ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
beler1 wrote:Vladimir Putin's recent speech about the heroes of WW1 is also worth reading, if only for the telling sentence:'But this victory [i.e. of Russia in WW1] was stolen from our country. It was stolen by those who called for the defeat of their homeland and army, who sowed division inside Russia and sought only power for themselves, betraying the national interests.'
I see he really did say that ! In fact the whole of his speech is really terrible. You wouldn't think he was talking about the Tsarist regime. Another extract:
Quote:The Russian army’s great values and the heroic experience of the generation who fought in World War I played a big part in our people’s spiritual and moral upsurge at that moment. This was a generation that was fated to go through not just the difficult trials of the first global world war, but also the revolutionary upheaval and fratricidal civil war that split our country and changed its destiny.But their feats and their sacrifices in Russia’s name were forgotten for long years. World War I itself, which the rest of the world calls the Great War, was erased from our country’s history and was labelled simply ‘imperialist’. Today, we are restoring the historical truth about World War I and are discovering countless examples of personal courage and military skill, and the true patriotism of Russia’s soldiers and officers and the whole of Russian society. We are discovering the role Russia played in that difficult and epoch-changing time for the world, especially in the pre-war years. And what we see reflects very clearly the defining features of our country and our people.Russia over many centuries supported strong and trusting relations between countries. This was the case on the eve of World War I too, when Russia did everything it could to convince Europe to find a peaceful and bloodless solution to the conflict between Serbia and Austro-Hungary. But Russia’s calls went unheeded and our country had no choice but to rise to the challenge, defend a brotherly Slavic people and protect our own country and people from the foreign threat. Russia stayed true to its duties as an ally. The Russian offensives in Prussia and Galicia upset the adversary’s plans and made it possible for our allies to hold the front and defend Paris. The enemy was forced to turn its attention and direct a large part of its forces east where Russian regiments put up the fiercest possible struggle. Russia withstood the attack and was then able to launch an offensive. The Brusilov offensive became famous throughout the whole world.But this victory was stolen from our country. It was stolen by those who called for the defeat of their homeland and army, who sowed division inside Russia and sought only power for themselves, betraying the national interests.Up until 1990 people in Russia were taught that WW1 was an "imperialist" war (as it was). Now it is in the interest of the current ruling class there to "revise" this and present this war as a heroic, nation(alist) episode. We hold no brief for the Bolsheviks (quite the opposite) but they were right on this point (as were the Menshevik Internationalists too).
If the writer had based their article on the editorial in this month's Standard they would have seen that the position the Economist of the time took up is referred to
Quote:Rather surprising is the position of another pro-ruling class historian, Niall Ferguson, who argues that Britain should have stayed out and let the Continental Powers fight it out amongst themselves. This was in fact the position taken up by some members of the Liberal government at the time.Four members of the Liberal government actually resigned over the issue:http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/document_packs/p_diplomaticsituation.htmWe have always recognised that the capitalist class is not a monolithic bloc but that different sections have different interests, as in this case.John Burns, incidentally, a former member of the SDF, was the first "working man" to become a cabinet minister. At least on this issue he was right if for the wrong reason.
ALB wrote:UK GDP has indeed reached its pre-2008 level but, as has been pointed out, GDP per head of population is not expected to reach its pre-crisis level for another three years (because of course the population has increased since then).Confirmation of this in an article in the Independent a couple of days ago:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-facing-lost-decade-of-economic-growth-9647817.html
Brilliant article in today's Times by David Aaronovitch entitled "The glory of independence is just a mirage" and subtitled "As a separate nation Scotland would end up with less autonomy as it dragged along in the tow of its bigger neighbour". Unfortunately you have to register or pay to read the Times on line.The best part is where he imagines the arguments a fictional Marxist used to put against Scottish independence:
Quote:Let us imagine a true Scots Marxist of the old scholarly school and call her Catriona Lenin. Subjecting what has happened since the 1960s to a "class analysis" she would doubtless conclude that the Scottish bourgeoisie found its interests imperfectly represented by British Toryism and so gradually went over to the SNP.Catriona would have no trouble in showing how the Scottish elite has got behind nationalism and independence, disguising (as it always does) its own interests in the language of idealism. Imagine how that part of the Scots establishment that doesn't live in London or Los Angeles stands to gain from independence! Think of all those new ambassadors to the US, Paris, and Buenos Aires! The new Scottish Broadcasting Corporation with its own DG and parallel bureaucracy! All those government contractsgoing to Scottish architects, subsidies to Scottish artists and so on. Valhalla with better food.Meanwhile nothing else, predicts grumpy Catriona, will change. She points out the cake-and-eat-it character of Salmondism, in which no difficult choices are made, almost nothing is actually altered — not the Queen, taxes, currency or property — yet everything is somehow different. Young people will be better off with a Yes! There'll be no austerity in Scotland with a Yes! And no bill.One of his arguments is that his neighbours who used to put this argument no longer do but have gone over to supporting independence as they imagine that an independent Scotland would be able to pursue a more reformist policy (but which he convincingly argues they wouldn't be able to because independence for small countries is a mirage). Would could his neighbours be? Tariq Ali for one?Bring back Catriona (Marx) !
