England and the Politics of Englishness

by Novara Radio on October 26, 2013

On this week’s show James Butler and Aaron Peters are joined by Niki Seth-Smith as they discuss the politics of English nationalism and ‘Englishness’.

powered by: Resonance FM

Related Posts

Ralph Miliband: The Marxist Who Hated Nationalism
On this week’s show Aaron Peters and James Butler discuss Ralph Miliband, the man who hated nationalism, and his legacy.

Fascism, Anti-Fascism and the State
On this week’s show Aaron Peters and James Butler discuss fascism, anti-fascism and the relation of both to the state.

For the Mob
In this brief article James Butler looks at some of the uses and abuses, both contemporary and historic, of the word ‘mob’ in English.

What is Revolution?
On this week’s show Aaron Peters and James Butler discuss the concept of revolution – is the binary of reform and revolution a useful one in informing ‘what is to be done’?

Debt>Debt>Debt
On this week’s show Aaron Peters is joined by David Graeber author of ‘Debt: the First 5,000 Years’ as they discuss debt embedding it within the context of the Great Recession.

Originally published at Novara Media and reposted with their permission

{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }

Alf October 26, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Home Rule for England.

Reply

mutton October 26, 2013 at 9:18 pm

English nationalism and ‘Englishness’.
Do we ever have the English discuss this subject.
I would have thought we are best qualified.

Reply

Pavel Dubrovsky October 26, 2013 at 11:30 pm

i can only suppose you didn’t bother to listen to even a half minute of the podcast before making your silly remark

Reply

Harriet Logan October 27, 2013 at 12:37 am

Pavel, I think that you are perhaps engaging in destructive behavior in your response to Mr. Mutton.

Speaking of ‘silly’ though… If one actually looks at the titles of most the contributions published on TNS, many of them are quite ‘silly’. Perhaps this might be where responder silliness might be coming from? Perhaps?

Reply

Pavel October 27, 2013 at 12:41 am

Given that the presenters are ‘English’ it’s obvious that the far-right Mr ‘Mutton’ couldnt be bothered to even listen before feeling sorry for himself. But thanks for your concern.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 12:05 pm

This whole discussion of Englishness just tasted of Anglophobia. The English were ‘to blame for everything’ but not one thing the English did was mentioned as praiseworthy. The comparison of England with Scotland was both contemptible and risible. Scots-led Labour flooded London with immigrants thus enabling the assertions that London is no longer England. London was recently voted the UK’s number one ‘crap town’. No doubt the left will blame Boris. When Scots-led Labour attempted to distribute asylum seekers across the UK, Scottish councils sent them packing, saying they were England’s problem. As a proportion of Scotland’s total population, Black folk do not even register a full percentage point. According to the Scottish government’s own figures, the greatest number of racist attacks in Scotland are against Pakistanis, the second highest against English people. The trouble with a rose-tinted bubble is that it is as easily burst as a red one.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2013 at 6:50 pm

Thanks to all the migrants from elsewhere, London is, or at least was, about the only interesting city in England. I presume that you can get food other than blood pudding in other cities now, so maybe the situation is better overall.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm

London has just been voted the UK’s number one ‘crap’ city.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2013 at 7:15 pm

Presumably by people like you, which makes the “vote” worthless to decent human beings.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2013 at 7:15 pm

Presumably by people like you, which makes the “vote” worthless to decent human beings.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 7:30 pm

Like I said, socialists start by hurling insults, then fists, then stones, then bombs. People end up dying. Socialists are the most unsociable people imaginable.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 7:30 pm

Like I said, socialists start by hurling insults, then fists, then stones, then bombs. People end up dying. Socialists are the most unsociable people imaginable.

Reply

sartesian October 27, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Actually, the British ruling class with its characterizations of others as “wogs;” its expansion of the slave trade; facilitating famines in Ireland and India; its gassing of recalcitrant tribes in what is now Iraq; and its self-justifying taste for cowardice, corruption, and dishonesty is one of the two most unsociable formations in all of human history. The other being the ruling class of any and all other countries.

