KAZ

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 139 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248736
    KAZ
    Participant

    couldn’t have been that important as ten years later it was extinct.

    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248531
    KAZ
    Participant

    BBCodes. corblimey. never evened heard of thems before. like timetravel. back to the nineties innit (the bit i slept through). anyway, fixed the sentence for you (not very well as them BBCodes is a bit crap).

    slavery. an economic issue. the american revolution – a clash between rival capitalisms. just like the american civil war. progressive? proschmessive. nowt to choose between them.

    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248528
    KAZ
    Participant

    Slavery was not only a racial issue, it was an economic issue

    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248501
    KAZ
    Participant

    well, i did say, as have others, that horne’s incorrect. or, rather, coming at it from the wrong angle. the british were certainly a potential threat to the established practices of the settlers, such as slavery and settlement, but other economic interests took priority. the most notable error is that the timing’s wrong. the clapham sect (snigger) wasn’t formed by wilberforce and co until 1785 – ten years after independence. and the proclamation line was basically a dead letter from the start. evil bastards the americans undoubtedly were (and are) but slavery was a minor factor, at best, in 1776.

    the same applies to the development of capitalism in general. asserting the contrary is kowtowing to the idpol zeitgeist. what next? the spgb backing reparations? a shopping and fashion (sorry “feminist”) column in the standard?

    the pritish hempire not gone? pull the other one squire! ukland has been a protectorate of the american empire since 1945. since brexit, it’s been upgraded to a full on colony, under complete social, economic and political control of washington. its influence in the world, separate from its imperial overlords, is zero.

    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248490
    KAZ
    Participant

    an odd mistake for you to make Alma, since you posted about that book back in the summer.

    • This reply was modified 6 months ago by KAZ. Reason: accuracy sir
    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248489
    KAZ
    Participant

    Gerald Horne’s main drive in “The Counter-Revolution of 1776” is that the American Revolution was actually a counter revolution directed against the real revolutionaries – the *abolitionist* British Empire (not slave owners versus slave traders). It’s an anti-Marxist position. Marxists view 1776 as a historically progressive bourgeois democratic revolution. Of course, both points of view are wrong. Viewing the creation of the USA, a bastion, throughout its life, of owning class privilege, as a positive development is ludicrous. On the other hand, making race, divorced from class, the focus, as Horne does, is an idealistic conceit, if an understandable one. The real drive in history is always economic – if you want to know the truth look at whose pocket the money’s going in. However, since the British Empire is dead and gone and the American Empire, the self same state set up in 1776, now the foremost proponent and practitioner of fundamentalist capitalism, is very much alive and kicking shit across the world, I, for one, heap praise upon Professor Horne’s noble sable brow. Yes, Professor, an irredeemably evil racist state from its birth.

    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248457
    KAZ
    Participant

    “…the hub…pivoted…set in motion…formative…” well, jings! that’s what these keywords strongly suggest. in fact, i’d go so far as to say “slavery caused the industrial revolution (sic)” is not a gross misinterpretation of the passage you’ve just reproduced. intersectionalism your latest craze is it? can’t you do situationism? situationism’s groovy. weird sex and tight trousers. intersectionalism has bluehair and smells of mice.

    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248453
    KAZ
    Participant

    does the surrender of the spgb to idpol extend to the embrace of its hack historians? class not race. economic forces not petite bourgeois guilt trips. i’ve mentioned belgium. but how about the states? in 1861, the opposing forces were orthodox industrialists versus mercantilist plantation owners. the victory of the former paved the way for the gilded age. or the ukland dependency itself? here, it wasn’t until slavery was on the way out (ie after the somerset judgement) that the industrial revolution really took off. slavery forms part of the background of capitalist development. but only a part of it. and a disposable, optional, and, in many ways, obstructive, part at that. asserting its primacy as berg and hudson do is clearly “political history” at its worst.

    in reply to: Gunpowder and slavery #248441
    KAZ
    Participant

    ”this article concludes that Atlantic slavery’s stimulus was likely of limited importance for driving the later Industrial Revolution.”

