Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,149 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 13 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“More distraction from the main issue – the anti-working class aspect of this capitalist conflict”
I concur. TS has a habit of interpolating pro state sanctioned oligarch discourse into the discussion.
The point is: working and marginal classes are pitched against one another and alienated from their common interests. Dying in droves for an illusion and an obscured and manipulated construct, becoming fearful of one another.
Russian and Ukraine working classes have common nodal points- yet ripped from their shared experiences by competing forces and self interests of the oligarch.Truescotsman:
You don’t see it as a victory because you don’t understand the nature of the conflict. Russia’s main goal is demilitarization. To do this one does not need to take ground one needs to kill the enemy and destroy his ability to further make war. This Russia is doing with ruthless efficiency. Ukraine has lost 6,500 KIAs just this January, mostly in Bhakmut.
Out of an army half a million strong, that’s a spit in the Ocean: again, look at the precedents, the Iran Iraq War, the Korean War: humans are sadly replaceable.
Yes, the precedents of prolonged attritional trench war is that one side will break in the rear, after horrific carnage, but that might not come soon. And, don’t forget, Kyiv is basically pawning its future here into economic dependence on Europe, it will get the logistical supplies it needs not to break like that.
If it’s a fair fight then both sides weary. This is not a fair fight.
There are still costs, even if unevenly distributed. Russia has, on paper, far more military resources, but it has to keep a lot in reserve to protect it’s own territory. It’s supply lines are in a hostile environment, and need to be protected.
Actually it could with a thrust from Belorus down along the Polish border. But Russia seems happy enough to allow NATO to continue demilitarizing itself by sending its war material to be reduced to molten slag.
Materiel can be replaced, simple destruction is inefficient, NATO has deeper pockets than Moscow.
Cutting the Polish border would also need to cut the Romanian and Moldovan borders: which would be come with severe supply line problems, and would just open the Russians to be being bled by guerrilla warfare.
I’ll just note that Bakhmut has not yet fallen: a town with about the population of Redcar (not a huge city) has taken this long to fall…
“More drivel from TS who continues to comprehensively miss the point as per usual…”
L.B. Neill care to rein in your mutt? Thought not.
“It is frankly irrelevant from the standpoint of this forum whether Russia is winning this war, whether decisively or otherwise.”
Actually it’s very important because it puts into question your claims to be materialists and therefore Marxists. If you are nothing but ideolougues confirming your own biases through MSM rags and CIA front groups then you are not materialists. And therefore not Marxists. But we already knew that didn’t we?
““Decisively” is not a word that springs to mind, though. The small territorial gains the Russian military and its mercenary supporters have recently made to offset territorial losses it suffered last year, have come at an enormous cost and the battle for Bahkmut is still not over after months and months of fighting.”
Because you are not a materialist you do not understand the nature of this conflict. The Russians are atritting the Ukrainians. The taking of territory is a secondary consideration. It is why the Russians have withdrawn from unfavourable positions to better demilitarize NATOstan. Because you are not a materialist you interpret this as a loss. But nothing could be further from the truth.
“Yes, we know there is more to this war than just territory and TS continues in his pointless endeavor to teach his grandmother to suck eggs.”
No, you are incapable of learning the facts because you are an ideologue not a materialist. My posts are meant to inform those who are actually materialists.
“Sure Russia´s population (and military) is substantially larger than Ukraine´s and you would expect, all things being equal, for the former to prevail over the latter. Although all things are not equal and it would seem that morale and determination would favour the Ukrainian side.”
It would seem so if you were an idealogue. It doesn’t seem so to a materialist.
“At any rate, it is difficult to predict the outcome of the war if for no other reason than that we cannot rule out completely the possibility of NATO forces being drawn directly into the conflict.”
Russia would still win. It has full escalatory dominance on its own border.
“In that case, we are talking about a whole different ball game. The Russian military would be comprehensively destroyed in that case”
No, NATOstan would be.