Learn your history, Mr. Gash, before you start yammering about “civilization” and “sociability,” because your ruling class is the anti-apotheosis of both.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 9:12 pm

Indeed, I totally agree. It is the British who imposed their empire upon the world and flapped their racist butcher’s apron, the Union Jack, at “the natives,” not the English. The first country to be colonised by the British Empire was England. It is the British establishment and the British ruling classes that are intent on erasing all things English. The British are to blame for everything and it is they who have no identity.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 28, 2013 at 4:50 am

The British consist of the English, together with the Celtic peoples they conquered and partially assimilated over the centuries — the Cornish, Welsh, Scots, some of the Irish, and a few other minor ones. And, like all countries, especially empires, they include the descendants of an assortment of people from all over the world. Thanks to some of the latter, one can live in England without having to fly to the Continent every evening for dinner.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 1:45 pm

The census clearly showed your claim to be erroneous. Even the broadcast above stated that 60% of people in England say they are English not British. The proportion of people in Scotland saying they are Scots only, is very similar. The British are a cultural and political artifice. They are indefinable and largely unwanted.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 30, 2013 at 8:38 am

The people who have been resisting the occupation of Ireland by people from across the water generally refer to the occupiers as “the Brits”. I think the Protestants of the North of Ireland also generally consider themselves to be ‘British’ rather than Scots or English.

cornubian November 1, 2013 at 12:33 pm

Thanks for not forgetting the Cornish. We’re often overlooked. All the best from Kernow.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm

So, by your assessment, defending Englishness from the kind of Anglophobic prejudice so flagrantly displayed in the broadcast above, is trolling.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm

London has just been voted the UK’s number one ‘crap’ city.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 12:13 pm

Curiously, the Plantations in Ireland of 500 years ago were condemned and international Marxist Communism expounded as the ideal. This was done without mention of 20thC communist gulags or the ethnic cleansing by the communist Soviet Union. No mention was made either of Maoist genocide or Pol Pot’s ravages. By the way, although Scots only comprised 8.5% of the UK’s population in 18th and early 19th centuries, they comprised 33% of Caribbean slave-owners. Scotland’s ‘enlightenment’ was funded by the BRITISH (not English) slave-trade.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2013 at 3:29 pm

The Soviet Union was not, and did not claim to be, “communist”, but even the limited, bureaucratic socialism they had was better than whatever alternative would have existed had it been overthrown.

Maoism, for all its faults, played a positive role in the development of China, at least until it began its alliance with U.S. imperialism in the early 1970’s. It is largely thanks to Maoism that the mass of Chinese people is better off today than is the mass of Indian people.

The ultra-nationalist, xenophobic Pol Pot regime was overthrown by the “Communist” Vietnamese, who were then punished by the U.S. for doing so.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 4:31 pm

So the tens of millions of deaths had absolutely nothing to do with the left and the Bolsheviks were not communists? As Stalin said, they are just a statistic. Maoist China invaded Tibet in 1950 so blaming China’s 1970’s alliance with US imperialism is laughable. Communist China set about ethnic cleansing of Tibetans with relish, including forced sterilisation of women. Pol Pot attacked Vietnam in true communist expansionist fashion.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 28, 2013 at 4:34 am

I did not blame China’s real and/or alleged ethnic-nationalist mistreatment of Tibetans — a mistreatment that long preceded the victory of the Chinese Communist party in 1949 and has continued, if not worsened, since the restoration of capitalism that began in the 1980’s — on their alliance with U.S. imperialism, but that alliance had a lot to do with China’s aggression against Vietnam in 1979 that devastated the one area of Vietnam that hadn’t already been devastated by the United Snakes. Mao’s China also provided left cover for all kinds of U.S.-allied scum in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere.

BTW, there is no reason for anybody to respond to your question/assertion about “the tens of millions of deaths” until you get specific about which deaths, of the 5 – 10 billion deaths in the world during the last century, you are talking about. (I’m sure I could find a more precise estimate than 5 – 10 billion, but it wouldn’t affect the discussion one way or the other.)

