ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sounds like the military-industrial complex creating an atmosphere to get governments to allocate more to military spending. Guns before butter again, that comes naturally under capitalism. Disturbing all the same.
Grant Shapps, the minister of war, was doing the same thing a week or so ago:
Actually, not yet. Russia resorted to war because the US and Britain were so intransigent that Ukraine should be able to join NATO. Anyway, it looks like Russia is going to get a big chunk of Ukraine and control of the Sea of Azov out of it.
Here is the full text of Milei’s speech at Davos:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/special-address-by-javier-milei-president-of-argentina/
It reveals his “Anarcho-capitalism” to be old-fashioned 19th century free trade liberalism. In fact the term he uses the most to describe what he is in favour of is “free trade capitalism”.
This will be the passage that the elites cheered the most:
“capitalist successful business people are social benefactors who, far from appropriating the wealth of others, contribute to the general well-being. Ultimately, a successful entrepreneur is a hero.”
You are missing the point as to why states arm themselves with the most up to date weapons of destruction that they can afford. It’s because relations between capitalist states are based on the principle that might is right. The mightier a state is the more clout it has in diplomatic negotiations, the outcome of which depends on how each side perceives the balance of forces.
This in fact could even be said to be the main “use” of these weapons. Even if there was never to be any wars capitalism would still have to waste resources on weapons of destruction.
But of course there are wars but only as a last resort when diplomatic negotiations and bargaining fail and a state considers its vital interests to be under threat, as Russia did over NATO trying to incorporate Ukraine and move weapons up to its border or as the US feels from time to time that its access to raw materials or to trade routes is threatened.
In other words, the examples you give are not preparations for war but preparations to build up a state’s might so it’s not trampled on in negotiations to protect or further the economic interests of its capitalist class.
Northern Ireland is the only place in the UK where a political strike has been successful — the Ulster Workers’Council Strike of May 1974. Its organisation and methods, including armed militias, had all the characteristics of how some syndicalists and councillors see the revolution. However, it is not often mentioned by them as its aim was not that desirable:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Workers%27_Council_strike
The Guardian has provided a chronology of the bombing spree in the Middle East between the gangsters and the counter-gangsters operating there:
1. Continuing – Israel-Lebanon border
Israel and Hezbollah exchange fire across border2. 7 Oct – continuing – southern Israel
1,140 killed in Hamas attack on southern Israel, according to Israel. Rocket attacks on Israeli cities3. 7 Oct – continuing – Gaza
More than 24,000 Palestinans killed in Israeli assault on Gaza, say Palestinian authorities4. 14 Nov – West Bank
Raid on Jenin refugee camp amid escalating
West Bank violence5. 8-12 Nov – Deir ez-Zor province, Syria
US strikes on claimed Iranian Revolutionary Guards facilities6. 19 Nov – continuing – Red Sea attacks
Houthi attacks on shipping in response to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza7. 21 Nov – south of Baghdad, Iraq
US airstrikes hit Iran-backed militants in Iraq in response to attacks on US troops8. 25 Dec – Damascus, Syria
Iranian general Sayyed Razi Mousavi killed
in Israeli strike9. 2 Jan – Beirut, Lebanon
Seven Hamas militants including senior leader al-Arouri killed10. 3 Jan – Kerman, Iran
Twin bombings target Qassem Soleimani memorial11. 4 Jan – Baghdad, Iraq
US airstrike kills an Iranian-backed militia leader accused of launching attacks against US troops12. 12 Jan – De facto Houthi authority, Yemen UK and US launch airstrikes on Houthi infrastructure. US carries out additional strikes on 13 and 16 Jan
13. 15 Jan – Erbil, Iraq
Iran hits multiple targets allegedly linked to Israel14. 15 Jan – Idlib province, Syria
Iran strikes targets allegedly linked to Isis-K15. 17 Jan – Balochistan, Pakistan
Iran strikes targets allegedly linked to Sunni militant group16. 18 Jan – Near Saravan City, Iran
Pakistan strikes Iranian village it claims houses terrorist group originally from Pakistan17. 17 Jan – De facto Houthi authority, Yemen US carries out fourth round of strikes on Houthi targets, reportedly hitting loaded missiles
This — opposition only to “monopoly capitalism” rather to capitalism as such — used to be the policy of the old Communist parties (and probably still is). It is a sign of this disenchantment with conventional party politics that this is now taken up by NGOs and think tanks who merely pressurise governments (as the only institution that could do anything about it).
Anti the Super Rich seems to be the flavour of the month as, according to today’s Times:
“Nobody deserves to be a multi-millionaire and no one, ideally, should be allowed to amass a personal fortune of more than £1 million. So says the Dutch philosopher and economist Ingrid Robeyns in a provocative new book, Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth, out this month.
Limitarians believe that there should be a ceiling on personal wealth. Just as governments routinely set minimum legal wage levels, so they should set maximum nest-egg sizes.
Much wealth is undeserved, amassed through criminality or market abuse of some kind, and undermines democracy. Worse, the process by which it is piled up has the effect of keeping the poor poor. That the limitarian view, anyway.”We have been sent an advance copy of a book, out in March, that makes the same argument. It’s by Luke Hildyard, the Director of the High Pay Centre, and entitled Enough: Why It’s Time to Abolish the Super-Rich.
Why do these people just want to try to reform capitalism into being a less unequal society by redistributing wealth instead of advocating the common ownership of productive resources by society as a whole, ie socialism, the obvious solution?
Now Jordan has bombed Syria. Looks like the Middle East has become a bar room brawl in which anybody can join in.
https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4770456-jordan-strikes-iran-linked-drug-dealers-syria
Rachel Reeves, the would-be next Chancellor of the Exchequer, is in Davos to meet and reassure what the Financial Editor of the Times calls in today’s issue “the pluto-tribe”.
She is reported as saying that “the Conservatives have vacated the space of a pro-business party” and that she was in Switzerland to “show that Labour are now are now the pro-business party, the party of wealth-creation … “
If the so-called Labour Party thinks that capitalist entrepreneurs rather than the labour of the workers creates wealth, then they should change their name to the Business Party and stop trying to fool people in to thinking that they have the interests of the working class at heart.
Milei is in Davos where he has been opening his big mouth:
“ Argentina’s libertarian President Javier Milei praised free markets and slammed socialism at Davos during the first overseas tour for the self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist”, who is battling to fix a major economic crisis at home. (…) “Socialism is a phenomenon that creates poverty,” he said in a special address to a large and well-heeled crowd at the World Economic Forum, where he is later set to meet International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Kristalina Georgieva. “Free enterprise capitalism is the only tool we have to end hunger and poverty,” he added.”
Today’s Times reported his speech under the headline “‘Anarcho-capitalist’ leader cheered by elites at Davos”. They would, wouldn’t they?
By coincidence Andrew Whitehead has a new book out in March on the Siege of Sidney Street in the East End of London in 1911:
https://reaktionbooks.co.uk/work/a-devilish-kind-of-courage
We were sent an advance copy to review which should appear in the March issue.
I don’t think his comments are unfair but he has an interesting field of interest for a former BBC journalist, even if it was the World Service.
He must live in the Clapham area to have visited our offices on the off chance.
It was only yesterday that there were appeals to alleviate starvation in Yemen. In fact some are still being made. Now the US/UK bombing of Yemen is threatening the work of charities getting and distributing food there.
It has even been reported that, to deal with the Houthis, the US has been considering the option of starting the civil war again that caused the famine due to the blockading of ports and intense Gaza-like bombing by Saudi Arabia also armed with US weapons.
And all to protect trade routes and the supply chain for oil and gas.
And still there are states that want the war in Gaza to continue, irrespective of the consequences there and elsewhere. But that’s capitalism for you with its conflicts of economic interests that lead to the waste of armaments and from time to time to actual wars.
Two London branch members braved the cold yesterday to leaflet the anti-Gaza war demonstration in London held in conjunction with similar events in 30 cities worldwide. There are now only 100 leaflets left at Head Office. We will probably need a new wording for any future leaflet now that the UK has joined in the war (supported by the Labour Party).
There was a banner from the Clapham Town Branch of the Labour Party. As this is the electoral ward in which our Head Office is situated, I gave them a leaflet and asked if they expected to be expelled from the Labour Party. They replied no and that they had been told they could by Lambeth Labour Party and said that the two Labour MPs for the borough (Florence Eshalomi and Bell Ribeiro-Addy) were there too. So maybe Starmer’s incoming Labour government might have a problem here with some of its backbench MPs.
Another of the leaflets handed out yesterday at the anti-Gaza war rally was headed “It’s time to stop Starmer”. According to their website they’ve really got it in for him:
Even stating:
“Is a Starmer government better than a Conservative government? No, it will be worse. It will be the end of hope.”
Labour as the greater evil than the Tories. That’s a variation on the lesser evil theme.
The leaflet is calling for “not voting for Starmer’s Labour or voting for a viable alternative.”
Showing that this is not a Tory dirty tricks site, the leaflet indicates support from among others, George Galloway and former Labour MP (deselected and expelled) Chris Williamson.
