KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“…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.
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.
”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.
defending Corbo? jingles! perhaps my ex-labour exlax ex will be *invited* to rejoin the portly party.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
no (i likes a nice rhetorical statement that really didn’t call for an answer, especially not from a schmoo like me). the attraction of the spugub is its universal and timeless appeal. it’s not supposed to issue statements every time a warlord or plutocrat takes a dump on the workers. bloody hell! you’d be at it all the bleeding time. that’s every trots calling in life innit.
anyway. why do you let these embittered exs on your blatherskittery thing anyhow? first thing the aycog does is chuck em off. “why aincho achieved socialism after 119 years, four months and 29 days?” “fark off mate, you have a go.”
i tried to use the quote function but the system blocked me. i’m never sure if there’s a malicious member hanging about (traitor! traitor! let’s nail his balls to the wall) or whether it’s just poor quality programming.
anyway, got no beef wiv the spugub gaza statement. corblimey. luvaduck.
ZJW: the ACN is a split from the ACG of some of its most active members. ostensibly on the perennial transgender issue (we weren’t nice enough). but really because those who left have different ideas on how to organise. in my opinion there is no ideological difference.
whee doggy! how you like them apples buddy! yeehaa! (is manky (mock yank talk) any better?)
come here looking for the spgb gaza piece. damned if i can find it. wanna pick holes. wanna be smart arse.
iran-linked sites. it’s still a proxy war. just like in ukraine. the septics are off their noodles on blood and guts but they still have the sense not to engage where they’re going to lose (which is pretty much everywhere).
by the way, i probably ought to mention that the ACG-CWO alliance wasn’t particularly successful. they did an “intervention” (disrupted a meeting) and tried to poach one of our boys. good job they didn’t try me. i’m anyones for a big sloppy cream slider. however, i feel they may have anticipated that and hidden away the comestibles.