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 9:26 am

Totalitarianism is a mind-set, whether it be Islam, communism, international socialism or capitalism, people weld themselves to a particular doctrine or creed. That is the definition of bigotry. Totalitarianism is identified by its ineluctable expansionism. Unfortunately, Muslims, communists and international socialists have joined forces, having realised they are more effective together.

5-10 billion deaths seems implausible but it is a figure that may be bolstered if one includes the 7 million abortions in the UK alone since it was legalised in the ’70s. Interestingly, only communist countries imposed compulsory abortion, whereas Islam forbids it. That is something the new-found allies will have to reconcile.

Capitalism is indeed now a murderous creed, with its chem-trails and GMO crops, for example, not to mention the arms trade. However, capitalism died in the ’70s, being replaced by debtism, whereby world economies are now measured by debt levels.

However, getting back on topic, I fail to see why the English should be singled out for censure by the left. Why not the Irish with their nationalistic, racist and anti-EU Sinn Fein and IRA?

Reply

akaBrian_S October 28, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Aaron is clearly enjoying his exchanges with this right-wing troll,
so I’ll leave him to it. But I have a thing about letting historical
inaccuracies lie around on the internet – they have a tendency to turn
into urban legends. So for the record: Scotland (and to a lesser extent
Ireland) certainly was a junior partner in the British empire – but with
a subordinate role to the dominant English social groups.
To take the slave plantations: the data on the compensation paid to slave owners
after abolition suggests that Scottish claimants made up 15-18% of the
total (either as slave owners or with financial interests in slavery).
Scotland accounted for 10% of the British population at this time.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 1:35 pm

I’m not trolling. If anything the radio broadcast above is trolling. Singling out the English for censure is worse than trolling. I distinguished Caribbean slave owners from the total number, and it is the Scottish press, in 2007, that claimed the 33% figure. Ask SNP candidate Alex Orr, who wrote about Scottish slave owners. Even your figures suggest Scots were over-represented in slave ownership. This is unsurprising, considering the Ku Klux Klan called itself a clan to reflect its Scottish roots. Burning crosses is a Celtic, and especially Scottish, tradition. The emblem of modern neo-nazis is the Celtic Cross.

However, all these facts are glossed over by the left in their eagerness to “reclaim Englishness from the far right”. You bray that I am a right wing troll, but I am in the vanguard in stating Englishness is not a narrow Anglo-Saxon identity. It is the left that has asserted that it is White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) not I.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 28, 2013 at 2:20 pm

“I distinguished Caribbean slave owners from the total number”

Why? If you could find some small area where ALL the slave owners were Scots, would that prove ANYTHING?

But, if the Scots were disproportionately represented among slave owners, they were even more disproportionately involved in the oppression of the (Celtic) Irish. That latter fact, however, may be the result of the deliberate policies of British/English Protestant rulers.

Incidentally, Jews were heavily over-represented among, especially, slave TRADERS. Do you want to draw any conclusions from THAT fact?

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm

The whole tenor of the broadcast above was singling out the English as only being worth condemnation. It made the comparison between Scots and English, naturally making Scots look better than the English. I was pointing out that the comparison is fallacious and ridiculous. The Scottish-Somalis v English-Somalis argument was completely without foundation, for example. It was simply a figment of Seth-Smith’s imagination.

Unless of course you also consider the Scots as somehow better than the English.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 28, 2013 at 4:21 pm

Nothing I’ve written here is in response to anything said in the broadcast, since I haven’t listened to it. I’ve responded to some of your comments that are silly or worse — regardless of what provoked them.

sartesian October 28, 2013 at 3:22 pm

The conclusion that I would draw is that your data source is incorrect. Exactly what sources are providing what numbers that amount to “overrepresentation” in the Atlantic slave trade?

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 28, 2013 at 4:30 pm

I looked into the matter of Jewish participation in the slave trade a few years ago and was convinced that it was major, and certainly wildly disproportionate to the fraction of Jews in the various populations at the time. It may not, however, have been extremely disproportionate to the fraction of Jews among traders of all kinds of merchandise.

Also, I mostly remember that there was lots of information about Jewish involvement in the buying, selling and ownership of slaves in the Caribbean, Surinam and Brazil, but I don’t remember if there was heavy involvement of Jews in the trans-Atlantic trade.

