KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[Moderator note] The theme of this thread is the recent riots and the response, I’ll remove any more posts on the topic of conspiracies (unless they directly relate to the riots).
lumme lawks! i fink that was for the perfesser. sad face (can’t find how to do them here). still awaiting my telling orf. how about for badly grammar? poor spelling? not using capital letters (capital letters are capitalist! upper case is upper class!)?
foreign influence on the riots?
china? nah. no money in it.
the rooshuns? possibly. the fuhrage has had money from them in the past and is known for opposing the war in ukraine. destablisation? yeah but this is strengthening the government’s case for a police state. anyone that might balk at five year sentences for civil disobedience is not going to give a shit about throwing the book at greggs boy. what’s in it for pootin?
the yanks? yeah, you betcha. nige has just been over to see the orange plague. fermenting race hatred is just up his street. treat this as a step towards a rightwing (faragist) takeover of the conservative party and the country at the next election.
so, waddya reckon on my latest conspiracy theory that these riots were preplanned by the government? race riots crop up at ten year intervals since the neoliberals took over in 1979: 1981 brixton; 1991 meadow well; 2001 oldham; 2011 tontingham. this one being out of sequence due to covid. and there was something mighty iffy about fires and looting. when i’ve been on demos someone only needs to fart out of tune and the coppers are on you like flies on shit. come on now, it’s always the same, the government’s to blame. amirite?
(btw: can i have a waggly finger too? please! i wanna be with jimbo and essexboy in the incrowd. i never been trendy before. except that one time when i was ten and was the only kid in the school with a leatherjacket. the fact that it smelt of poo was besides the point.)
misread that link there. thought it were “battlescarred” fighting the fash in plimaf. to your zimmerframes chumrades. to be fair, the lad is a “junior member” (two stars) who’ll be in about five minutes before he finds out our average age is six months less than the spugub average age.
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.
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.
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.
“…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.
