[robbo203]

Ozymandias wrote:

Just a last call to say that I still have a large amount of Standards and some pamphlets left. They will be getting tipped in the bin if they can't be claimed by anyone in the Glasgow area. 

 Ozy,  Rather than do that why not try offloading them on to a charity or second hand book shop for free.  I did that when I moved house recently and I wouldnt be surprised if you get a little spurt of enquiries from Southern Spain shortly that would be the reason

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

All I am saying is it is not necessarily the Israeli state whch forbids it, while everything  else you say still applies.There is just no provision for civil mariage, although civil unions can be done. There may have been no actual demand for this provision.I don't know if, for example in the Irish republic, civil mariages were permitted during De Valera's time, say as a  continuum of U.K. law, but it is very unlikely Protestants could have married Catholics in a religious ceremony without conversion in any part of the U.K. until recently.That particular problem is one of a religious dimension, which as always can be utilised and manipulated within the political field by powermongers. 

 Thanks Matt.  To be honest, "interfaith marraiges in Israel" is not a subject I have explored much so it is interesting to hear what you say.  I am a little confused by some of the links Ive come across though.  For example this one says:"According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, interfaith marriages now account for one in ten unions in Israel, "with the non-Jewish partner often subjected to second-class treatment by the state". In spite of this, interfaith marriages in the country are still on the rise, the paper says."   (http://www.theweek.co.uk/middle-east/60050/how-unusual-are-interfaith-marriages-in-israel) However correct me if I am wrong, while the state does not ban mixed marriages as such it only recognises marraiges perfomed by the relevant religious authorities which in the case of Jews or Muslims will not sanction mixed marriages.  For instance, according to Wikipedia  Marriages in Israel can be performed only under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, and no religious intermarriages can be performed legally in Israel.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel) So how, in that case, are interfaith marriages possible??? Lastly, there is  this bit which I have copied and pasted from the Quora website which is interesting – particularly the last quote with its clearly racist overtones“Israel's Knesset has extended a law that bans Palestinians married to Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel for another year.The law was first passed in 2003 and extended in 2008, and forbids Palestinians married to Israelis from living in Israel, or becoming Israeli citizens.Many critics say that the law essentially makes marriage between Israelis and Palestinians impossible, as the couple would have to live in different countries that are very difficult to pass between.” “Mixed Israeli and Palestinian couples are not only unable to live together inside Israel but they are also denied a married life in the occupied territories, from which Israeli citizens are banned under military regulations.”“Yoel Hasson of the ruling Kadima party hailed the court’s decision as “a victory for those who believe in Israel as a Jewish state”, while the immigration absorption minister, Zeev Boim, added: “We have to maintain the state’s democratic nature, but also its Jewish nature. The extent of entry of [Palestinian spouses] into Israel’s territories is intolerable.””Obviously this isn’t a problem if one is Jewish. Remember what Israeli founding father, Jabotinsky once wrote:"It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. … There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. … An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. … A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority” https://www.quora.com/Why-are-interfaith-marriages-illegal-in-Israel     

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 That would make the Israeli state not unlike the Apartheid state in South Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages_Act,_1949 In other words Zionism could be construed as a form of racism

 Not really  for the specific religious question. If we take being jewish as  strictly religious matter. It used to be a requirement for protestants to convert to catholicism before they could get a church wedding. Where civil ceremonies exist it supplanted this to some extent. I think this may be the case with some other religions also.

 You may be right Matt but I would be  more persuaded if it were the case that one could still, as a person of the Jewish faith, officially marry someone not of that faith at all.  But apparently you cannot if what Alan says is correct – meaning the Israeli state forbids it – and you have to wonder why.  Even being of the same faith would not necessarily preclude racism BTW. A good example of this  is  the“Limpieza de Sangre” – purity of blood – discriminatory decree enacted at the time of the Spanish Inquisition to differentiate between "Old Christians" and "New Christians" (converts from Judaism and Islam) and applied even more vigorously when Spain acquired its colonial possessions abroad Zionists – Israeli natonalists – are constantly whinging that their critics  are resorting to anti-semitisim in wanting  to deny the "Jewish people"  the right to a homeland of their own just like any other "people".  They can't pin this transperently feeble argument on us socialists since we oppose ALL nationalisms – Israeli nationalism or Zionism,  Palestinian nationalism, British nationalism , Russsian nationalism.etc etc..We identify with the interests of workers in Israel just as much as the workers elsewhere in their struggles against capital.   Anti-semitism is as much a barrier to socialism as Zionism is. Havent read it yet but have just com across which looks interesting:http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/zionism.html

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-could-you-marry-in-israel-1.5250455It seems that indeed there is no interfaith "mixed" marriages permittedNo civil marriage exists in Israel…but there is civil unions.

 That would make the Israeli state not unlike the Apartheid state in South Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages_Act,_1949 In other words Zionism could be construed as a form of racism

[robbo203]

This situation is extremely worrying.  It could very quickly flare up into a major conflict. Perhaps some kind of statement should be prepared by the Media committee.    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/russia-vows-to-shoot-down-us-rockets-with-its-lethal-anti-aircraft-missiles-deadly-s-400-ring-of-steel-protects-assad-as-moscow-accuses-trump-of-trying-to-cover-up-faked-gas-attack/ar-AAvL96I?ocid=spartandhp

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. 

  Once again  Prakash your understanding of what socialism or commnism is about leaves a lot to be desired. Socialism or communism is NOT about the common ownership of consumer goods; rather, it is about the common ownership of producer goods – that is to say,  means of production.  Socialised ownership  of these means of production is the logical corrollary of the socialised character of modern production itself. I have no wish whastover to share your toothbrush – or your shoes – with you in a communist society and there is no sensible reason why I should.   Possessions are clearly distinguishable from property in the economic sense as referring to means of production

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

And Thomas More didn't envisage a basic "income" in his "utopia" but a society that didn't use money. Not at all the same.

 Ive tried to get in touch with the  writer, Claire Suddath, to point out some of the problems with her article.  She might respond  so its a case of "watch this space"

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 '  In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct. You are confusing the communist principle of from each according to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle … ' (  ibid  )  All of you are mistaken, and your mistakes seem to be rooted in your delusion that the compulsory work meant to produce social wealth under communism is ' voluntary '. My dear friend, participation in economic activities for money or something in kind can't be ' voluntary '. All sorts of work aimed at the creation of social wealth must be compulsory for everyone that doesn't deserve exemption from work under communism. The reason is the simple fact that economic activities forms the basis for the social economy. And it happens to be the social economy the entire social edifice rests on. Therefore, if participation in economic activities is made voluntary, anyone will be as free to work as free not to work. Thus, if people choose to enjoy their freedom to shun work, it's certain to endanger the existence of society.

 On one point you are correct, Prakash. Insofar as work will indeed be voluntary and uncoerced in a communist society anyone will indeed be "as free to work as free not to work". They will also be free to choose the kind of work they want to do.   All this is quite true and freely acknowledged by us communists.  Moreover,  we see no problem with what is being proposed here AT ALL.  You , on the other hand, see nothing but calamity in such a proposal.  You consider that it is "certain to endanger the existence of society".  Really? How so.   It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and  slothful.     Never mind that you make no allowance for the fact that most of what passes for work or rather employment today – e.g. all money related occupations – will no longer be needed,  meaning that the overall workload  for society will be far less under communism than it is today.   Never mind, that the conditions under which we shall work then will be vastly improved by comparsion with today.  Never mind that EVEN TODAY under capitalism slightly more than half of all work is carried on outside of the system of a monetary exchange and is voluntary and unremunerated as all work would be in communism.  None of these points seem to register with you.  Instead, you prefer to put the worst possible construction on "human nature",  declaring that society would be "endangered" if its citizens had the freedom to choose.   This has been the rallying cry of reactionaries throughout history.  Instead of adopting such a pessimistic view of human beings why not look upon work – or creative activity – as an essential human need – something that we need to  do to define ourselves as human beings, not just becuase we need to produce food to eat  (or we will starve)  but because we need to express ourselves through creative labour and becuase we need to express our basic social nature and sense of solidarity through human cooperation.  You have mentioned Marx often enough.  You will be well advised to heed what he wrote in  the Critique of the Gotha programme:   "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "  (my bold) 

[robbo203]

Interesting article here – with a historical angle to it   https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/personalfinance/what-if-everyone-got-a-monthly-cheque-from-the-government/ar-AAuB0yL?item=personalization_enabled:false

[robbo203]

Bijou Drains wrote:

Prakash RP wrote:

The one-line answer to all these queries is : It's communism, and communism alone, that can create a social environment harmonising with the Principle of Healthy & Meaningful Living .  If you want to lead a healthy and sensible existence befitting the space age you belong to, you've got no other option than to stand for and welcome communism, OK ?  

So tell me, oh Great Originator, for those of us who, under your concept of communist society, choose not to live a healthy and meaningful life, what of people like me, who wish to live a truely meaningless life, indulging in alcohol, fattening foods, indulging in matrimony, smoking tobacco, etc. If I do not chose to live a "sensible" life, but rather lead a life of sillyness, what will become of me and my kind?Will we be banished to re-eduation camps where will sit in wonder at the statue of Prakash RP (aka The great Originator) whilst contemplating our sins against the Principles of a Healthy and Meaningful Life and drinking herbal tea, will we be placed in forced labout camps, where we will be made to chant out incantations to the glorious images of teh Great Prakash RP?

