The coming world war.
- This topic has 37 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
‘Neither the capitalist class nor any government can control how the capitalist economy operates. But the one thing that governments do control is the use of armed force. So, yes, it can be said that governments can control whether or not to go to war.’
I hope ALB is correct although some historians believe the start of World War One was, in part, due to the inability to stop the escalation due to the automatic nature of the mobilization plans for war.
“… logic has never operated in universal history when class interests have decreed otherwise.”
(Kautsky)I don’t know the context in which Kautsky wrote that but, when you analyse the words of that extract, there is something wrong.
How can those charged with working out what is in the interest of a class — in the case of the ruling class, those in charge of the state, its executive committee — do this without employing logic? In other words, logic is required to work out what is a class’s interest.
He can’t be saying that a ruling class “never” acts logically in the terms of its own interest.
The reference to “universal history” suggests he might be contrasting the long-term interest of humanity with the interest of the ruling class for the time being. For instance, for this, at a certain point the feudal ruling class should logically make way for the capitalist class to take over (or, for that matter, that the capitalist ruling class should now allow socialism to be established).
Anyway, what is the context of the quote?
It’s from Foundations of Christianity, and i am quoting it here in the sense that the present-day situation will push the capitalists (states) to launch a world war even though logic says it would also be their own destruction. Why? Because their quarrels over spheres of interest etc. actually blind them to the bigger, logical, consideration.
And looking at Finland, Switzerland, etc., with all the money going into bunkers (and bunker drills in Russia), it indicates that they imagine a continuance of the accumulation of capital after such a holocaust, with the workers also being regimented into bunkers.
Plus, the gung-ho leaders of the Baltics, far from being afraid, are actively wanting war with Russia, as is Macron, and complaining about NATO’s “cowardice.”
So you are saying that that those in charge of one or other of the leading capitalist states would — will, in fact — be “pushed” into doing something that is not in their interest, ie to act illogically.
In that case, you need to explain why none of them has in the last 80 years (quite a long time).
Only 5 states have the H-bomb (US, Russia, Britain, France and China) — the other nuclear states only have the A bomb — so you are saying that at some point the rulers of one of these states will attack another with an H-bomb or rather one of three of them (since Britain and France are not going to on their own) will.
The reason these states have H-bombs is because, in a capitalist world, “might is right”. Russia and then China developed theirs to deter the US from bullying them.
Having such weapons to deter other states is a logical decision for a state that can afford them, the aim being precisely to deter being attacked by nuclear weapons ie to avoid a nuclear world war.
Of course there will always be conflicts of economic and geostrategic interests between states but these can be and are dealt with by other than nuclear war — by conventional wars using proxies for instance. Note how in the current proxy war that NATO is waging in Ukraine they are not allowing weapons they supply to be used to attack Moscow and other Russian cities while Russia is careful not to attack NATO territory or even shoot down US and UK spy planes.
I would say that the rulers of the US, Russia and China know perfectly well that a world nuclear war is not in their interest and won’t allowed themselves to be “pushed” into one.
And looking at Finland, Switzerland, etc., with all the money going into bunkers (and bunker drills in Russia), it indicates that they imagine a continuance of the accumulation of capital after such a holocaust, with the workers also being regimented into bunkers.
————————————————
Thomas,
If they can envisage the need for bunkers then presumably they would be fully capable of envisaging the circumstances in which such bunkers would be needed. I read somewhere that even a limited nuclear exchange between second-tier nuclear powers like Pakistan and India would plunge the world into a nuclear winter that would last for 10 years with a catastrophic drop in agricultural output. The global population would be decimated. A full-scale nuclear exchange with Russia would be far worse.
I can’t imagine any capitalist politician seriously contemplating the continuation of capital accumulation, post-apocalypse. This would surely be the end of their system along with the vast majority of humankind. Think of the global division of labour as it currently exists and the absolute disruption such an event would bring about. The few survivors would be reduced to a scavenging mode of subsistence.
You say “Their quarrels over spheres of interest etc actually blind them to the bigger, logical, consideration” Yet, it doesn’t blind them to the need to anticipate such an event by building bunkers and therefore, as I say, to what the consequences of such an event would entail. Anything would be preferable to that – even unconditional surrender to the enemy.
Yes, you can say there is a certain illogic in sinking resources into building bunkers that will never be used (though it would be far more illogical to create a situation in which they had to be used!). But look at it another way – you could also say these politicians are also being logical by taking steps (in the form of building bunkers) in anticipation of this hypothetical future event. So it is not as if all logic has entirely escaped them. And that´s the point – if they can be logical in that respect then why can they not use that logic to figure out that a nuclear war would definitely not be in their interest?
We all know what the consequences of a nuclear war would be. It’s not so much a case of applying logic as finding out the data. The information is all out there in the public domain. The politicians can get their research assistants to look it up if there is any doubt on that score.
I’m convinced that all this sabre rattling is just a cynical game of brinkmanship. Neither side has any interest in collapsing capitalism simply to achieve some pyrrhic victory over the other side (and they won’t even achieve that). Capitalist politicians on both sides are members of the same club and the whole performance is put on to keep their underlings in tow, cowering in submissive compliance. We shouldn’t buy into the propaganda…
I would say that the rulers of the US, Russia and China know perfectly well that a world nuclear war is not in their interest and won’t allowed themselves to be “pushed” into one.
*******
Not even if conventional war breaks out between them and one is losing ground?” I’m convinced that all this sabre rattling is just a cynical game of brinkmanship. Neither side has any interest in collapsing capitalism simply to achieve some pyrrhic victory over the other side (and they won’t even achieve that). Capitalist politicians on both sides are members of the same club and the whole performance is put on to keep their underlings in tow, cowering in submissive compliance. We shouldn’t buy into the propaganda…”
******
Thank you, both, for explaining this so well. Yfs.Of course, one always encounters stupid patriotic workers with no idea of reality, saying “Nuke the bloody Ruskies!”
Don’t you encounter such idiots? How do you deal with it?https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001z96s/storyville-praying-for-armageddon
7th Day Adventists. There are 100 Million Evangelicals in the US. They leave their brains at the door of the Mega Church every Sunday & let their leaders do their thinking for them. These Multi Millionaire “Pastors” seek to hasten WWIII in order to be “Raptured” along with the rest of the faithful when Jesus comes back for Armaggedon. They are increasingly vocal in Congress as well as weilding massive influence in the US Military. Zionist Evangelicals are “Friends” of Israel with the caveat that every single Jew will die unless they convert at day of judgement. This is the reality of where the USA is going. It’s terrifying.
Do the pastors themselves believe in their crap though?
Would Trump do a nuclear Jim Jones on us?By the way, the extremist sects of the Eastern Orthodox Church are as bad as the evangelicals in this. They are Armageddonists too – which the Catholic Church is not.
Russia has taken a 19th century popular saint and made him patron saint of nuclear missiles. Russian bishops bless Putin’s nuclear missile loads with “holy water.”
Let’s hope those in charge of the often insane personnel do have a logical sense.
Don’t worry about the holocaust, L. Ron and his mates have got it covered.
NATO Starmer.
Did someone say logic?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.