“but, if things went nuclear, we would all be destroyed”
Newsflash: water still wet, fire still hot! You are special Robbo, just not in the way you think.
“But all this is by the by. The real issue here is what should be the attitude of socialists to this stupid senseless war?”
But you’re not a socialist so why do you care?
“TS has made it perfectly plain that he fervently sides with Russian capitalism in this war.”
Erm no, I don’t. I side with the struggle against NATOstani imperialism.
“Laughably, this clown goes on about “faux socialists”, having demonstrated again and again his vehement opposition to socialism which he doesn’t really understand anyway given that he seems to think the state sector of the capitalist economy amounts to “socialism”.”
That state sector wouldn’t exist were it not for the struggles of actual socialists.
“This war is a war being fought over capitalist interests as TS himself has inadvertently revealed”
No, I have not. Russia did not want this conflict. NATO and the Ukrainian Nazis did. Well, by their attempted genocide of Russian speaking eastern Ukrainians they have forever given up their right to rule there. This cofluct would have proceeded no matter the wealth or lack thereof of the territory involved.
“– with himself identifying strongly with the interests of Russian capitalism and its appalling far-right repressive capitalist regime”
I don’t think “far right” means what you think it means. Back to materialism school for you.
“against the equally appalling far-right repressive capitalist regime of Ukraine (both sides of which have their own fascist supporters).”
Blah, blah, blah. Heard it all before.
“Whoever “wins” this war, the workers on both sides will have lost.”
Nope. The world’s workers win if the NATOstani empire is defeated.
“And that, TS, is the real issue we should be focussing on here – not looking upon this sordid conflict from the dehumanized perspective of some parody of an armchair military strategist who whiles away his time scouring the web for conspiracy sites”
Like the conspiracy about the US blowing up Nordstream 2? That conspiracy? Lol
“to lend support to his perverse bourgeois-nationalist take on the world.”
Word salad. Lol
Perhaps the author’s opinion is correct regards urban warfare. He does cite exceptions such as the first siege of Grozny where he concedes the Chechen’s defence had the advantage. I don’t think his thesis is applicable to Bakhmut but no matter.
My point is that Russia launched its attack to take the town in the middle of last year and has so far failed to do so. Yet you insist it is a sign that Russia is winning the war. I think that is delusional.
Tinky Winky
As you have failed to show any understanding of for instance Lenin’s theory of Imperialism, Marx’s theory of value, Marx’s theory of class conflict, etc.
Given that it appears that you have confused the ideas of Hobbes, Feuebach and Marx with those of Nostradamus.
Could you please explain to us your concept of Materialism?
Howay son, I could do with a laugh.
Actually it’s very important because it puts into question your claims to be materialists and therefore Marxists. If you are nothing but ideologues confirming your own biases through MSM rags and CIA front groups then you are not materialists. And therefore not Marxists. But we already knew that didn’t we?
__________________________
lol TS, You get more entertaining by the minute. You wouldn’t know what a “materialist” was, let alone a socialist if you tripped over Marx´s beard as someone once colourfully put it. I don’t know why you even presume to have any connection with Marxism or Marxist thought. You have made your contempt for the Marxian objective – the abolition of the wages system – pretty apparent. You have fully declared your absolute and undying fealty to Russian capitalism and your capitalist warlord cum master, Putin, whose boots you lick like some faithful poodle.
It’s amusing also that you consider we are nothing but “ideologues confirming your own biases through MSM rags and CIA front groups”. I would love to know what MSM rag or CIA front it is that you have in mind that shares our principled opposition to both sides in this capitalist conflict. Care to name one TS or is this just the usual ill-informed bluster that you come out with ? As a muddlehead you are unsurpassed on the pages of this debate forum.
I think your disgusting anti-working class views, your dehumanizing view of fellow workers as mere cannon fodder or raw material to turn into “fertilizer” puts you on par with the fascists you claim to oppose. Your far-right ultra-nationalism is certainly something you share with them.
