Who has said there is no anti-semitism amongst Labour Party members?Originally Posted by life on mars
On here or in the Labour Party? A single name will do - any poster or any Labour representative (from any part of the party).
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Who has said there is no anti-semitism amongst Labour Party members?
On here or in the Labour Party? A single name will do - any poster or any Labour representative (from any part of the party).
LOM - before you post anymore drooling nonsense I would like this answered too.
Is your next post going to be ‘The Nazis were socialists’
We have already seen that parade. Three days after being asked for evidence he posted a misguided YouTube video and provided little comment of his own.
Yes plenty of Muslims aren't there?
I happened to mention in another post at this forum fairly recently that around 99% of Semites alive today are non-Hebrew speakers. They total around 5 million and most reside in Israel. The largest group of Semites are Arabs who speak Arabic, accounting for circa 300 million. Those Semites can be bombed relentlessly (as in Libya, Iraq and Syria this century) without the aggressors ever being labelled with the anti-Semitic slur as that's reserved exclusively for a tiny minority group.
I have generally objected to the USA and UK bombing third world countries at the drop of a hat, and the three countries you mention are all very different cases. Maybe you're referring to Israel defending itself from time to time though - it's not clear .
Either way it's a bit nuts to compare any of that with centuries of persecution and the hollocaust against Jews.
It's also a bit dubious to split hairs over the term " anti semitism" when none of the things you mention are related to the racial group of those being bombed.
You can't defend socialist or other anti semitism ,( as the world understands the term), by diverting from it in this way. It's strange that socialists will try to accuse everyone who disagrees with them on anything of racism, but defend this particular very real form of racism.
As I said earlier , it's a very evil philosophy.
Getting tedious again and risks this thread turning into another Groundhog Day. But, anyway....
What do you understand anti-semitism to mean if you think you can claim that 'socialists' defend it? Maybe leave out your warped idea of what socialism is about (collectivism, equality of opportunity, fighting discrimination and exploitation.... you know, what normal people with no mental illness understand by the term) and focus on anti-semitism.
If you mean hatred of and/or discrimination against Jewish people as Jews then you are talking your usual crap.
If you mean opposition to the political ideology of Zionism and criticism not just of the policies of the Israeli state but also the central state ideology (explicitly since the Jewish State bill was passed in July 2018) combined with publicly discussing the terrorist mass murders and ethnic cleansing from the 1948 Nakba - expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs - onwards, then you are right - a lot of socialists of all kinds defend that view.
Some of the people charged and expelled from the Labour Party were anti-semites or at least made clear anti-semitic comments usually on social media - often repeating age-old racist tropes. Many were anti-Zionists. Many of those are Jewish themselves (like Tony Greenstein) and from families that went through the Holocaust (like Cyril Chilson) - in a few cases the anti-Zionist critics denounced by Margaret Hodge (90% of the names on her lists turned out not to be Labour Party members) and others as anti-semites are Auchwitz survivors (Hajo Meyer for one). Hundreds of people accused in the anti-semitism witchhunt have finally been cleared (again a high proportion are themselves Jewish) but not before they were dragged through the mud.
In my opinion the independent and academic analysis of anti-semitism in the Labour Party shows that it exists and has to be stamped out - and it has not just emerged with Corbyn. Labour (according to the research I have read) is no more at fault here than any other party and racist/anti-semitic attitudes amongst its members are lower than most (certainly than the Tories) and dropping. However, to use the buzz-word, it has been weaponised to achieve the joint objectives of attacking Corbyn and silencing critics of Israel (especially in the DBS movement). Both objectives have been successful.
Corbyn has not handled it well - he cannot always hand-wring and try to avoid conflict, and John McDonnell has been far to keen to appease the LFI and right wing media. It doesn't close the crisis down, it just encourages those who are cynically using it for their own purposes. It also makes it much harder to confront real anti-semitism (not the 'new' anti-semitism of the IHRA definition plus 11 garbled examples that the Israeli government has been pushing for years).
I have little sympathy for some like Ken Livingston but I do for Jackie Walker (mostly), Thomas Suarez and many others who now find themselves libelled and abused because they are anti-Zionists and critics of the Israeli state. In a week when there have been more anti-semitic murders in Germany, and a rising count of incidents from grafitti to verbal abuse to desecration of cemetries,
My understanding of both anti semitism is quite precise, as would yours be if you'd read stuff on the subject.
Socialism as we know it today is defined in the multifarious books of Karl Marx, particularly "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto". I suggest that you read them and then it will no longer be a matter of debate or opinion to you. Unlike a lot of people here , you'd probably be capable of doing this, so I recommend it.
Given that he invented modern socialism , it's no big surprise that Mark himself was as mad as a badger, and he wrote so many books that I doubt whether he had time to do anything else. Anyhoo...one which pertains here particularly is an entertaining little number called ,
"On the Jewish Question".......
You really should read it, but here's a little snippet,
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.[...] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. [...] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
Thanks for the reading advice. I have read The Communist Manifesto (many times) and On The Jewish Question too. I have to confess that I only managed to get through Volume 1 of Capital, and that was 40 years ago. I somehow doubt that your reading on these subjects is as wide or deep as you imply. You certainly manage to throw book titles and ideas around as if you had only just stumbled on them on Wikipedia, and managed to misunderstand (willfully or not) most of it.