BTW, I brought up that particular issue because Mr. Gash, in many of his comments elsewhere, positions himself as an opponent of “antisemitism” and a supporter of Israel.

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 6:37 pm

I posted a Guardian link but it is being moderated. The title of the Guardian’s article is ” Tartan and home truths” and it covers some aspects of Scotland’s role in the slave trade and slave ownership.

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 6:54 pm

nts dot org dot uk has a pdf article entitled “Scotland and the slave trade” that claims “By the late 1700s, one third of Jamaican plantations were owned by Scots.”

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm

Nationalism does NOT cause war. Internationalism causes war. Hitler did not betray socialism, he betrayed nationalism. He behaved as a typical socialist by invading other countries as soon as he attained power. Post-colonial colonists are spawned by the left, not the right.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Hitler acted as an ideological as well as de-facto nationalist in expanding into Eastern Europe. He made it clear that he was looking for “lebensraum” for Germans at the expense of Slavs and, of course, Jews and Roma. And there was nothing “socialist” about the Nazi party, at least after the massacre of its left wing on June 30, 1934, except its name. But it was always “national” and racial in the sense of putting the interests of “Germans” and “Aryans” over those of every other ethnicity. But he also put the interests of German capitalists over the interests of other Germans as well as other capitalists, and the 1934 massacre of his party’s left was carried out on the orders of big business and the Wehrmacht’s officer corps that was tied to it.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Yet socialists have been hell bent on erasing the English since Blair was elected to office in 1997. You say the Nazi party was not socialist yet it behaved exactly in the way socialists always behave. They first throw insults, then fists, then stones then bombs.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 28, 2013 at 2:01 pm

i don’t know anything about Blair in relation to your presumed English-British dichotomy. One thing I do know about Blair, though, is that he was, as Prime Minister, no more of a “socialist” than Barack O’Bomber is. However, because the idea of “socialism” was (and is) still popular among the base of the Labour Party, as it was among the German working class and much of the middle class in the time before the Nazis came to power, Blair, like Hitler before him, made some feeble attempts to pass off his militantly pro-capitalist policies as some kind of “socialism”.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 2:52 pm

The usual buckpassing “he wasn’t a socialist”. The broadcast above alluded to Labour needing Scotland’s votes to gain power across the UK. Therefore, England must never have its own parliament, must it? This has only been true for a few elections. Most Labour governments have had an overall majority provided by England’s votes. The constant hammering of the English by Scots-led Labour, such as with tuitions fees, cost it the 2010 election, not to mention the imposition of regions that the English firmly rejected. Set-Smith suggested that they should be placed before England’s electorate again? Why? They are persistently THE most unpopular option for any form of government in England. Conversely, an English parliament garners 60%+ support.

If the left overcame its bone-written hatred for England and offered an English parliament to the English it would wipe the floor with the Tories. One reason UKIP is gaining popularity in England is because it has a policy for an English parliament.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 30, 2013 at 10:27 pm

You keep on talking about “the left” and Labour as if they were even close to being the same thing. But having opponents who are even farther to the right, i.e. openly pro-capitalist and pro-privilege, than you are doesn’t make one part of “the left”, any more than being called a “socialist” by right-wing fanatics makes Barack O’Bomber part of the “left”.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Yet socialists have been hell bent on erasing the English since Blair was elected to office in 1997. You say the Nazi party was not socialist yet it behaved exactly in the way socialists always behave. They first throw insults, then fists, then stones then bombs.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Hitler acted as an ideological as well as de-facto nationalist in expanding into Eastern Europe. He made it clear that he was looking for “lebensraum” for Germans at the expense of Slavs and, of course, Jews and Roma. And there was nothing “socialist” about the Nazi party, at least after the massacre of its left wing on June 30, 1934, except its name. But it was always “national” and racial in the sense of putting the interests of “Germans” and “Aryans” over those of every other ethnicity. But he also put the interests of German capitalists over the interests of other Germans as well as other capitalists, and the 1934 massacre of his party’s left was carried out on the orders of big business and the Wehrmacht’s officer corps that was tied to it.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 27, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Oh yeah, the bit about the multicultural Ottoman Empire was complete rubbish. The Serbs and Greeks would disagree about how ‘tolerantly’ they were treated under Islam and its concomitant sharia. Greece is still under Islamic occupation and especially Constantinople.

