ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The US and Britain escalate the war by attacking Yemen which has taken the Iran side in the conflict of economic interest between the US and Iran over who controls the oil (and more recently gas) in the Persian Gulf and the trade routes to get it out.
The weapons deployed were significant;
As we have always said, wars are fought over economic issues like control of sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets and investment outlets. This time the military action is over a trade route which has become more vital for European countries since they switched from Russian oil to Liquified Natural Gas from Qatar, a change made for non-economic reasons that they may be regretting.
Meanwhile, as usual, ordinary people in Europe will suffer in terms of the rate of increase of prices going up again. In Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now Yemen they suffer death and destruction at the hands of the US and its proxy Israel and in Israel at the hands of a group backed by Iran.
Another addition to the charge-sheet against capitalism.
I watched South Africa puts its case this morning before the International Court of Justice about Israel carrying out “genocide” in Gaza. Pretty impressive. At this stage what South Africa is asking for is a sort of injunction to stop Israel from continuing what it is doing pending the Court hearing and ruling in the facts of the case.
South Africa had to make out at least a prime face case that Israel intended to collectively punish the people in Gaza. It produced plenty of evidence from Israeli politicians and military commanders that this was the case.
I can’t see how the Court can do nothing. Up to now it has granted injunctions against Serbia, Burma and Russia, even if to no effect. But these were cases where the US and the West were in favour. This time, it would be against America’s pet and a state supported by the West. Israel’s actions are more extensive and damaging to people and infrastructure than all that Serbia, Burma and Russia put together did.
If the Court let Israel off the hook then it might as well rename itself the International Court of Hypocrites. If they rule against Israel this won’t make much difference on the ground but Israel’s reputation will be in tatters, branded what it called the UN — “a moral stain on humanity”.
And this must be the talk by Comrade Skelton that you heard:
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/05/socialists-are-against-all-war-1981.html?m=0
That 1982 pamphlet can be found here. I am sure they will be a few copies lying around our offices if anyone wants one. Price 20p + postage:
There are plenty of other options short of war. What’s the issue — control of the trade route through the South China Sea. Why would China go to war over that? Why would the US unless China did something incredibly stupid like try to block ships going through it or try to invade Taiwan? But why would China invade Taiwan, destroying much of the manufacturing resources there in the process?
Relax, the apocalypse is not going to happen on 14 January. And if you think it is, go out and enjoy the last 5 days of your life. But don’t do anything too silly like spending all your money — just in case it doesn’t happen.
No, I don’t.
If you think capitalist states don’t want to avoid a world war, ask yourself why NATO and Russia are anxious to avoid a direct confrontation in Ukraine.
It’s the same with China and the US. Neither sides wants an all-out war because both would be losers.
Before TM jumps to the wrong conclusion, it wasn’t a missile:
I have tracked down on the internet another reply by Tony Marone, in which he explains XR’s “demands” in more detail. It dates from 2019 and is in reply to someone who asked why XR “didn’t mention Brexit as increasing Carbon pollution if it means trading with further flung places”.
Here it is:
“You are right, we don’t have a position on Brexit, but that is because we don’t have positions on any of the causes, influences or solutions to the climate crisis.
XR’s campaign is about making the authorities pay attention to the issue, tell the truth about it, act accordingly, and democratise the process.
There are many other organisations focussing on the specific environmental threats and solutions – however, that is not what we do.
XR does not advocate any specific solution to the climate crisis, this is because all potential solutions have to be available for discussion when we get to the stage of a Citizen’s Assembly.
XR’s core demands are:
– The Government must tell the truth about the ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.
– The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.
– We demand a Citizens Assembly to set the policy and oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.
When we get to the point of Citizen’s Assemblies will be the time for agreeing solutions, until then we must pursue these 3 key demands.
Hope this helps,
Tony Marone
Reactive Team
Extinction Rebellion”(https://unitedinfrance.com/topic/a-shock-for-tree-huggers/page/3/)
He contradicts himself saying, on the one hand, that XR does have any stance on the causes or possible solutions to the climate crisis and that this has to be left to the Citizens Assembly it proposes but, on the other hand, goes on to call on the government to “reverse inconsistent policies” and to legislate to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption.
So they are demanding some reforms from the government. But stating that they are not saying anything about the causes of climate change, well, what can we say!
Postponing this to a hypothetical national Citizens Assembly is a cop out but it looks like that, if they ever get it, socialism could be one of the solutions that could be considered. But there’s a problem. Most “citizens” are not socialists and so would adopt more or less unrealistic proposals to be implemented under capitalism. For socialism to be adopted they’d have to be socialist-minded. So it would be back to square one: the need to have a convinced socialist majority and do to concentrate on helping that to emerge.
