Futurama.
jondwhite wrote:Laurie Penny has written the followinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/swp-rape-implosion-why-i-careI wonder why she calls them "Marxist-Leninist". It wouldn't be how they would describe themselves and she must know that this generally refers to Maoist groups. Anyway "Marxist-Leninist" is an oxymoron. She should just have said "Leninist".
There was a discussion of the Grillo phenomenon on the Week in Westminster on Saturday morning on BBC Radio 4 between a well-known Professor of Political Communication and Douglas Carswell of the Tea Party wing of the Tory party. It starts 14 minutes in here::http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r4xw7I think we discussed the decline of political parties here once before and whether this was a good or bad thing for us.