As has been pointed out before if you feel so passionately about the cause of Russian capitalism why not volunteer to take up arms on behalf of your capitalist master instead of being the perpetual armchair warrior cum computer nerd scouring the web for conspiracy sites to fuel your nationalist fantasies? Do you have the bottle to put your money where your mouth is and bugger off Russia if you feel so strongly about this cause? It would be good to have some sanity restored to this forum sans the ravings of a quasi-fascist like yourself
L.B. Neill care to rein in your mutt? Thought not.
He is not a mutt, nor is he ‘mine’ to control.
Your concept of ownership clearly extends to people and using terms to dehumanise people, mere chattel of a needless war generated by oligarchs. Chattel in Eastern Europe, and on forums. You objectify people and degrade them… the war front from your keyboard… targeting people trying to end oppression and challenge your rigid fanatical thinking. That said:BD, Robbo and others have comments to make. They have their own style of argument different to me. They are ending oppression by democratic means and by education.
We can all do better at arguing the idea and not attack the person.
There are many paths to socialism… and the common goal is a ‘prosocial’ society.
What is happening in this war shows the barbarity of competing capital interests
What I see in this war is barbarity.
Do you agree or disagree: it is either socialism or barbarism?
Starting the topic again with more civil tones.-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
TW – “That state sector wouldn’t exist were it not for the struggles of actual socialists.”
So presumably the following state sector enterprises in the US, were created by the “struggles of actual socialists”:
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
Corporation for National and Community Service (AmeriCorps)
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
Farm Credit Banks
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Financing Bank (FFB)
Federal Home Loan Banks
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR)
The Financing Corporation
Gallaudet University
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)[
Legal Services Corporation
Millennium Challenge Corporation
National Cooperative Bank
National Corporation for Housing Partnerships (NCHP); Washington, D.C.
National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility (CLF)
National Endowment for Democracy
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
National Park Foundation
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation; Washington, D.C.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Securities Investor Protection Corporation
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
United States Postal Service
YRC WorldwideAnd presumably the UK Tory Party who undertook the nationalisation of the following rail companies in recent years, were also “actual socialists”:
Northern Rail
London North East Railways
South East TrainsWhat a spud
Correction: Not spud.
Spuds are what the likes of pro-Putin ilk will have us eat, while they polish their tin stars granted to them by Putin in the service of keyboard stalking of socialists or anyone who questions.
Don’t get me wrong- the humble spud is a staple diet of the working class in many regions. So there must be another term you can use other than ‘spud’.
In the age of exposing capitalist oligarchs and their 30 year seizure of the apex structure after the USSR rebranded from state capitalism to oligarch capitalism, surely we can come up with a direct remark.
I propose: “what an oli-follower’! After all our humble spud should be reclaimed by us.And I am sure TW is not a billionaire with vast interests in Russia, nor any accumulation of capital in his grasp- only the prospect of a dull tin star.LBN – On reflection, I can see your point. Linking a useful and (in my opinion tasty) item to our resident Stalinist, is a little disrespectful to the spud.
That said, and with respect, I can’t see “oli follower” tripping off the tongue very easily. I had used the term “tosspot” which was frowned on by our sage and patient moderator. However I do think this is a good term. It does not, as some think, have an obscene derivation. Although some have stated that it derived from tossing the pot down the throat (drinking heavily or befuddled) others have said it derives from the lowliest of servants to the great lord, who had the lowest job in the household, tossing (turning over) the porridge in the kitchen.
As TW really is the humble servant and master to the mighty lord (Putin) I think he does fit the epithet tosspot
Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters criticised for calling for peace because he accurately said it was provoked and despite calling the invasion illegal.
Rather than representing the view of Russia, the musician said he was speaking on behalf of “four billion or so brothers and sisters” – the majority of Earth’s population.
He continued: “So what do the voiceless millions have to say? They say thank you for hearing us today. We are many who do not share in the profits of the war industry.