Your claim that Marx 'invented modern socialism' (I assume in your mind there is something very distinctive about 'modern' socialism) is clearly nonsense. He was a major contributor to the socialist and emerging communist movements, but not the inventor. Even if you choose to ignore the British legacy from the Peasants Revolt (though not many peasants involved) - 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?' - through the English Civil War (Freeborn John Lilburne and the Levellers), into the eighteenth century and Jacobin support for the American and French revolutions, you still come up against a tapestry of emerging socialist ideas and organisations in Britain and across Europe that predate Marx by decades at least.
You are right to say that the language of On The Jewish Question has been used by many critics to label Marx as an anti-semite. Many other commentators have refuted the claim. It was written in the early 1840s as a polemic against a pamphlet by Bruno Bauer, and was arguing for the political emancipation of Jewish people in Prussia. Marx was disputing the idea put forward by Bauer that Jews would first have to ditch their religion before achieving equality! The language is clearly of its time and would not be acceptable now - but I don't think it is evidence of anti-semitism or that it was proof that Marx was a 'self hating' or 'the wrong type of' Jew to use the current labels thrown about by political Zionists.
I was just having a look at some of the comments on Marx's use of language and saw this reference to the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks from his book The Politics Of Hope: 'he regards application of the term "antisemitism" to Marx as an anachronism because when Marx wrote "On the Jewish Question", virtually all major philosophers had expressed similar views, and the word "antisemitism" had not yet been coined, let alone developed a racial component, and little awareness existed of the depths of European prejudice against Jews. Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era'
This is the same Jonathan Sacks (Zionist pro-Tory) who denounced Corbyn as an existential threat to the British Jewish community of the back of his comment in a Westminster event with a Palestinian ambassador that a couple of Zionist hecklers 'lacked a sense of British irony' even though they had probably been born in the UK. According to Sacks this was more shocking and threatening than Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech. He is not a natural defender of Marx or socialism - but even he understood the period and the context.
I'll bet a tenner this bloke voted Leave.
Sludge has started a thread about shopping for clothes in Tesco and I’ve checked and you haven’t commented??
What’s the world coming to? 😂😂
So are things thriving under Trump or not? Is wealth division growing bigger or smaller? Is homelessness and poverty decreasing or increasing?
They are doing a lot better than Germany, France & China, and that's before the effects of the forthcoming trade wars. It will be a landslide for Trump in 2020, especially after the rogue liberal elites have been locked up. I'm not sure if the anti-democracy left will recover from that.
Something is happening
This might answer part of your query .https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45827430
US wages growth
Hourly pay earned by the typical employee rose sharply in February, pushing the increase in wages over the past year to a 10-year high of 3.4%.
The last time wages grew that fast was in early 2009. Even better, inflation slowed toward the end of 2018, dropping to a yearly rate of 1.6% from as high as 2.9% last summer
Homelessness is on the rise
After observing this forum over a period of time, it's quite clear that the vast majority of people have been brainwashed to some extent, and they are also the first to respond angrily with nasty vitriolic language. It has been quite an eye-opener, and I have seen this kind of behaviour repeated over multiple forums and on various other social media platforms. In short, as things stand now we are f*cked as a society. Lardy & Cyril are a classic example of people who have an inverse view of reality, and they are very vindictive as well.
Perfectly true, but I haven't come across another message board where it's as rife as it is here. There are fuktards like this on most boards, but they're usually in the minority. I think maybe people give up here after a while because they just get trolled so widely and there are so few normal people that it hardly seems worth bothering.
I'd buggered off myself actually except that I got a few requests to post again - maybe people are scared to say what they think but appreciate someone saying it for them. In any case, I've got a five minute rule now , where I don't hang round here long enough to get dissapointed or feel tainted with negativity.
Oh dear, tantrums!
Thats not a tantrum,its a reality , look back at the responses ,
if someone dare challenge a view that didnt fit a certain narrative it becomes an insult .
This forum has become an anger outlet , and im guessing the same vindictiveness is probaly not delivered outside of this protective media platform.
Are you saying that what Gluey said, and says constantly, about Lardy and Cyril is not an insult to them?
If I was vindictive for placing someone on ignore for calling you a rapist apologist and then dissembling rather than apologising then guilty as charged!
He uses the term "brainwashing". Using climate change as an example, as a lefty with solar panels on the roof of my house and designs on getting an electric car when they come down in price, I suppose it's no surprise that I'm completely supportive of what is being done by a largely, but not exclusively, young group of people in London this week. Possibly, I am being brainwashed to an extent in thinking like I do, but I would prefer it to be described as being more willing to accept what I'm told when it fits in with my persona.
However, I would say that it is a fact that when you hear someone disputing or denying something like global warning, you know full well what their opinions on other matters are going to be because they all belong to the same tribe. If those on the left are guilty of being brainwashed, then the same surely applies to those on the right who "follow the party line" - Gluey posted a video by David Icke (yes folks, that's David Icke!) as if he was some leading authority on climate change a few weeks ago!
But only one group can be right. For example, climate change cannot exist and not exist at the same time
PS Icke has said some interesting things, it's not all lizards and aliens! You just need the ability to process multiple sources of information and then know how to collate the results. Relying on a person at the Guardian to do this for you is a fatal mistake
I never said anything of the sort, what I did say was that it was logically implied!
Excuse me, you did.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
