ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just realised that that dates from October 2022 and anyway he said could rather than will. I don’t know if he is still saying that today in the current situation.
In any event, this is the worst Labour government that there has ever been. And from day one.
Here is how the floated change is analysed by a Russian pro-government outlet:
It seems to be a case of Russia upping in ante to try to deter the other side from taking some action.
Note the bit at the end about a US,British or French satellite being shot down rather than a direct attack on their territory.
Incidentally I can’t see Biden allowing Britain to go it alone, but I can imagine Sir Kyiv Starmer being so reckless and warmongering as to what to do so. After all, just as Reeves has declared Labour is the “party of business” so Starmer has declared that it is “the party of NATO”.
Depends what you mean by “being targeted”. Russia will have had nuclear weapons trained on European sites for two generations. But if you mean that these sites would be hit in the event of Ukraine using long-range missiles supplied by NATO to attack Russia then that would be the product of your incorrigible doomsaying.
A more rational interpretation of what Putin is saying would be that he is pointing out how weak militarily Europe is compared to Russia and that those in charge of European governments should take this into consideration in their decision-making.
Actually, Hudson’s opening contribution, about the general nature of the US government’s debt and why the US will not go bankrupt (and so why this is a non-issue even for capitalists), is not bad.
The rest is not up to much, with Wolff’s knockabout stuff and reformist talk from the both of them about taxing the rich to save the pensions system.
Interesting that TUSC (and SPEW) are involved. Maybe it will lead to their disappearance from the political scene. Apparently it’s former Labour MP Dave Nellist who has been involved.
Here’s TUSC’s account of what’s been going on:
https://www.tusc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TUSC-Briefing-on-the-Collective.pdf
I think they used to be a Maoist “Marxist-Leninist” party. This is still on their site:
Programme of the proletarian socialist revolution
The proletariat in this neo-colony, where the capitalist production system dominates and a bourgeoisie subservient to imperialists is in power, faces the challenge to prepare for socialist revolutionary tasks and achieve them. In order to achieve them the Sri Lankan proletariat presents this programme. More…But when you press “more” you get this message;
“ Not found, error 404
The page you are looking for no longer exists”.She’s said it again. Here’s what Reeves writes in today’s Times:
“We ran as a pro-business party and we are governing as a pro-business party.”
Yes indeed.
In case you are wondering what the jam we are promised tomorrow if we tighten our belts today, it’s:
“a Britain where families have more money in their pockets, so they don’t have to worry about the weekly shop”
“an NHS that is once again there for you when you need it.”
Oh yeah.
No it doesn’t. It could just a way of inculcating loyalty to the state from its subjects.
I don’t think for one moment that the rulers of Russia expect still less want a total war with NATO any more than the rulers of the US want one with them.
They are both practising the doctrine of “if you want peace, prepare for war” by building their military might. They know that a total war between them would mean “mutually assured destruction”. In fact this is the message they want to give. It’s a mad solution dictated by a mad system but it seems to have worked for the last 80 years.
So voters in Sri Lanka have elected a “Marxist-leaning president”. That will be the reflection at the ballot box of the popular unrest there that led to the overthrow of a previous government.
But what is a “Marxist-leaning” person?
One thing is certain. No matter how far he leans towards Marxism he won’t be able to fix the capitalist economy in Sri Lanka so as make it work for the benefit of workers there (as Marx could have told him).
Well, we’ve got a new government here that is pledged to facilitate things getting worse. A pledge we can be sure they will honour.
Here’s a translation of what an anonymous French intellectual wrote in 1979 under the heading “Abolish Money or Abolish the Commodity?”
“Money is currently the essential concrete representation of the exchange value of the commodity, of its real substance. Abolishing money is to abolish only one concrete representation of exchange value. This exchange value can well take on other faces, other forms of concrete representation. So to abolish money is not at all to abolish the commodity. Obviously abolishing the commodity will abolish its substance, exchange value, and its concrete representation, money.”
What the French intellectual forgot to spell out was that the commodity (as an item of wealth produced to be sold) only comes into existence where there is private property and private production as exchange of products can only take place between separate owners. So to abolish the commodity can only be done by replacing private ownership by common ownership.
What we socialists advocate is the common ownership of productive resources; this will end production for sale and so the commodity, and so exchange value, and so money.
Here’s how the official Russian state news agency reported what Volodin said:
https://tass.com/politics/1845365/amp
Note the difference between:
“What the European Parliament is calling for opens the way to a nuclear world war,”
And Reuters translation:
“What the European Parliament is calling for leads to a world war using nuclear weapons,”
I don’t know what the Russian word he used was but “opens the way to” and “leads to” are not the same. The second implies that a nuclear war will result; the first that it makes one more possible.
Both of them are saying that, in the event of a long-range NATO missile being launched against Russia, Russia would retaliate against Ukraine using a “powerful weapon”.
It looks as if NATO may have backed down and is saving face by not making any official announcement. But if it hasn’t backed down and a long-range NATO missile is used against Russia, then we can expect Russia to deploy its “powerful weapon” against Ukraine (but not a nuclear strike on Britain or America).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyvpv1lzq6o
Oh dear, things have only got worse for him as he has had to take the tough decision to refuse more freebies.
Now he can say that we all in it together: You can’t heat your flat, and I have to pay for my Armani suits.
Don’t know whether this statement from Russia’s long-standing foreign minister will re-assure TM but it sets out what Russia’s position is. Basically, Don’t or we will use some more powerful weapon that we have not yet used. Presumably he is referring to tactical nuclear weapons though not necessarily. Anyway, he is not talking about pressing the red button.
I was going to say the same that, if Russia does use nuclear weapons in retaliation for further provocation from NATO these will be tactical ones used against Ukraine. Also, of course, their spokespersons are upping the rhetoric to try to dissuade NATO from allowing Ukraine to use on Russia longer range NATO missiles.
I know we always say Labour Tory, Same Old Story but it is a bit surprising that Starmer should continue Borys’s dream of being a war leader. You’d have thought Labour might have stood up to the unbalanced generals who want to go further even than the Pentagon. But then all Labour governments have supported Britain’s “imperialist” pretensions.