Reply

sartesian October 28, 2013 at 2:29 pm

So let’s sum up what this mostly fruitless conversation:

The World According to Gash:

English: Good
British: Bad (and actually, a proxy for the nasty Scots).

Socialism?…is actually Naziism, united by first the use of insults and then by……..confusing the English with the British. Conclusion: Socialsts and Nazis are actually Scots.

English: Democratic, peace-loving, unethnocentric, happy non-warriors who would never use an ethnic slur much less a chemical weapon, a slave ship, or try to make money in any other but the good old fashioned way– by exploiting only themselves and other English.

British: Shady, manipulative, acquisitive, money-hungry. Conclusion: British are actually Jewish (and a proxy for the Scots who are Nazis).

All ethnic “theories” converge on the innate evil of the “other.”

And here I thought history was the history of class struggle, and that “British” was an amalgam formed through the pressure and compromise of emerging merchant capital, with landowners. What a dolt I must be, in addition to being Scots, Jewish, a slaver, socialist, Nazi.

Can we now stop with this nonsense and get back to capitalism as it actually develops, developed, functioned, functions– that is to say class relations?

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 6:20 pm

I haven’t even mentioned Jews. In answer to your flaying of my comments, I would suggest that the broadcast plainly considered English bad and British good. I merely challenged the whole tenor of the broadcast and especially its assertion that Scotland is somehow more welcoming of immigrants than England. The broadcast claimed that nationalism was responsible for wars. In response I pointed out that communists and international socialists are more to blame. Both doctrines are expansionist as commentators stated in the broadcast. Therefore, to expand, communists and socialists have invaded neighbouring countries. The whole of eastern Europe was moved westwards to accommodate Stalin. Russia still occupies Japanese islands it never had any claim to.

My contributions here are merely to say that addressing Englishness by constantly blaming the English for everything, while simultaneously and fallaciously bulling up the rest of the UK is not going to win over many English people, especially if they are Labour voters, for example.

Reply

akaBrian_S October 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm

This is a topic that comes up every few years on the British left (and is an eternal obsession of the right). On this occasion it seems to be driven by a conjunction of several recent developments: the recent report of the 2011 census which indicates a majority of white British respondents identifying solely as “English”; the upcoming Scottish referendum on independence; the rise of UKIP (a classical “little England” grouping despite its name)
Its true that national identities are particularily confused in Britain because of its Imperial history – the empire fostered a discourse in which national distinctions were continually blurred (sometimes “British” and “English” were treated as interchangeable; sometimes “British” was used to evoke the multinational (and multiclass) bloc that underpinned the imperial project). Some interpret this as a crisis of national identity – but I see it as the price the English have to bear for some two centuries of imperialism.

But is all this of any significance? The census dataindicate what people reply in response to a form, but tell us nothing about the salience of national identities – how much importance do they have in actually shaping social life?

Of course invocation of national identity can be taken up as a tool by political groups seeeking to construct a political base. When this is done by right wing forces it tries to create an exclusive, siege identity – a “laager” (to use the boers’ metaphor) – of people who see themselves under attack (or rather of politicians who want to persuade people they are under attack). And that’s what the contemporary political version of “English” identity amounts to. I don’t see any viable political project for the left here.

Reply

diablo 3 December 3, 2014 at 4:47 am

Abrasion strong rather simple capabilities step. Pokemon black or white copy. Flat in terms of golf club softsphere where placed, Brings down owner’s SpeedMakes sailing Pokemon and simply huge off-road insides 2Unearth within a metro Pokemon containing Levitate susceptible to Groundtype progresses whenever you are gripped.
diablo 3 http://www.bicotruck.com/guides

Reply

Cheap Vintage Basketball Jerseys December 3, 2014 at 2:45 pm

Do you have any idea how much it means to a person like me to see someone like you who obviously cares about what they do, and is so willing to share their experience and insights? Bill A.