“We do not willingly raise our sons and daughters to provide fodder for your cannons.
“In our opinion, the only sensible course of action today is to call for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. Not one more Ukrainian or Russian life is to be spent, not one, they are all precious in our eyes.”
Waters was earlier smeared as an anti-semite for his criticism of Israel and support for BDS. Unrelated? Or convenient timing?
“Do you agree or disagree: it is either socialism or barbarism?
Starting the topic again with more civil tones.”I agree it is socialism or barbarism but I do not agree with your framing of the conflict as one of competing capitalisms. It is of a global empire in decline against an emerging multi-polar order led by Russia and China. What is taking place is a tectonic shift of power away from the imperial core countries to the rest of the world. The new order will be fundamentally different from the old because imperialism will no longer be its animating drive.
The new world that is emerging will be based on win-win economic relations rather than naked aggression, coups and ruthless exploitation. Socialism will have breathing space to thrive in this new environment but only if the US and the other core imperialist counties (Europe. Australia/New Zealand, Japan and Singapore) are defeated in their ambitions to maintain the status quo.
The barbarism dial is about to be turned up to 11 with it now appearing almost certain there will be war between the US and its clients with China within the next 5 years. Frankly, I don’t see how a nuclear exchange can be avoided but that’s just too horrible to contemplate.
If we can agree that in all countries of the world today, the dominant economic system is capitalism, whether the fictitious “free enterprise” or mixed “command” economy, what is the inherent common quality of such society?
The Marxist would say it is the profit-motive, the accumulation of capital that is driven by the expansion and growth of the market.
If all nation-states are subject to this imperative, regardless of intent, they will inevitably come into conflict with others.
There can be no win-win.
For one national capitalist class to succeed and thrive, its rivals must lose.
Not necessarily immediately as we see both the US and China can increase their trade and reach a certain amount of mutual benefit from their imports and exports, offshoring and out-sourcing factories.
Just this week despite the increased military tension and a trade war commerce between US and China reached a new record – $690.6bn (£572.6bn)
But in the long run, competition will intensify and national capitalists, the nation’s corporate interests and what Marx called its executive committee, a country’s government, will engage in economic warfare, as we see happening with those industries facing a direct challenge are protected by the government tariffs.
Of course, there is an internecine phase where Big Business squabbles over the taxes paid (or more often than not avoided and evaded) and both US and China have had corporations reined in by the government in recent years.
The economic war to preserve and expand one’s market is also played out on the world stage as we see in Africa, client-states being fought over to capture raw materials and resources.
Another aspect to consider. One of the assumptions of Brexit was that the UK could win new business agreements with non-EU countries but the reality was that by not having the leverage of a strong trading bloc, the UK has lost out on negotiating advantageous terms for itself even with so-called allies such as the USA and Commonwealth countries. There is no loyalty to be expected from supposed friends in business. The UK GDP has fallen because of Brexit.
I began by saying that capitalism can be identified by its need to make profits for its owners, whether private investors or state-bureaucrats. Marx’s achievement was in revealing the source of profits – the surplus-value extracted from the unpaid portion of the worker’s labour-power.
If the Labour Theory of Value is true there can also be no win-win for the employee. That is why wage labour is described as legalised robbery by all Marxists. There is no fair pay. It is the reason why Marxists say that all wealth is created not by entrepreneurship but by labour. We are robbed regardless of whether we work for a privatised company or a nationalised one.
But to answer the question, socialism or barbarism? , if a nuclear war doesn’t get us, climate change will.
And that is another direct consequence of capitalism’s greed for profit.
“If we can agree that in all countries of the world today, the dominant economic system is capitalism, whether the fictitious “free enterprise” or mixed “command” economy”
We don’t agree. In China capitalism is not in charge. It plays its role in the development of the forces of production but the Chinese state is not a vehicle for maximising the interests of the capitalist class. You are not a socialist, you are an idealogue. Your opinions about what is or is not “socialism” are of no value to socialists.
