ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, as you pointed out, many of the second generation of refugees whose parents came from areas dominated by backward religious and cultural ideas and practices come to reject these. It’s the best thing that could happen to them. There are quite a few MPs in Parliament of all parties of “Muslim heritage” (as we have to say) but none of them as far as I know what to bring in legislation to oppress women or ban homosexuality. Quite the opposite. Many are women.
I think you are exaggerating the likelihood of climate change leading to mass migration on the scale that you are basing your worries on. But if it did happen, capitalism wouldn’t be able to cope with it properly and the last thing socialists should do would be to join those calling for pulling up the drawbridge to keep out “undesirable” refugees. We should be insisting that only within the framework of a world based on common ownership could any necessary mass migration be dealt with properly ie rationally and humanely.
You seem to be assuming that the revolution could take place in just one country but how could it? The very fact that you are assuming a climate crisis causing mass migration shows that we are talking about a global problem and so one that only has a global solution.
Capitalism, being politically divided into different capitalist states, is incapable of solving this problem. If it arose it could only be solved within the framework of a worldwide society based on the common ownership of the world’s productive resources. Then, if the worse cane to the worse, and climate change gets so bad that large numbers of people have to move, then such a society provides the framework in which this could be arranged rationally and in a humane way.
The other assumption which is unreasonable is assuming that the socialist movement could win political control in one state while the rest of the world remained capitalist. As socialism is a world concept and as conditions are basically the same the world over, if and when it takes off this is likely to spread at more or less the same rate everywhere. This is dealt with in chapter on Socialism and the Less Developed Countries of this pamphlet:
One implication of this is that most of the the people living in currently “Muslim” countries will no longer be Muslims but will have abandoned that religion and its prejudices and embraced socialist ideas. That these ideas will have spread there too.
Looks as if lefties in the US will face a dilemma over who — Biden or Trump — is the lesser evil again to vote for.
Trump said to be against capitalism:
Our position is clear of course:
Biden, Trump, Take a Running Jump
Report from Sheffield:
“Attended the rally on Saturday last and can advise that in the region of 250 to 300 gathered with various speakers, some of whom were clearly SWP members, addressing the crowd.
On behalf of the party I distributed about 160 leaflets and in some instances had a chat with those whom interested, so hopefully the party will have received some hits on our website using the QR code.
There was at one point a distraction of 5 or 6 people signing Rule Britannia whom were largely ignored and told to move on by the police so didn’t come to anything.”Since that Saturday there have been 10 hits on our site from the QR code on our leaflet.
Imposs1904 has just posted on his blog this relevant and good article from 1982:
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2024/01/promised-land-1982.html?m=1
Tomorrow the “International Court of Justice” will give a ruling on whether to grant an injunction calling on Israel to stop its campaign of destruction and killing of civilians in Gaza pending the Court’s decision on whether or not Israel has contravened the convention on genocide.
If they grant the injunction it wouldn’t make any difference on the ground as Israel will ignore it. If they don’t grant the injunction then they may as well change their name to the International Court of Jokers.
How would the market do that?
Most wars are not fought over markets but over sources of raw materials and trade routes and strategic points and areas to protect these.
As the late comrade Hardy pointed out in an article on “Markets, Monopoly and War” in the July 1985 Socialist Standard:
“What then are the causes of international conflicts of interest and war? Some, but not many, wars are fought over markets. For example the opium wars, when British traders were able to get the government to go to war to compel China to allow the import of opium. In the modern world, markets take second place to strategic issues. (…)
The most frequent cause of conflict and war is the effort of national sections of capitalism to obtain control of needed overseas sources of food and other materials and to protect transport routes. Petrol products have bulked large in this century. It has not been competition by oil producing countries to sell their oil that has threatened war but the importing countries’ need to have dependable supplies (…)
Lenin made a valid point in his Imperialism about some annexationist wars. He wrote that sometimes the powers try to annexe regions ‘not so much for their own direct advantage as to weaken an adversary and undermine its hegemony’.”Lenin’s point explains why NATO, ie the US, wants to control Ukraine — and why Russia went to war to try to stop this. Since NATO wants to control Ukraine not because it is of any particular advantage to them but to weaken Russia I can’t see them giving Ukraine nuclear weapons or them putting Russia in a position where it might feel it has to use its H-bombs. In fact, their declared position is to weaken Russia by keeping it bogged down in a long-lasting war with “conventional” weapons.