Reply

foto Ugg December 3, 2014 at 3:03 pm

foto Ugg ugg stivali estivi xKavO C’est l’endroit où vous déposez les
oeufs brouillés sur votre poitrine nue et simplement les ramasser et de les manger avec les
doigts. Ugg Scontati ugg in sconto TWDtj Puis ajouter
le reste des pommes sur le dessus du pain. Pelle di
pecora ugg stivali australiani Zfrkm Mon engagement de longue date de
terme avec le site a conduit à une utilisation plus fréquente en tant que consultant pour English Heritage sur les aspects de la gestion et l’interprétation du
site. storia ugg ugg di lana dXBtP Ranveer a également obtenu
un diplôme d’études supérieures en administration des affaires
de l’Indian Institute of Management d’Ahmedabad, en Inde en 1989 En 2003, il a complété le programme
de gestion avancée de l’Université Wharton de hegdemr pennsilvanya.ashok.

Ugg Scontati Ugg Saldi wOKqn En 1999, V-Day a lancé
sa campagne de collège avec 66 écoles participantes à travers l’Amérique du Nord d’effectuer les
Monologues du vagin; Plus de 20.000 personnes ont participé à des événements V-Day.

Reply

entrepreneur quotes December 4, 2014 at 5:28 am

The Vi – Salus is not in the run ofpublicity like the other health products that excites the people and ready togo,
 but that die away in few weeks because they are physically very difficult tokeep up.
Peter Ragnar’s ‘How To Build Muscle On A Raw Food Diet’.
The program is based on nutrition that helps you burn fat and keep lean muscle,
boosts your metabolism and helps control hunger.

Reply

Northern Beaches Plumbers provides you with all kinds of plumbing services ours Plumber in Sydney Northern Beaches can help. For more information on this go to http://www.northernbeachespumbers.com.au Northern Beaches Plumbers provides you with all kinds December 5, 2014 at 9:34 am

I do not even know the way I finished up right here, however I believed this post used to be great.
I do not understand who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger when you are not
already. Cheers!

Reply

Warhammer 40.000 Space Wolf Cheat December 6, 2014 at 12:55 pm

Excellent post. I used to be checking continuously this weblog and I’m inspired!

Very helpful information specially the last phase :
) I take care of such information much. I used to
be looking for this particular info for a long time.

Thank you and good luck.

Reply

chicken coop extension December 6, 2014 at 12:58 pm

It’s an amazing paragraph in favor of all the online viewers;
they will obtain benefit from it I am sure.

Reply

Dishwasher Repair Venice December 6, 2014 at 2:18 pm

Lightech’s mission is to power the global lighting industry.
Serving as chairman of AHAM for two years and on the board of directors for
more than a decade, during his chairmanship both service and membership expanded into Canada.
Servicing appliances for more than three decades, he and his highly trained staff of technicians can address any
appliance repair situation, whether it is a washer, dryer, refrigerator,
microwave oven or kitchen range.

Reply

www.baslerstab.biz/comments.htm December 8, 2014 at 5:40 pm

Simply want to say your article is as astounding. The
clarity in your post is just nice and i could assume
you are an expert on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to
date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the enjoyable work.

Reply

http://kemenagselayar.com December 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm

I have seen a lot of in blogspot. What motive do they provide?
Is it possible to generate money through blogs. If of course how?

Reply

Stephen Gash October 30, 2013 at 10:13 am

Irish Protestants call themselves Ulster Scots. The British are indeed to blame for everything not the English. Britishness is a cultural and political artifice designed solely to get rid of Englishness.

Reply

sartesian October 30, 2013 at 8:17 pm

Damn. I thought it was the bourgeoisie who were to blame for everything. Stupid, f*^king me. Who are “the British”? Exactly what defines, distinguishes British?

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 5:59 pm

There is nothing silly about my remarks. If you haven’t listened to the broadcast then accusing anybody of making silly comments is both facile and pathetic.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 6:34 pm

” I’ve responded to some of your comments that are silly or worse”.
Your claims of 10 billion deaths in the 20thC and the USSR not being communist at any time are not in any way silly, then?

