ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Looks as if the Labour Party thinks it is already the government the way is seeking to save money and not frighten the rich.
Here’s a couple of headlines from the Times so far this week:
STARMER READY TO ABANDON PLEDGE ON FREE UNIVERSITY TUITION (Tuesday 2 May)
STARMER ABANDONS TAX RISE PLAN FOR THE TOP 5% (Wednesday 3 May).
Starmer made these promises to win the Labour Party leadership election. Having won that, he now casts them aside.
It’s plain to see the man’s a complete opportunist, just after the fruits of office. And of course he already got one reward, a knighthood, for serving the repressive side of capitalist state as chief prosecutor.
Those around him, who are expecting cabinet posts, are just as bad. They, too, are unashamed place-hunters.
You are not saying, are you, that the limited political democracy that exists in the UK and other constitutional monarchies is more limited than in the USA and France? A case could be made out for saying that it is less limited as the presidents of these two states are in effect elected kings with decision-making powers that constitutional monarchs don’t have.
Also, in some republics, the head of state is not directly elected, not in Germany or Italy for instance. I know the president of Austria is, but does that make Austria more democratic than Germany?
In any event, that is not the point. The point is that, whatever the constitutional situation, the economic situation is that capitalism exists in both republics and constitutional monarchies and that a changeover from the latter to the former would make no difference (whatsoever) to the problems generated by capitalism. It would be a completely irrelevant change and so not worth campaigning to bring about.
The case against changing to a republic making any difference can be stated in two words: one is “America”, the other is “France”.
Yes, further confirmation that banks don’t create out of thin air the money they lend, but are financial intermediaries borrowing money at one rate of interest and lending money at a higher rate. Generally, borrowing short-term to lend longer term.
Which means that if interest rates go up they could be in trouble. Today’s Times of London describes what happened to First Republic. The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, has been “lifting interest rates rapidly over the past 14 months” with this effect on First Republic:
“Their rise prompted customers to explore alternative options and, as higher rates also knocked the value of its mortgage portfolio, the lender had to stump up to keep depositors. It paid $428 million in interest on deposits during the last three months of 2022, up from $20 million during the same period of 2021. It paid $555 million during the first quarter of this year.”
Who says banks don’t need deposits.
But it hasn’t, TS, it is only by coincidence that the “Early May Bank Holiday” (the official name of the first Monday in May bank holiday) coincides this year with 1 May. In other years they are different. Personally, as a socialist, I never worked on May Day.
Even the man himself is too embarrassed to be anointed in public, so we won’t get to see and laugh at that but of superstitious nonsense. Apparently, it’s the most “sacred” part of the whole show:
Same down here as “Oop north”. Anyway, not like it was in 1938 for the coronation of George the whatever when
“two banners hung in the heart of a London slum. One read, “Down with Capitalism — God Save the King.” The other read, “Lousy but Loyal”.
Can’t buy a coronation mug anywhere. Don’t know what it’s like in Chelmsford and other parts of Essex to where they moved out people from the pre-WW2 slums of East London.
The government took the nurse’s union to court and managed to lessen their planned strike this weekend.
https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-england-nursing-strikes-legal-challenge-latest
An example of how governments act to defend profits. In this case not to have to increase taxes on them to pay state employees more or to spend the money on something more in the general UK capitalist interest — like sending arms to Ukraine.
Don’t be taken in. A Labour government, under Sir Chief Scammer, would have behaved the same. And will do. Just wait and see.
I think we may have been the first to come up with the concept of workers cooperatives in a market economy being workers having to exploit themselves in this article from 1969:
Imposs1904 has now put up the whole of that artice about Formosa:
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/04/facing-facts-in-formosa-1953.html
Then it was a question of Formosa (Taiwan) invading China with US support. Now it is a question of China invading Formosa. A measure of how the balance of imperialist forces has changed since 70 years ago in that area
Here’s what Article 5 of NATO says:
“Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”It does not say anything about using nuclear weapons or even about declaring war, just about taking “such action as it [a member state] deems necessary”. You could say that NATO’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an example of what could happen under Article 5.
In any event, Russia is highly unlikely to mount an armed attack on a NATO member state. So that all this is academic and speculation.
It is also unlikely that NATO will mount an armed attack on Russia. In fact, they seem to have told Ukraine not to do this either.
The crunch would come if ever Ukraine were to be in a position to invade and conquer Crimea. Even then it can be doubted that Russia would use nuclear weapons, though it could threaten to (though only against Ukraine). It has plenty of “conventional” weapons it could use or threaten to use to flatten Kiev or some other Ukrainian city.
So-called “conventional” warfare is bad enough (as we seeing daily in Ukraine).
No it won’t. All it says is that if one NATO state is attacked all the other NATO member states are obliged to help it. It doesn’t say that they have to drop a nuclear bomb on the attacking country. Where did you get that from?
Because there’s a war on between NATO and Russia. And war stories and scare stories sell newspapers and that attracts revenue from advertisers.
It seems that all Stoltenberg said is that Ukraine can join NATO after “victory”. But “victory” (in the sense of driving Russia troops out of and ethnically cleansing the Donbass and Crimea of pro-Russians) is completely unrealistic, that could be never.
And then there’s this:
Apparently — or ostensibly — the Hungarian government objects to Ukraine oppressing its Hungarian-speaking minority.