Exchange of emails between a comrade and XR.
Our member wrote:
“Like you, I am extremely worried and concerned at the devastation being wrought on our environment, people and the species (with no voice), with which we share the planet. I have been to a number of your meetings and can only respect the tireless efforts being made by your members. Their dedication and concern is palpable.
That said, and given your numbers and (hopefully) growing support, would not the efforts of XR and its members be better aimed at changing the system in its entirety? Climate change is just a symptom, albeit terrifying, of Capitalism. War, hunger, homelessness, starvation and poverty are also symptoms and those caught up in any of these have little time to think of global warming. Unless Capitalism is replaced then no amount of reforms (if achieved at all) will solve the main issue – profit at all costs. We need a new world order that does not put profit before the environment.
If your energies were channeled into the efforts of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (link attached) all the above ills could be addressed. I sincerely hope you succeed in your aims but when have reforms ever really worked in the past – especially with so little available time?”XR replied:
“We were not set up with the intention of advocating for any specific type or kind of system to change to – and it would be extremely difficult to change to that advocacy now, advocating for any system would be to undermine our current demands and principles.
I was a member of the SPGB over 40 years ago.
It was its policy then (which aligns with the thoughts of Karl Marx himself) that Capitalism doesn’t require a revolution to fail, as it will inevitably fall apart as a victim of its own internal contradictions, I’d be surprised if its policy has changed.
As I know now the SPGB has 300 members, whilst Extinction Rebellion has over a million supporters worldwide, and by and large they all seem to agree with our current demands.
Hope this helps,
Tony Marone
Public Engagement Working Group”Three observations:
1. Eat shit. Ten million flies can’t be wrong.
2. What an admission that XR is not advocating a change of system but is merely campaigning for “demands” within the existing (capitalist) system.
3. It is not our view that capitalism will automatically collapse of its own accord through its contradictions (which is why we are checking his claim to have been a member).
Here’s what we said at the time about the election and subsequent ejection of the first Labour Government in 1924:
The Labour Party seems to be relying a lot on being able to conjure up “growth” to honour its rash election promises.
Earlier this week, Darren Jones who is the would-be chief secretary to the Treasury was reported as saying:
“If we are successful in growing the economy in the way that we think we will be, then that creates more investment” (Times, 4 January).
This is a strange argument as business investment is what brings about growth. So any growth that might take place would be as a result, not the cause, of business investment. He’s put the cart before the horse and expects it to pull the horse.
But it’s not only creating new business investment that the growth they think they can conjure up will bring about. A speech by their would-be Health Secretary, god-botherer Wes Street, was reported under the headline: “Labour says it would rely on growth to fund pay rises to the NHS” (i paper, 6 January).
On the same page the same paper reported the clueless Labour Leader himself:
“Sir Keith reiterated his comments on Thursday that economic growth was key to creating wealth and improving living standards.”
But if a Labour government under Starmer is not as lucky as the Blair Labour government was in happening to be in office during a period of growth, and there is no growth at the rate Labour think they can bring about?
Back to Darren Jones:
“If we are not [successful in growing the economy], then the fiscal rules come first and are non-negotiable.”
So. fiscal conservatism, otherwise known as austerity.
In any event, no government can control growth — that depends on business investment. This may or may not happen when a Labour government is in office but if it does it won’t be due to anything that government did. It would have happened anyway, even under a Tory government.
Governments don’t and can’t control capitalism. It’s rather the other way round — what they do is to react to what the operation of capitalism, as it passes through its cycles of boom and slump, brings about.
The government here is beginning to realise the potential impact on the price level here as a result of a consequence of the war in Gaza. They may be preparing to use this as an excuse if they don’t get the rate of increase in the price level down to 2 percent. It will be “we were blown off course by outside events” again. Which won’t be untrue, but they contributed to these outside events by supporting the continuation of the Israeli attack on Gaza.
As I was in Waterstones yesterday I had a look inside the book by Rachel Reeves, the would-be future Chancellor of the Exchequer, on “The Women who Made Modern Economics”.
So Labour’s shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, has been exposed as a common plagiarist.
A comrade tried to buy this book today but was told that it has been withdrawn from circulation. So she has pleaded guilty as charged.
Unfortunately the war is still going on and so there are still protests against it. There will be local demonstrations all over the country this Saturday in preparation for another national one in London on the following Saturday (13 January). Local Party members and sympathisers will be leafletting some of these, including in Portsmouth and Folkestone as well as Oxford and London.