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 6:45 pm

Please point out my comments you consider silly. While you’re at it, refute them.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Scotland dot org has an article “The forgotten diaspora” which covers Scotland’s role in the slave trade and ownership.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 7:02 pm

I sometimes use the term “antisemitism,” but I prefer to use “Jew-hating” when describing my opposition. Is supporting Israel somehow wrong then?

Presumably, you made this irrelevant point because you oppose the “occupation” by Israel? Do you oppose the occupation of Greece and especially Constantinople by Turkey? There is only 25 years separating the end of the Greco-Turkish war and the establishment of Israel.

Reply

sartesian October 28, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Well, surely you can provide some sources. When I couldn’t provide my sources for the claim re Jaruzelski and the miners’ strike, I withdrew the assertion.

Simple business that. Where did you look when you looked into it?– I mean given the fact that the major powers involved in the Atlantic slave trade, which fed the slave production of the Caribbean, Surinam, Brazil, and the US were Portuguese, Spanish, French, British, Dutch, US, and none of those countries were particularly “Jewish,” I’d like to know what data leads one to believe that Jews were disproportionately represented in the slave trade.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 30, 2013 at 8:31 am

I am a citizen of a country and a member of an ethnicity that have been largely responsible for Zionism’s occupation of Palestine and expulsion of its inhabitants, so I have some intimate connection to those crimes. OTOH, what happened between Greeks and Turks is something rather distant to me. But, perhaps more important is the fact that the Greeks, not the Turks, were supported, if somewhat poorly, by then-dominant English/British imperialism, while, in the case of Palestine, it was the oppressor that was and is supported by Western imperialism. Since I can’t devote full energy to fighting every oppression, I’m going to concentrate on those that are tied in with the global imperialist enemy of humanity.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 30, 2013 at 10:30 am

That’ll be Muslims then.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 29, 2013 at 12:50 am

Unlike the assertion you withdrew regarding the alleged drowning of a group of Polish miners, something to which neither you nor I could find any reference, the question of the role of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade has been widely discussed and debated for decades, especially since the publication in 1991, by the Nation of Islam, of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. At this point, I have nothing to add to the discussion.

Reply

sartesian October 29, 2013 at 1:48 pm

So if it’s been widely discussed and debated, then providing references to the data that leads to your assertion should be relatively easy to provide. Instead, you provide a reference to a work by the Nation of Islam. ’nuff said. You’re right, you have nothing to add to the discussion.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 30, 2013 at 8:19 am

I mentioned the work published by the NOI as a stimulus to the debate on the issue. Since it was published over 20 years ago and has engendered the hostility of many groups and individuals with great resources, I would presume that any false claims it makes have been refuted by now. Also, most of its specific assertions of historical fact are from Jewish sources, so the main objections have been to its overall evaluation of the history rather than to its specific claims.

BTW, I haven’t encountered demands for data when people have made assertions about Jews playing a disproportionate role (compared to whites in general) in the civil rights movement or in the U.S. left in general, in academia, in medicine, etc., etc.. This demand for statistical proof only arises when the assertion of disproportionate Jewish involvement is in something (e.g., slave trade, banking or other organized crime) that is not seen as favorable.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 30, 2013 at 11:10 pm

Maybe when you provide evidence to back up, or even provide meaning for, assertions you make like:

And one class, because it, in its existence as the expression of the social organization of labor power, is the DETERMINANT of that dominant mode of production. That’s the working class.

And because that class is the DETERMINANT, it is also the NEGATION of the dominant mode of production.

I’ll feel some obligation to try to explain why my personal survey of the public debate about the role of Jews in the slave trade leads me to accept that that role was substantial. In the meantime, feel free to do your own survey of the available evidence — or not!

Reply

sartesian October 30, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Yeah, but neither you nor I have made any claims about Jews participating disproportionately in civil rights movements, in medicine, etc. I want to know how Jews participated disproportionately in the Atlantic Slave trade, and disproportionately in relation to what? Their presence in the commerce in general? To finance in general? To their numbers existing in any, every country that ever was awarded the asiento?