 Its  more like fascism than communism that seems to appeal to him, if you ask me…

[robbo203]

Prakash, your conception of "communism" bears no relation to our –  or the Marxian – conception of communism based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need. Frankly what you call "communism"  I, as  a communist, oppose.  To me it sounds more like a rigidly centralised totalitarian state in which every individual is closely monitored with respect to what they consume and what labour they perform.   Your can keep your "communism" as fas as I am concerned.   I want nothing to do with it

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 And what about you , Adam ? Would you oblige me by making known your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and the silly adage ' "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" ' ? Or, will you once again have recourse to something like the silly excuse that there exists a lot of more important stuff than these issues in order to keep mum, I wonder. And I'm not sure whether it'd make sense to ask the SPGB to make known their official position on these most important issues. As far as I can remember, they disgustingly failed, like Adam, to stand for the truth about my claim to have proved first the thesis on money's incapacity.

 Prakash, it has already been explained to you countless times that the concept of a compulsory minimum – or maximum – working day  would be meaningless in a communist society where all labour would be performed on a purely voluntary basis.  Who is going to enforce such a rule – and how and why? The very rule itself presupposes unfree commodified labour – capitalism. If you persistently fail to address this point then, of course, over time people are going to tire of responding to you.  You are at liberty to express your anti-communist sentiments here and dismiss the communistc adage "from each according to ability, to each according to need" as "silly"  but at least be prepared to back up your claims with some solid argument.  Thus far, you have completely failed to do this The same goes for your ridculous vainglorious claim to have  "proved first the thesis on money's incapacity"  There is nothing original in what you said. It has been said countless times before including by  Marx.  Get over it and come off your pedestal for once

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

Would like to add the following to my last post ( #251 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day ', observes Marx, ' is fixed by this necessary … portion [ i.e. ' that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs  to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent ' ] of it. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) From the above quote, it ought to be obvious to the sensible that communism must fix the ' minimum length of the working-day ', and that no one ( other than the disabled, the sick, minors, and all the senior citizens ) is supposed to work less, because it happens to be the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day, hours than it.

 It is not "obvious" at all  Prakash and for the very simple reason that Marx here is referring to the labourer under capitalism NOT communism.  In communism there is no "minimum or maximum length of the working-day" becuase all work will be done on a voluntary basis.   If I want to work 80 hours  a week in a communist society on a project that I find thoroughly absorbing, just try and stop me!

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perhaps this article or an edited version can be distributed at these events April 18th will be the national day of action calling for Universal Credit to be scrapped.  London meet for 11am outside the visitor’s entrance to House of Commons https://dpac.uk.net/2018/03/national-day-of-action-to-stopandscrap-universal-credit-march-1st/ SheffieldAnyone is welcome to come and speak at the demo, just inbox the DPAC Sheffield page or email DPACsheffield@gmail.comSo far we have: Labour sheffield, Women’s lives matter campaign Yorkshire, Sheffield Green party, Momentum Sheffield disability officer, and DPAC.BirminghamMeet New Street, Time to be confirmedBrightonInformation table 10.30am Meet ate the Clock TowerManchesterSt.Peters Square, 13.00-15.00 joining together with Greater Manchester Law Centre and Acorn Tenants Union to say no to evictionsNorwich12.30-14.00Meet City Hall steps from 12.15 pmDPAC Ceredigion will be having a demo outside the job centre, Cardigan.

 Good suggestion Alan.   Mayve the Pub Comm can do something wth it…

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

  I feel I should elaborate my position on the disputable adage ' "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". ' My main point is communism means equal rewards for equal share of work. Thus in the communist social order, every able-bodied individual of working age must equally share both the total burden of the social workload and the social wealth. The handicapped, the sick, minors, and all those past their working age will also have, like the able-bodied of working age, equal share in the social wealth. Communism need not make, nor does it permit making, anyone overwork or work harder than anyone else just because overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites. 

 This has got nothing to do with communism.  Its more like some kind of regimented barrack-like centralised society in  which everyone is closely monitored by an overarching state.  Once again to repeat the point – the concept of material rewards implies a system of economic exchange (and hence private property) in which the worker is obliged to perform a certain quantum of work in exchange for a  certain quantum of goods.   In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct You are confusing the communist principle of from each accrding to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle of to each according to their contribution which was actually written into the 1936 Soviet constitution.   But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism.  You appear not to have

[Author]

Posts