Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,149 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“You can scrutinise Marx’s economic writings until your eyes ache and you wont find the cause of war in them.”
The original plan of “Capital” was to have a book on the state. I think this is where it would make sense to talk about modern war.
Actually, you are right that these days wars are not fought just over markets. They are fought over sources of raw materials and trade routes to move them and places to acquire or protect these.
This is well explained in this extract from an article in the Socialist Standard in July 1985;
“What then are the causes of international conflicts of interest and war? Some, but not many, wars are fought over markets. For example the opium wars, when British traders were able to get the government to go to war to compel China to allow the import of opium. In the modern world, markets take second place to strategic issues. The conflict between America and European countries on the one side and Russia on the other illustrates the point. It is not Russia but Japan, America’s ally which has flooded American and European markets with their cheaper products. The point was put in proper perspective by Professor Edwin Cannan in 1915:
‘Commercial interests seem to me to appear in international quarrels simply as a cover for strategic interests. Where there are not supposed to be divergent strategic interests, no amount of divergent or supposedly divergent commercial interests produces either war or preparations for war’ (An Economist’s Protest, page 26).
This exactly fits the relationship between America and Japan because the latter is held to be strategically so important to America’s control of the Pacific against Russia.The most frequent cause of conflict and war is the effort of national sections of capitalism to obtain control of needed overseas sources of food and other materials and to protect transport routes.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/1985/monopolyandwar.htm
Of course capitalist states only resort to war as a last resort. But they build up and maintain the most destructive weapons they can afford just in case and to negotiate from a stronger position over conflicts that could lead to war.
Actually, the position Marx abd Engels took up on war and wars in their day was wrong, and we have said so for ages. See the last chapter of this Party pamphlet on “War as an aid to progress of the socialist movement?”
Marx was also wrong in regard to the national question, and his excessive support to certain bourgeoisie revolution has provided excuses to the nationalists to tell the workers that they should support their own ruling class
One reason why the mainstream media speak with one (pro-NATO/Ukraine) voice: If a journalist doesn’t repeat the official line they get the boot:
Useful article on the economic background to the capitalist war in UKraine
Probably Ukraine has more important natural resources than the whole Middle East. The whole east coast of Latin America also has similar natural resources and the USA does not want China and Russia to take possession of those resources
The sensible Ukrainian workers, like their Russian counterparts, refusing to fight for their so-called motherland:
“What would you answer if someone called you a coward?” I ask, as gently as I can.
“I have no country,” he says awkwardly. “I just have a family.”
“I have no country,” he says awkwardly. “I just have a family.”
———————————————————-
It does sound like the expression of Eugene Debs.
Someone told me that she was not a nationalist or a patriotic person but she does not want any foreign workers on her country. It sound to me like nationalism
Further evidence that Greta has taken the NATO side in the current NATO-Russia war in Ukraine:
She’s now completely discredited.
She is a pawn of the western powers, accusing her of being a communist is only a smokescreen
I hadn’t realised that she had taken up an anti-Russia stance right from the start. That’s understandable in the sense of condemning any side that starts a war. But to say, a year and a half later, that the Russian attack on Ukraine was “unprovoked” is another matter. It is taking sides.
What was going on before Russia invaded was that both Russia and NATO were provoking each other in the course of which the West called Russia’s bluff. . .
She has also taken the Ukrainian line that Russia blew up that dam. But we don’t know yet who did or what really happened. Even some pro-NATO commentators are withholding judgment. Apparently she knows better.
She could have taken the more cautious approach taken in this article, but she hasn’t:
https://www.leftvoice.org/sabotaged-dam-in-ukraine-a-reactionary-act-no-matter-the-culprit/
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/8/7406020/
Nobody know who really blew up the dam in Ukraine. This is not an unprovoked war as she is saying, looking back to history of this war we can see that both sides were provoking each other, but NATO wanted Russia to shoot the first shot, and they fell in the trap, like Iraq did with the invasion of Kuwait
“Since I was a child, I have always had many Jewish friends. They say that Zelensky is not Jewish, but a disgrace to the Jewish people.” (Putin)
https://tass.com/politics/1634177
I wonder what he thinks of Macron and Blinken who also support a regime he considers Nazi?
What about Donald Trump who supports Nazis, Israel, white supremacists, admire the North Korea leader and Putin ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.