“what is the inherent common quality of such society?
The Marxist would say it is the profit-motive, the accumulation of capital that is driven by the expansion and growth of the market.”
China is run by Marxists as is Vietnam, Cuba and Laos. The leaders of all these countries disagree that the profit motive is inherent to their societies. It is a temporary and necessary stage on their road to communism.
“If all nation-states are subject to this imperative, regardless of intent, they will inevitably come into conflict with others.”
The above mentioned countries are not subject to this “imperative”. Their imperative is development and the building of socialism.
“There can be no win-win.”
Says the man who claims he has no crystal ball. Found it did you? Why should we pay any attention to you? You can’t even figure out what’s going on in the biggest conflict to hit Europe since WW2.
“For one national capitalist class to succeed and thrive, its rivals must lose.”
Not true as you say yourself.
“Not necessarily immediately as we see both the US and China can increase their trade and reach a certain amount of mutual benefit from their imports and exports, offshoring and out-sourcing factories.”
China’s capitalist class does not rule China. They are developing the forces of production and their population for communism.
“Just this week despite the increased military tension and a trade war commerce between US and China reached a new record – $690.6bn (£572.6bn)”
Indeed. Not likely to last long though.
“But in the long run, competition will intensify and national capitalists, the nation’s corporate interests and what Marx called its executive committee, a country’s government, will engage in economic warfare, as we see happening with those industries facing a direct challenge are protected by the government tariffs.”
Marx was not around to write about the behaviour of a socialist government.
“Of course, there is an internecine phase where Big Business squabbles over the taxes paid (or more often than not avoided and evaded) and both US and China have had corporations reined in by the government in recent years.”
Taxes do not fund federal government spending.
“The economic war to preserve and expand one’s market is also played out on the world stage as we see in Africa, client-states being fought over to capture raw materials and resources.”
China is not “fighting” anyone in Africa.
“Another aspect to consider. One of the assumptions of Brexit was that the UK could win new business agreements with non-EU countries but the reality was that by not having the leverage of a strong trading bloc, the UK has lost out on negotiating advantageous terms for itself even with so-called allies such as the USA and Commonwealth countries. There is no loyalty to be expected from supposed friends in business. The UK GDP has fallen because of Brexit.”
Britain’s ruling class is as dumb as a sack of hammers but then so is that of the continent. They’re running their respective countries into the ground. Good. Once they’ve lost their legitimacy they can be overthrown. But don’t expect any members of the SPGB to be manning the barricades.
“I began by saying that capitalism can be identified by its need to make profits for its owners, whether private investors or state-bureaucrats.”
A false dichotomy from a false socialist. Socialist governments use the profits for development and emancipation from want.
“Marx’s achievement was in revealing the source of profits – the surplus-value extracted from the unpaid portion of the worker’s labour-power.
If the Labour Theory of Value is true there can also be no win-win for the employee. That is why wage labour is described as legalised robbery by all Marxists.”
No, only if the employer is a capitalist.
“There is no fair pay. It is the reason why Marxists say that all wealth is created not by entrepreneurship but by labour. We are robbed regardless of whether we work for a privatised company or a nationalised one.”
You twist the words. There is fair pay in a government run by socialists.
“But to answer the question, socialism or barbarism? , if a nuclear war doesn’t get us, climate change will.”
Something we agree on.
“And that is another direct consequence of capitalism’s greed for profit.”
We agree there too. But that’s no reason to give up the struggle. We’re all gonna die anyway. Heck, even the universe has a used by date.
It seems as if you reject the concept that there can exist a capitalist mode of production without the capitalist class, where a party bureaucracy can substitute for private owners and collectively own and control the means of production.
It also appears that you believe that there is a transitional society called a ‘workers state’ that is non-exploitative and acts in the interests of working people, sometimes labelled ‘socialism’ or a ‘people’s democracy’, which is not capitalism but not yet communism.
I refer you to our Party tweet that Fox News reported.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.