Email received from a sympathiser in Canada who is not on this forum:
Quote:You have possibly seen this article by Paul Craig Roberts. I only got a little way into it and I clicked on the second link below and I have not yet finished reading Roberts. Apparently there are two articles, one following the other.]The article in Global Research, whose articles on all sorts of subjects are usually well researched, is an excellent documentation of the evolution of Ukraine and Russia's present relationship. At the end of this description the author describes the likelihood that Ukraine is being set up as an American base — leading to the possibility of outright war. [Roberts is more or less confirming this in his documentation.] From the political point-of-view Russia could not afford to have theFifth Fleet anchored in the Crimea and had to take it back. Will the threat of American troupes training with and supplying military equipment on their Ukraine border be acceptable to Russia?Perhaps when the Ukrainian population realises the terms of the World Bank loans, which will throw the country into even worse poverty, they may create another Maiden to throw this government out, but that could become a bloody civil war since the U.S. wouldn't want to let Ukraine go.Trevorhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39229.htmThe World Is Doomed By Western InsoucianceDon't expect to live much longerBy Paul Craig Robertshttp://www.globalresearch.ca/collapse-of-ukraine-government-prime-minister-yatsenyuk-resigns-amidst-pressures-exerted-by-the-imf/5393168Collapse of Ukraine Government: Prime Minister Yatsenyuk Resigns amidst Pressures Exerted by the IMF By Prof Michel Chossudovsky ____________________"If everyone demanded peace insteadof another television set, then there'dbe peace."1940 – 1980 – John LennonThe Monument is an entertaining read but it's not really a history of the SPGB, more a series of anecdotes (some of them rather dubious) about events and members. It probably doesn't do us any harm though, even if the title was deliberately chosen from an opponent's jibe that the "SPGB is more a monument than a movement". Baltrop was not a member of the party when he first drafted it. As we said in his obituary:
Quote:He was best known though for his work The Monument (1975), which remains a fascinating and entertaining introduction to the history of the SPGB. The book was largely written in the 1960s while he was out of contact with the Party, which explains the contentiousness of some of its many stories, anecdotes and perceptions.So enjoy it but don't take what it says as gospel.
Not sure about that. If we want to go down that road it would have to be 'Neither Edinburgh nor London' since we haven't got anything against the elected assemblies as such that sit in Holyrood or Westminster (have we?). But I still say it makes more sense, for a write-in vote (since this is what it is), to reject the two choices on offer on the actual ballot paper.
Revealing insight into the mind of the petty nationalist. They really do seem to think that a change of venue where decisions to put profit before needs are made (or rather imposed by the workings of capitalism) will make a difference. And what about the really naive one who thinks that a separate Scottish state could end the need for food banks.
The Irish article is about the distribution of income whereas, for us, the key factor is the distribution of wealth. To a large extent the distribution of income (which is less unequal than the distribution of wealth, which itself is less unequal than the distribution of income-yielding assets) is a consequence of the distribution of wealth, with a big chunk going as property income to the property owners.
That's not just any old article but one by the man himself, Jeremy Rifkind. It would be nice if this really was "the invading socialist society" but it isn't even if it makes our case more plausible.
I agree that it's a fair point to say that Piketty's has provided a theoretical justification for reforms that the Left were advocating anyway just as Keynes did in the 1930s. Whether his intention is to "save capitalism" by diverting attention and activity from campaigning for socialism is more debatable. I doubt it but it doesn't really matter. In any event, he doesn't appear to think that realistically capitalism can be saved from itself.
LBird wrote:YMS, I'm a Communist, not a Liberal.Why you continue to engage me with individualist ideas, I'll never know.Why not start a thread named 'Science for Individualists', and leave this one to the self-professed Communists?Ironically, it is your view that gives some standing to "individualist" ideas in that it makes any individual's "bias" (the new word here for "ideology") as good or as bad as the next while YMS's view says that it is possible for humans to share the same "bias", over non-social science today and over most things in socialism/communism, so that a common understanding/interpretation can be reached and acted on. He could claim to be more "common-ist" than thou. In the end of course It's relativism v universalism again (and again).
A contemporary reference to Grayson in the Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1908/no-43-march-1908/graysonss-gratitude-sdf
LBird wrote:Are you implying that the term 'ideology' should be used in the context of 'scientific knowledge'?No. It's better to find some alternative term since, in the Marxian tradition, "ideology" is a prejorative word.
LBird wrote:It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.Totally agree with the first part, but not the way the second is expressed (because it uses the word "ideology"). Better to say something like "which is required if the brain/mind produces a simple photograph (or 3-D picture) of the world". Which of course it doesn't.