    There is an obituary in today’s Times of Professor Nick Crafts, billed as “economic historian known for his radical reinterpretation of the Industrial Revolution”. The obituary quotes him as saying that “I was accused of taking ‘industrial’ and ‘revolution’ out of the Industrial Revolution”, and goes on:

    “He argued that the British economy was already well advanced by the early 18th century, before industrialisation began, thanks partly to an early transition into what he called capitalist farming driving many smallholders to the cities to find work. He paid tribute to the role of railways and canals, but noted that steam did not become cost-effective until the 1840s.”

    thanks for that boss. spiced by the americans’ guilty obsession with race (all them floyds done gone to their heads), this sort of stuff is frothing out the woodwork. the connection between slavery and the indrev is tenuous at best. one only has to look at the second country to undergo capitalist transformation – belgium. the number of slaves transported in ships from that area? a reliable (ie obsessive source) says “undoubtedly thousands”. or “a drop in the ocean” as we realists like to call it. well that few bob ain’t gonna grease the wheels is it? bleeding liberals innit.

    in reply to: Anti-Zionism is not anti-semitic #248385
    KAZ
    Participant

    defending Corbo? jingles! perhaps my ex-labour exlax ex will be *invited* to rejoin the portly party.

    in reply to: Anti-Zionism is not anti-semitic #248334
    KAZ
    Participant

    With respect to “robbo203” (note to admin: anarchistic anonymity preserved, no speculation here, buddyboy), “the IDF killed the Israelis on 7/10” sounds a lot like “Hamas bombed their own hospital”. Leave this at “Hamas killed some guys and Israel killed some guys” rather than indulging in Qanon type conspiracy theories. I shouldn’t need to remind you all that the socialist position is a pox on both your houses.

    in reply to: Anti-Zionism is not anti-semitic #248281
    KAZ
    Participant

    is that really generally true? certainly the history of every country will involve bloodshed. but the only country whose foundation is intimately associated with ethnic cleansing and genocide is, surprisingly enough, jizzrael’s number one fan.

    in reply to: Labour Party facing bankruptcy #248260
    KAZ
    Participant

    As I was in Waterstones yesterday I had a look inside the book by Rachel Reeves, the would-be future Chancellor of the Exchequer, on “The Women who Made Modern Economics”. I see it has a chapter on Rosa Luxemburg. Which would mean that if she actually read anything by her (which is by no means certain since she has been exposed as a common plagiarist) she might have some acquaintance with Marxian economics.

    She ends the chapter by saying that she is a Fabian rather than a Marxist. But even that’s not true as the Fabians stood for state capitalism (run by them) while she stands just for the predominantly private enterprise capitalism that we know today — and is under the illusion that it can be made to serve the interests of the majority class of wage and salary earners. She is in for a shock.

    isn’t it bizarre how these place(wo)men write(ish) books? i just can’t imagine anyone buying this one. weirdly enough, people did seem to buy blowjob’s book about churchill. naturally, i didn’t read it but i glanced at it. the most godawful trash.

    in reply to: Women and children #248246
    KAZ
    Participant

    i dinnae think it’s a femmo thing. i think it’s pointing out that men might be combatants whereas women and children are very unlikely to be. of course, it might be that hamas has a battalion of death. bit difficult fighting wearing a horse blanket and blinkers though innit. in contrast, the idf is a fully integrated fighting force whose lasses are just as happy to kill and eat puppies and kittens as their male counterparts. as a feminist i definitely fink you should support genderneutral jizzrael. (as an aside, my ex-, who will probably be reapplying for membership sooner or later, secretly supported the afghan war for those sort of treasons).

    in reply to: Anti-Zionism is not anti-semitic #248195
    KAZ
    Participant

    Just to let you know that Party members and sympathisers plan to distribute the famous leaflet at the demonstration planned for Saturday 11 November. It’s from Hyde Park to the new US embassy the other side of the river in Vauxhall.

    Leaflets can be collected from 10.30 onwards from our premises at 52 Clapham High street, SW4 7UN (2 tube stops from Vauxhall).

    Further details later under “World Socialist Movement”.

    https://palestinecampaign.org/events/national-march-for-palestine-ceasefire-now-november-11/

    vauxhall? ain’t that where the spies is? is this some sort of redoubt in the making? the new hitler’s bunker. anyway, good luck with the leafleting.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 139 total)