ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Another example of “imbecilic nationalism on the rampage”:
I don’t why even some socialists subscribe to the idea that professional soccer is “the beautiful game”. It is more like the disgusting game, a combination of commercialism and nationalism that sets Worker against Worker.
When a state mobilises for war there is full employment. A reflection on capitalism of course as it can only provide everyone with a job when there’s a war.
But, as you say, who pays for it? It will have to come from the resources that the state already has or can acquire through taxation or borrowing. The Russian state is said to have prepared for this by building up its reserves. But, if the war goes on too long, at some point these will be exhausted and the Russian state will have to resort to taxation and borrowing — from its private capitalists and outside investors in its bonds.
This has its limits as taxing the private capitalists too much will risk them not finding it profitable enough to go on investing and it’s hard too see who from outside would want to lend to the Russian state. They might have to bring in a full-scale state-controlled war economy.
Of course all the wealth of the state and capitalists comes out of surplus value produced by workers. In war-time this can be increased by lowering the workers’ standard of living but this can’t go too far as it risked decreasing productivity. and so defeating the aim.
Although people talk of a “permanent arms economy” this is not really compatible with capitalism. Only a temporary one is.
Incidentally the Ukrainian state is bankrupt and only propped up by money (grants and loans from the US), but being among the most corrupt states in Europe even the US is wondering into whose pockets their money is going.
Yes that article in the Weakly Worker — it’s by Michael Roberts not by them — is good.
“Despite this evidence refuting the wage-price spiral, mainstream economics and the official authorities continue to claim that this is the key risk to sustained inflation. The reason for doing so is not really because the economic prize-fighters for capitalism believe that wage rises cause inflation. It is because they want ‘wage restraint’ in the face of spiralling inflation in order to protect and sustain profits.“
Here’s the link:
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1420/no-wage-price-spiral/
That will be very difficult to achieve and, if they don’t, what will be the point of the SNP? They will have shot themselves in the footnote and deservedly disappear into the dustbin of history.
If they really did have the support of a majority of the population of Scotland for breaking away from the rest of Britain they wouldn’t need to wait till the next general election or place their hopes in the legal system. They would be able to mobilise their supporters with mass rallies and other events to bring pressure to bear on the UK government to negotiate the terms of a referendum. They could even do what the Catalan separatists did and stage their own referendum.
But they won’t do this because they know that the support they have for their “maximum programme” is lukewarm and sentimental and wouldn’t be ready to press the point.
Interesting to see which MEPs, with which political affiliations and from which countries, dissent from the NATO policy in Ukraine.
Not everybody is following the official line.
Two letters from today’s Times exposing the absurdity (and, I would add, dishonesty) of the SNP’s claim that a general election can be turned into a referendum. It could possibly be, I suppose, if they did what the first letter suggests but of course they won’t.
“Sir, Reading your leading article wondered if anyone has pointed out to Nicola Sturgeon that if she insists on treating the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence she will have to ensure that the SNP’s (very short) manifesto for that election mentions independence as her party’s only policy. If any other policy is put forward it will be possible to claim that a voter has backed the SNP for that reason and not for the promise of independence. Thus she will have reduced the SNP to a one-trick pony.
Gervase O’Donohoe, Atworth, Wilts”“Sir, I live in Perthshire and we have four voters registered at our home address. I have kept the election communications that we received for the most recent Holyrood election from both the SNP and the Scottish Greens. They are professional and colourful documents, brimming with reasons to vote for those parties. There is no mention of an independence referendum from either set. In our house at least, the claims of a “mandate” sound especially hollow and weak.
Lord Kinnoull, House of Lords”A follower of this forum has sent in a statement by a “Marxist-Leninist” (ie Maoist) group, the Union of Communists of Ukraine, which seems to have some existence in the breakaway Donbass statelets (it is banned and repressed in Ukraine itself).
The position it takes – that what is going on is an inter-imperialist war in which the workers of Ukraine and Russia have no interest in getting killed for shows that even Stalinists can come to this conclusion.
However, they do seem to have some sympathy for the breakaway statelets:
“In their social composition, especially in the backbone of their armed formations, the Donbass republics were proletarian in nature. But in their political form, they were bourgeois republics and expressed the interests of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, who did not accept the radical anti-Russian nationalism of the post-Maidan government and its pro-Western course.
Since the formation of the LDPR, the UCU, taking into the account their internal contradictions, has been involved in helping the workers’ and communist organizations of these republics to form their ideological class position.”Anyway, here’s who they are:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Communists_of_Ukraine
And here is their statement:
Very revealing article here about how the US is profiting from the Ukraine war at the expense of the EU. Exploiting the EU’s need for an alternative supply of gas than Russia by selling it at a high price — profiteering is the more usual word — and preparing to make profits by selling EU countries arms as they will need to replenish their stock. Then there is the trade rivalry with the US seeking to protect its industries from overseas competition.
In this last respect, a French MEP confirms that even when it comes to negotiations over trade might is right:
“At some point, you have to assert yourself,” said French MEP Marie-Pierre Vedrenne. “We are in a world of power struggles. When you arm-wrestle, if you are not muscular, if you are not prepared both physically and mentally, you lose.”
That video of the Makhnovist song is rather disturbung with its gloriying the killing of the enemy. But that’s what you have to do to motivate your troops. Who is “Mother Anarchy” anyway, some substitute for “God”?
As well as the war between NATO and Russia, a civil war is going on the same area today between those who consider themselves Ukrainian and those who consider themselves Russian. But not with men on horses and rifles but with tanks and bombs.
It is also shows how utterly irrelevant today is the experience of Russian revolution and the civil war that followed. It is not a model to follow in any respect.
I see that the Supreme Court had to deal with the legal “right to self- determination” and cited other Courts’ rulings to conclude that this did not apply to Scotland.
They cited a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that held the right to self-determination under international law only existed in situations of “former colonies or where a people is oppressed” and that Quebec did not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people. The British Supreme Court (presided over by a Scottish law lord) concluded:
“The same is true of Scotland and the people of Scotland.”
Obviously socialists agree but then we don’t think that there is such a thing as a “right to self-determination”, though I suppose the rulers of existing capitalist states might find the concept useful to decide who can join (and who can’t) join their club.
I see that some Tory MPs too think that it was a Labour budget, only of course they absurdly brand it as “socialist”:
Actually, TM, that might be a better use of your talents — writing for the Socialist Standard again. You can send them handwritten if you like, but we’d prefer them in digital form.
There is some parallel between us and socialism and the SNP and Scottish Independence, in that both are or could be single aims. And the situation you speculate about could arise and will arise in the case of the SNP.
I doubt whether the SNP will fight the next UK general election on the single issue of Scottish independence. They will also appeal for votes on the basis of their record in office and on reforms to come. And I doubt very much whether they will say: Don’t vote for us if you don’t want Scottish independence.
That’s good news. Not that the SNP will try to make Scottish separatism the one issue in the next general election — election manifestos don’t mean anything — but that there’s not going to be another Scottish referendum. That would only divide the working class there and set one section against another.
