Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,950 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 12 hours, 34 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I largely agree with the emphasis on material interests, although I would add one qualification. We should be careful not to imagine the capitalist class as a single conscious body capable of collectively calculating when war has become too expensive and then simply turning it off.
Capitalism is competitive not only between individual capitals but also between states and blocs of capital. Different sections of the owning class can have conflicting interests. What benefits arms manufacturers may damage other industries; what benefits one national capital may threaten another; and what appears rational to one state from the standpoint of strategic competition may impose enormous costs upon capital elsewhere.
That is precisely why capitalism can produce wars which, viewed retrospectively, seem economically disastrous. There does not have to be a conspiracy or a single capitalist command centre directing everything. Competition itself can generate the conflict.
Political leaders and military establishments also acquire interests of their own, but ultimately they operate within a society whose wealth is produced by workers and whose states depend upon maintaining the conditions for capital accumulation.
So I would not confidently predict when Russia will be reintegrated into the wider world economy. But the general point remains important: today’s mortal enemies can become tomorrow’s trading partners when economic and strategic circumstances change. Capital has no permanent friendships, only changing interests.
And this brings us back to the position of workers. Whether Russian, Ukrainian, American, Chinese or European, they are repeatedly asked to identify their interests with those of “their” state and “their” national capitalist class.
Yet workers do the fighting, produce the weapons, finance states through the wealth they create, suffer the destruction and are then expected to rebuild what war has destroyed.
That old definition of a rifle therefore captures something profound:
“A steel tube with a member of the working class at each end.”
The socialist answer is not to decide which worker at which end of the rifle represents the more deserving national interest. It is to ask why workers should be pointing rifles at one another in defence of competing interests that are not fundamentally their own.
The tragedy is not simply that wars are expensive for capitalism. It is that workers are persuaded that conflicts between competing states and ruling classes are their conflicts too.
Still talk about sending troops.
Tass – Very short war warning.
Families in Russia able to buy gas masks as thousands of bunkers are prepared.
Putin lifts 30-year gas mask ban, restores bunkers as Russia prepares for ‘worst case’
Rehearsing the blockade of Kaliningrad and isolation of St. Petersburg.
https://tass.com/politics/2188671
Readying to attack Russia soon.
Hot phase to start by 2029/30.
Izvestia: https://iz.ru/en/node/2168250
Tass:
Western statements on Kaliningrad
– Russia has taken note of statements from European capitals about plans to blockade the Kaliningrad Region and considers them reckless: “We have repeatedly heard statements from Poland and other European countries – quite reckless statements – that also touched on Kaliningrad.”– Russian diplomats are reminding “hotheads” in Europe that Russia’s policy documents provide for a nuclear response to any attempt to blockade the Kaliningrad Region: “It is only natural that our diplomats are trying to remind the hotheads in Europe of our fundamental documents on the matter.
Apparently, many of Europe’s capitalists want to do business with Russia, yet the governments continue to intensify war hysteria.
Aren’t heads of state and their minions supposed to enforce the will of the capitalist class they represent? Are the capitalists in munitions the most powerful? Surely they too want Russia as a market?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.