The wars in the Middle East have clearly been about the West’s need to have dependable supplies of oil (and now gas). I can’t see how this could lead the US unleashing a nuclear war, can you? It would rather defeat the purpose. Why do you think that Blinken is rushing around trying to prevent even a conventional war breaking out there?
That assumes that Trump will not have been elected President. Apparently he once said that NATO is dead and that the US would never help Europe in a war with Russia:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/donald-trump-says-never-help-europe-attack
Maybe that’s why some European militarists are worried and want to beef up their state’s armed forces and win popular support for this.
It seems it sells newspapers too.
Meanwhile the government doesn’t seem too happy with the views of Sir Patrick Blimp:
“In response to Gen Sir Patrick speech the UK prime minister’s spokesman said hypothetical scenarios of a future potential conflict were not helpful and ruled out any move towards a conscription model for the Army.”
Every day more military warnings.
Yes, currently militarists are campaigning for more money to be spent on the armed forces and their weapons, exaggerating the threat from Russia to back up their case.
For instance, there is an editorial in today’s Times headed “Big Stick” with the subheading “Russia’s potential for nuclear adventurism justifies the updating of Britain’s deterrent”. Apparently, Russia has an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons (to be used on the battlefield rather than to blow up the world). The editorial concludes:
“‘Speak softly and carry a big stick,’ goes the proverb. In this uncertain world Britain requires its nuclear big stick more than ever.”
I thought the “proverb” was first enunciated by US President Theodore Roosevelt. It is a theory of diplomacy which accepts that relations between capitalist states are based on the principle that “might is right”.
It doesn’t necessarily imply that the stick should be used but only that it should be waved about so the other side can see it and take that fact into account.
We shouldn’t help the militarists’ campaign by accepting what they say as necessarily true. They have an axe to grind.
Interesting voting tactic in the New Hampshire primary elections:
Apparently these votes will be counted separately:
“The New Hampshire secretary of state’s office told HuffPost that the ‘ceasefire’ votes will be tallied in a ‘separate column’.”
I wonder how many votes they will get.
Don’t forget this comment at the end from another WSPUS comrade:
“Ukraine is just another proxy war between East & West, like Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (from 1979-89). There is no way I can imagine NATO going to war with Russia/China or vice versa. If there was going to be a nuclear war, it would have happened during the nuclear arms race of 1945-87. In conclusion, world leaders are not going to blow up the world to stop a rival group of capitalists from being top dog.”
Sunak — backed by Starmer — has justified the latest bombing raid on Yemen as “self-defence”. Who do he — do they — think they are kidding? More like “self-interest” in keeping a key trade route open. But even that’s open to question. By bombing Yemen the first time they clearly made the situation more risky for all ships, especially for UK shipping which wasn’t targetted before (unless they were bound for Israel). But now they are.
Sunak also claimed that it had nothing to do with the war in Gaza. Nobody will believe that.
Maybe they are interpreting to “self-interest” in a broader sense of showing to Iran who is in control of the resources and sea trade routes in the Middle East and are prepared to sacrifice the interest of shipping capitalists in the wider capitalist interest.
It goes without saying that they couldn’t care less about the effect on ordinary people such as prices rising more and being at greater risk of being the victims of terrorist attacks.
Good stuff. Particularly relevant today are the two articles about the bombing of tribesmen in the Middle East which show that Starmer’s support for bombing Yemen today is consistent with past Labour practice — and would be continued under a future Labour government.
Yes, we missed that as well as the coming into office of the first Labour government (which didn’t last for long but was enough to convince the ruling class that Labour was fit to govern the British Empire on their behalf).
Anyway, here’s the special issue we brought out on the centenary of Lenin’s birth in April 1870:
