ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
One of the publications handed out at the anti-Gaza war demonstration in London yesterday was by a new grouping called “anti-capitalist resistance” which seems to be a front organisation for “Socialist Resistance” affiliated to one of the many Trotsktist Fourth Internationals (the late Ernst Mandel’s, I think).
The front page full page headline was “Stop Israel’s genocide” while the back page’s one was “Defend Ukraine! Victory to the Ukrainian resistance”. Clearly they are picking and mixing which activities by “American Imperialism” to support and which to oppose.
But the worst is an article on an inside page headed “Ukraine: Russia troops, stop the genocide” by Fred Leplat, one of the leaders of “Socialist Resistance”, in which he gives advice to the Ukraine government on how to wage the war:
“Ukraine could make much greater gains against the Russian army if it were supplied with the weapons it needs.”
So, go on, President Biden, supply Ukraine with more weapons, push through Congress authorisation to spend and send more weapons to Ukraine.
“Ukraine could do much better in the war if it adopted a ‘war-economy’ like the US and Britain did in World War Two which put private companies under state control to produce tanks and planes rather cars.”
But why not go the whole hog and demand the the Ukraine government nationalise the top armaments companies under workers control?
Incredible! You’d have thought that an organisation calling itself “eco-socialist” might call for a “ceasefire now” to stop the Ukraine war’s contribution to global warming. But no, they want the war with its destruction and pollution to continue.
Some Trotskyist are more contemptible than others and “Anti-capitalist Resistance” and its sponsor so-called “Socialist Resistance” must be strong contenders for the title of the most contemptible. But they are up against strong competition from other Trotskyist groups that support Russia in this war.
More on Fred Leplat here:
https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?auteur93
Why doesn’t Fred he put his money where his mouth is and sign up with other mercenaries in the Ukraine Foreign Legion?
I was watching Aljazera and the person being interviewed was Victor Gao:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Gao
I see he is a member of the “Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang” which, apparently, is allowed to exist in mainland China alongside some other minor parties. I didn’t know that or that there were Taiwanese of Japanese descent. You live and learn.
I don’t think that was very likely anyway unless the separatists were to be so foolish as to try what the nationalists did in Catalonia. Anyway they only got 40 percent of the vote and so wouldn’t have majority support for such an adventure.
Just heard an unofficial spokesperson for mainland China say that they regarded the election as a local election and would respect the result unless the new administration did try to breakaway. He seemed as unconcerned about the result of the presidential election as the British establishment was about the SNP winning the Scottish Parliament elections.
So unless the new president does a Catalonia it looks like Armageddon is off the agenda (not that it was ever really on).
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4405820-biden-says-us-iran-not-in-proxy-war/amp/
He would say that, wouldn’t he? Of course the US is involved in a proxy war with Iran and vice versa. Its asset in the region, Israel, has bombed pro-Iran militias in Lebanon and Syria on many occasions and has carried on raids and assassinations in Iran itself. The US has also bombed Iranian proxies in Syria and Iraq and now in Yemen.
It is possible that the old fool and ex-lesser evil (for lefties) does not know what a proxy war is as he went on to say that “Iran does not want a war with us”. Precisely, it does not want a direct war with the US. That’s why it is waging a proxy war, ie using proxies to fight. It’s the same with the US. It is fighting Iran’s proxies, not Iran itself.
The stake in this proxy war between the US and Iran is of course oil and trade routes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67954799.amp
Sunak claims that Britain bombed Yemen in self-defence. That’s absurd. Everyone can see that the US and Britain attacked Yemen on their own initiative but unless you want to violate the UN Charter, piece of paper that it is, you have to invoke self-defence to wage war.
Note:
“The strikes have also been backed by Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer, who was briefed by the government on Thursday night.”
The Liberals and the Scots Nats, on the other hand, and, rather daringly for a Labour MP, John McDonnell, have demanded a vote in the House of Commons as the body to authorise a war.
I watched Israel’s defence this morning. Their arguments were mainly technical and procedural (South Africa had no right to bring the case, it had not followed the proper procedure, the terms of the requested injunction were flawed, the court has no jurisdiction in the matter).
They explained away the references to Gazans as “human animals” and the appeal to smite the Amalekites (one of the many tribes in biblical times that the Jews’ tribal god ordered them to kill every man, woman and child as well as their servants and asses) as understandable anger immediately after the Hamas atrocity of 7 October or as unauthorised statements by ministers not in the war cabinet exercising their right to free speech.
They also argued that, even if there were excesses in their military campaign, this wouldn’t amount to genocide which implied “intent” to kill members of a group as such, but only to a crime under international humanitarian law. A bit like arguing they should have been charged with manslaughter rather than murder.
Personally I don’t think they are guilty of “genocide” (as defined by the convention on the matter). They don’t want to kill off Palestinians just to rule over and oppress them.
Not sure what the International Court of Justice will make if it. I can’t see them ordering Israel to stop the war, but, to maintain their credibility, they will have to come up something. Some of the judges may feel embarrassed about the precedent they might have set in ruling in March 1922 “that Russia must ‘immediately suspend the military operations’ in Ukraine, while waiting for the final decision on the case.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_v._Russian_Federation_(2022)
We will know within a few weeks.
