h.moss@swansea.ac.uk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
And in one of the other letters in yesterday’s Weekly Worker, the Party is mentioned too (albeit in a less than flattering way). It’s from Andrew Northall, a former SPGB member, I believe. As below:
‘As a long time reader and subscriber to the Weekly Worker, I have long understood this basic approach to minimum or immediate demands is core to its basic approach and that of the rather tiny group which exists behind it. I was pleased to see this basic approach clearly reiterated by Jack Conrad (‘Labourism without Labour’, April 3) – and, I have to say, in vivid contrast to the voluminous confusion and obfuscation of Mike Macnair, who, in far too many self-indulgent wordy confusing and obscure articles, reveals no real communism at all, but more a throwback to 19th century social democracy, and two of its later key outputs – the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Mensheviks in Russia.’
‘A strange assessment of China saying it is neither capitalist or socialist! A crumbling state capitalist regime that has long ago succumbed to the realities of global capitalism despite all of the propaganda. The author would probably have said the same about ‘soviet’ Russia and we all know how that turned out.’
How typical this is as a strand of left-wing thinking.
If this is ‘provocation’, then what about the ‘provocation’ Ukraine has had from Russia since the day it was invaded and its inhabitants bombed to smithereens? As socialists, we just shouldn’t be taking sides in these conflicts or saying that one side or its supporters should do one thing or another.
“If the only people that knew this were the 10 members of the socialist party we may as well give up.”
More than 10 – at least 11.Troubling? No, fascinating, yes – and what a great, novel way of putting the case. Does anyone know anything about F.M. Robins? She sounds like someone worth knowing about. Thanks, Darren.
“It would seem to be a difference of style rather than of substance in that most modern wars have always arisen from conflicts of economic interest between rival capitalist groups over sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets and investment outlets and strategic points and areas to protect these.
Various terms have been used to describe this such as “imperialism”, “colonialism”, “neo-colonialism” but the best term is simply “capitalism” as these conflicts of economic interest and wars are an inevitable result of the competitive struggle for profits that is at the heart of the system..
Trump is being “transactional” rather than diplomatic. In other words, telling it as it is rather than disguising it as crap about the free world, democracy, human rights, rights of small nations, etc.^
Spot on.
One of the problems with the ‘peace at all cost’ argument (i.e. Russia ‘winning’) that some are touting is the long-term ‘totalitarianising’ effect of this and the consequent closing off of any possibility of the free exchange of ideas which is essential for the socialist case to be heard and spread. In this connection this short article from the Guardian is a necessary read:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/09/many-teachers-dont-want-to-do-this-but-theyre-trapped-film-shows-extent-of-putin-indoctrination-in-russian-schools
In a similar connection our own Keith Graham’s recent letter in the Guardian is interesting too:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/09/the-greatest-scandal-is-individual-powerThe trouble with what Rubio and one of our contributors say is that it seeks to find some kind of rationality in the words and actions of the Trump adminstration, when it’s clear that, even from a capitalist point of view, what it’s doing and saying has no clear rationality or logic. As for Roger Boyes, well that seems largely the fervid imaginings of a journalist who needs to find something to write.
‘In saying that the war could have been avoided Trump has virtually admitted that it was provoked by the actions of previous US administrations who pursued the policy of expanding NATO right up to the frontiers of ex-USSR Russia. The expansion to include Ukraine turned out to be an expansion too far.
The alternative explanation that the war was caused simply by a mad dictator bent on expanding his domain has been shown to wrong and those who accepted it have been left with egg on their face.’
But this is to lend credence to the analysis and actions of the maniacal leader that is Trump.
Okay, I take your point. But difficult to say everything in 130 words (it wasn’t my ‘snippet’ by the way) and at least it gives material for discussion.
