ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, I do. But the interests of the Western capitalist powers are not. They want to change the status quo to their advantage and are in that sense the aggressors. But they are not prepared to go to war to gain this advantage. They will know that Russia’s vital interests are at stake while theirs are not and so they cannot press Russia too far. That’s why I am guessing they will back down. Capitalist Russia will want to avoid war but, to get the West to back down, has to demonstrate that it would if the West doesn’t back off. Which they seem to be doing convincingly enough.
That’s my take but I’m not claiming to be a latter-day Engels “the General”.
Exactly but I think it’s bluff just like NATO sending a few thousand troops to Poland and other NATO states bordering on Russia. That’s how diplomacy works. Diplomats don’t just draw up ideal solutions. They take into account the real balance of forces on the ground. Might is Right. So sabre-rattling and bluff, as well as states equipping themselves with the most destructive weapons they can afford, are an essential part of international relations and diplomacy. War is only resorted to as a last resort when a state feels that its vital interests are at stake.
“a society that holds that everyone is a potential crook, out to get one over on others. This is the ideology of capitalism, which promotes such behaviour in the first place (school, sport, marketplace).”
True but it’s more than just an ideology of course. This view is a reflection of the real situation, i.e, in the case of international relations, competition between states to further the economic interests of their ruling capitalist class, which brings them into conflict with each other over sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets and investment outlets as well as over strategic points and areas to protect or secure these. Also, to a certain extent, in everyday life where everybody has to acquire money to survive, which brings them into competition with others over jobs and some to try to get one over on others — though here, in contrast to inter-state relations, this is countered by the fact that humans are social animals.
My guess would be that they will
drop the insistence that Ukraine join NATO while asserting or even proclaiming Ukraine’s abstract right to do so — a question of replacing the word “should” by “could”. But whatever the diplomatic formulation Ukraine won’t join NATO.Here’s the measure of Germany’s support for Ukraine.
The Western powers will not react militarily to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some of them such as Germany are even against economic sanctions as Russia could retaliate by cutting gas supplies to Europe so provoking an economic crisis. Russia doesn’t need to (and probably doesn’t want to) invade as it is in the stronger bargaining position since it is the West that is seeking to change the status quo. I would guess that the most likely outcome is that the West finds some face-saving formula to back down on its insistence that Ukraine join NATO. Meanwhile the rhetoric and sabre-rattling on both sides continues.
Haskins is a special case. He has explicitly accepted our definition of socialism, citing us by name, and has then criticised it. What we are demanding in this case is the right of reply.
It might be worth debating some of the other capitalist ideologues with a view to exposing their arguments and putting ours but only before an audience of interested workers, not just their or our supporters.
Ukrainian nationalism has an ugly history. Before WW1 what is now Ukraine was divided between the Austrian-Hungarian and the Russian Empires and after it between Poland and Soviet Russia. Lvov, the centre of the pro-West faction in Ukraine was a major Polish city. During this period the Ukrainian-speakers were discriminated against by the Polish government.
Under the Nazi-Soviet Pact the Polish part was annexed by Russia including Lvov. When Germany invaded Russia in 1941 many living in this part welcomed the Germans as liberators and many fought on the German side. Some served as concentration camp guards.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Ukraine
The trouble for the poor sods living in Central Europe is that history has dealt them a bad hand — no choice but to be dominated either by Germany or by Russia. It seems that the population of Ukraine is still divided over which, so providing the both sides with pawns to play to further their interests.
Yes. The Ukrainian armed forces wouldn’t stand a chance if Russia invaded. In fact in areas where the population speak Russian and adhere to the Russian Orthodox Church Russian troops might well be welcomed with flowers. Fortunately a Russian invasion is not going to happen. It’s just sabre-rattling and rhetoric to back up diplomatic negotiations.
This is bog standard currency crankism based on the ideas of the 19th century American currency crank Edward Kellogg. The author is arguing for the maximum rate of interest to be set at 1 percent. As you suggest, it shouldn’t really be on this thread but only the 100% banking one. The author is in fact critical of MMT.
Incidentally, the passage about banks in that review of Keen’s book is not Keen’s but that of the “neoclassicists” which he goes on to criticise. Despite their other misconceptions the “neo-classicists” are right on this one — banks are essentially financial intermediaries.
We had this debate in the Party years ago. One side argued that what was important was the Party case and it didn’t matter if it was printed on bog paper. Another in that school of thought said that there were no photos in Das Kapital. Others took a more reasonable position — that people will be more likely to read an article if it was accompanied by an illustration to break up a solid block of text.
You don’t want the Standard to look like the ICC’s “World Revolution”, do you.
Fitzgerald was referring to the anti-revisionist wing of international Social Democracy and by “Socialist and nothing else” he meant that non-Marxists should be excluded from future congresses like in particular the ILP in Britain (which was against invoking the class struggle and based its “socialism” on the Sermon on the Mount) and Jaurès in France who was little more than a leftwing bourgeois democrat. It was not a reference to advocating socialism “and nothing else”. Things didn’t turn out as he, writing in 1906, expected. In fact it got worse as the Labour Party, which didn’t even claim to be socialist, was admitted. That was why the SPGB decided not to be represented at future congresses, ie dropped out of the Second International.
As to the 2004 article, Luxemburg and Pannekoek would be the sort of individuals envisaged but many other, anonymous socialists. Incidentally, up to the outbreak of WW1, the mass extra-parliamentary action they envisaged was to extend or democratise the franchise ( even in Russia) and not to get socialism. I don’t know why you say that would be “an abomination” to us? We have often said that workers living in a state without political democracy should struggle for it. But how else could they do this except by extra-parliamentary mass action?
What’s worth noting is that, despite Johnson being as guilty as hell about breaking the covid rules and lying to Parliament, not a single cabinet or other minister has yet resigned. No wonder most people think that politicians are just in it for themselves.
I think the answer to my question is that you are not supposed to have access to iPlayer outside the UK and that technical measures to stop this are in place but which you can probably and with difficulty get round if you are a computer whizz-kid.
Anyway it’s all academic for the moment and it’s not planned to happen till 2028. That’s a long time, long enough for a Labour government to be elected which won’t be so open to pressure from the BBC’s commercial rivals who have been lobbying for the BBC’s wings to be clipped. But who knows with the Labour Party.
Isn’t that begging the question when the issue is whether what happened that day was a planned insurrection or a riot that got out of hand ?
Can’t you get it via BBC’s iPlayer which is free to join (though you are supposed to have paid the licence fee)? Or don’t they allow people from outside the UK to download it? I don’t know.