So what’s the point of your little digression about Jews, banking, academia, medicine and the slave trade?

It’s been a ploy of fascists, reactionaries etc to talk about Jewish control of banking, the media, and the “Jewish-banking-bolshevik” conspiracy for years. Actual data analysis disproves those claims– as it will disprove your claim to disproportionate Jewish representation in the Atlantic slave trade.

Reply

Aaron Aarons November 4, 2013 at 10:04 pm

What motivates me to point out negative aspects of Jewish history is how a one-sided presentation of that history as a history of positive accomplishments plus victimhood is used to incite Nazi-style treatment of Palestinians by Israeli Jews and the active or passive support of such treatment by Jews and many others, particularly in the U.S. and Germany but also in many other countries. In the world today, particularly among the Western elites and middle strata, Judeophilia is much more of an obstacle to liberation than is Judeophobia.

Reply

sartesian October 31, 2013 at 1:36 am

Aaron– simply read Marx– his critique of capital is the critique of capital as the dominant mode of production; it is the critique of capital as a specific social relation of production– that is to say the means of production organized as private property, and labor power organized as a commodity for exchange for the value equivalent to its own reproduction.

That’s what Marx’s work is all about. That’s why he ignores the economic impacts of the peasantry; the petit-bourgeoisie; supervisor; engineers– all that is secondary to the process of accumulation.

To accumulate, surplus value must be extracted, and RECAPITALIZED. That requires that capital, and the capitalist encounter, first and foremost wage-labor. That– wage-labor, is what determines the nature of capitalism, which is the aggrandizement of surplus value.

The fact that I have to tell you this should indicate to you that you really need to know something about Marx’s analysis before you go spouting off about “revolutionary” “socialist” “counterrevolutionary” blahblahblah– which in your hands become meaningless phrases.

Reply

sartesian October 31, 2013 at 1:36 am

Aaron– simply read Marx– his critique of capital is the critique of capital as the dominant mode of production; it is the critique of capital as a specific social relation of production– that is to say the means of production organized as private property, and labor power organized as a commodity for exchange for the value equivalent to its own reproduction.

That’s what Marx’s work is all about. That’s why he ignores the economic impacts of the peasantry; the petit-bourgeoisie; supervisor; engineers– all that is secondary to the process of accumulation.

To accumulate, surplus value must be extracted, and RECAPITALIZED. That requires that capital, and the capitalist encounter, first and foremost wage-labor. That– wage-labor, is what determines the nature of capitalism, which is the aggrandizement of surplus value.

The fact that I have to tell you this should indicate to you that you really need to know something about Marx’s analysis before you go spouting off about “revolutionary” “socialist” “counterrevolutionary” blahblahblah– which in your hands become meaningless phrases.

Reply

Aaron Aarons November 4, 2013 at 9:54 pm

People who claim to be “Marxists” have no monopoly on the words “revolutionary”, “socialist”, and “counterrevolutionary”. In fact, those words, and/or their equivalent in various non-English languages, existed before Marx used them and would exist today even if there were no self-proclaimed “Marxists” in the universe. And “blablahblah” is a good word for much of the doctrinaire, Hegelian-sounding nonsense that emanates from the ensemble of arrogant, self-proclaimed Marxists.

If I seem too harsh it’s because people like you present your ideas about the nature of capitalism NOT as a model of reality to argue for and modify to make it more useful but as some kind of absolute truth that must be accepted by those who oppose what capital is doing to the planet.

Reply

akaBrian_S October 28, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Indeed it does – but it doesn’t give a source and this is for Jamaica not the Caribbean as a whole. In any event, if Scots owned one-third, guess who owned the other two thirds? Like I said, junior partners to England’s senior partner.

Reply

Stephen Gash October 28, 2013 at 7:51 pm

We were once constantly reminded (in the main by Scots) how Scots made a disproportionate contribution to running the Empire and the UK. It stopped, somewhat, after Brown and Goodwin trashed the economy. Slavery didn’t figure in the boasting, but is probably the only case where the disproportionate contribution was actually true.

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: