robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is an interesting situation. If the Putin regime justifies its imperialist annexation of the Donbas etc on the grounds that the local inhabitants wanted it, how would it respond to an attempt by one part of Russia – in this case, Siberia – to secede from Moscow rule if a majority of the citizens of Siberia wanted it? Surely, it would be a clear case of double standards if it refused them the right to do so?
I don’t know how serious is this drive toward “Siberian independence” and it is of little consequence or interest, anyway. All nationalism is a load of utter claptrap whether it is Ukrainian nationalism or Russian nationalism or British nationalism. But it is significant – is it not? – that in Russia´s case, these independence referendums are not binding, “and may be illegal under a law against challenging Russia’s “territorial integrity”. ” What does that tell you?
An interesting article on the munitions question:
“Russia also requires vast amounts of ammunition. However, Putin has put his entire economy on a war footing. It is not subject to the same commercial constraints as Nato’s defence industry, and Russian producers are not constrained by concerns over industrial safety. Nato must strive to ramp up production before Moscow resolves the inefficiencies, corruption and inertia of its manufacturing base.”
Thanks to the loathsome capitalist warmongers on both sides of this sordid conflict we can expect to see much more spent on the military in the future at the expense of socially useful production – not to mention tens of thousands of working-class lives lost for the sake of their respective capitalist warlords, Messrs Putin and Zelensky. It makes you sick at the very thought of it….
The capitalist “Labour” Party, even more than the capitalist Tory Party, is now the “Party of Business” according to this report. How is it even remotely possible for anyone with even the slightest pretensions to being a “socialist”, to remain in this shoddy disreputable capitalist outfit or to urge that we vote for it on the grounds that it is the so-called “lesser evil”
“Rubbish. Russia has no imperial ambitions. Quite the opposite. It is at the coal face of the struggle against NATOstani(read US) imperial hegemony. If you weren’t blinkered by ideology you would know this. But you can only lead a horse to water. You can’t make it drink.”
_________________________________________
Once again TS demonstrates he has no understanding of what imperialism means. He equates this merely with territorial expansion backed by military force – although even on this very narrow definition Russia qualifies, without a shadow of doubt, as an imperialist power. How else are we to understand the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas for example?
His idealist and emphatically non-materialist explanation for the war in Ukraine gives overriding importance to the role of ideology. This is a struggle against Nazism according to TS (notwithstanding that there is little to choose between the Ukrainian and Russian regimes in terms of their repressive authoritarian character or that self-identifying Nazis can be found on both sides of this conflict). TS has rejected the Marxist explanation that at the root of this conflict is the usual capitalist rivalries over markets, resources, trade routes, and points of strategic importance.
True to his conspiracy-coloured view of the world, he refers to some neo-con think tank white papers and RAND reports (no references provided) to bolster his view that Western imperialist powers seek to “break up Russia into statelets, pauperise the population, privatise all state assets and steal anything not nailed to the floor” All this, he assures, “you will find written in exquisite detail” in the aforementioned papers and reports. Maybe you can (or maybe you can´t) but it does not follow that the events that unfolded in Ukraine can be explained in terms of stated intentions and hallucinatory fantasies expressed by a handful of neocon crazies in some relatively obscure publications which 99.999% of the population would not have clapped eyes upon.
That is not the way a “materialist” would analyse the situation and, of course, it hardly needs to be pointed out that it was the Russian oligarchs themselves (mostly ex-high-ranking apparatchiks of the pseudo-Russian “communist” party) who were at the forefront of “privatising state assets and stealing everything not nailed to the floor” following the collapse of Soviet state capitalism. The Putin regime is precisely the official representative of this Russian oligarchic capitalist class with Putin himself being one of them
“The new world that is emerging will be based on win-win economic relations rather than naked aggression, coups and ruthless exploitation. Socialism will have breathing space to thrive in this new environment but only if the US and the other core imperialist counties (Europe. Australia/New Zealand, Japan and Singapore) are defeated in their ambitions to maintain the status quo.”
____________________________________________________This is delusional on so many levels
TS´s conception of “socialism” is about as “socialist” as the “socialism” of the German Nazi Party. His outlook is the “red fascism” of far-right Stalinists who like their counterparts in nazi Germany are fiercely ultranationalist, disgustingly elitist, and show complete contempt for working-class lives (TS gets off on the idea of turning fellow workers into “fertilizer”).
He has zero understanding of what capitalism is about – let alone socialism. He does not seem at all familiar with the Marxian explanation of capitalism as a system of generalised wage labour that must operate in the interest of capital and hence against wage labour. Preposterously, and in direct opposition to the Marxian position, he seems to imagine that the state sector of the capitalist economy is somehow “noncapitalist”. How is that even possible if according to Marxist theory, the state is an institutional tool that exists to serve the interest of the ruling class- in this case, a capitalist ruling class?
The fact that politicians and not capitalists themselves for the most part do not directly administer capitalism via the capitalist state is completely irrelevant. The politicians are obliged to administer capitalism in the only way it can be administered – in the interests of capital
Just because much of the state sector is unproductive in the sense that it does not produce commodities (and therefore does not generate profits) does not alter the fact that it is indispensable to capitalism and its profit motive. Adam Smith knew this well enough but not our economically illiterate TS. The military, for example, exists to protect and promote the interests of the domestic capitalist class in their competitive struggles against rivals for markets, resources, and points of strategic interest. War is essentially an extension of this economic conflict into the military field.
Hilariously, TS fancies himself as a “materialist” – actually, he is a self-declared idealist who thinks capitalist conflicts like the current one in Ukraine is fought over rival ideologies like Nazism – and pompously tell us that “his posts are meant to inform those who are actually materialists”, not “ideologues” like ourselves…..
He declares
“China is run by Marxists as is Vietnam, Cuba and Laos. The leaders of all these countries disagree that the profit motive is inherent to their societies. It is a temporary and necessary stage on their road to communism.”
Seriously? This is so goddamn stupid that I don’t know whether or laugh or cry at the sheer insanity of it. China is a billionaire´s paradise. The Chinese ruling class has ZERO intention of ever heading for a moneyless wageless stateless and classless society. Why should it when it is the direct beneficiary of the status quo – the existing class-based society capitalist society? TS calls himself a “materialist”. Can he cite one case throughout recorded history when a ruling class has gone completely against its own interest and has willingly and voluntarily opted for its own extinction? Some materialist!
The Chinese ruling class is never going to willingly relinquish its power and economic status in capitalist society any more than the American or British ruling class will. It will have to be forced to do so by the conscious and democratic will of the majority – the working class.
Finally, what are we to make of this gibberish?:
“the new world that is emerging will be based on win-win economic relations rather than naked aggression, coups and ruthless exploitation”.
This is as dumb as the capitalist hard sell attempted by anarcho-capitalists who like to reassure us that there is no class struggle in capitalism and that the interests of workers and capitalists are convergent. A “win-win situation” my arse!
Chinese capitalist imperialism is driven by what is called “brute force economics” intent upon eliminating the competition and reducing client states to a state of dependence on China. TS like the gullible fool he is has fallen for the hard sell – the ideology – in complete contravention of his supposed “materialism”. He should do some reading
The supposed “multipolar” world we are meant to be emerging into does not in the least spell the weakening, let alone the end, of imperialism. Imperialism is merely the transnational expression of capitalism´s expansionist dynamic and it can take many forms – not just in the form of setting up American military bases everywhere as some naive leftists (and rightists) contend. What we are seeing is merely a reconfiguration of the map of global imperialism in favour of Asia.
Imperialism, whether in its manifest or latent form, whether in its military or economic guise, is intrinsic to capitalism and is a tendency that exists in every single country in the world. This is because every single country in the world is capitalist.
This exposes the utter absurdity of TS´s position. He thinks imperialism is confined to just capitalist states like America. He has bought into the idealist concept of American exceptionalism. There is something in the nature of American society that uniquely makes it imperialist. This is the same childish idea that feeds into the notion that wars are about “good” versus “evil”.
In TS´s case, it’s the evil empire of America versus Holy Mother Russia led by Saint Putin.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Actually it’s very important because it puts into question your claims to be materialists and therefore Marxists. If you are nothing but ideologues confirming your own biases through MSM rags and CIA front groups then you are not materialists. And therefore not Marxists. But we already knew that didn’t we?
__________________________
lol TS, You get more entertaining by the minute. You wouldn’t know what a “materialist” was, let alone a socialist if you tripped over Marx´s beard as someone once colourfully put it. I don’t know why you even presume to have any connection with Marxism or Marxist thought. You have made your contempt for the Marxian objective – the abolition of the wages system – pretty apparent. You have fully declared your absolute and undying fealty to Russian capitalism and your capitalist warlord cum master, Putin, whose boots you lick like some faithful poodle.
It’s amusing also that you consider we are nothing but “ideologues confirming your own biases through MSM rags and CIA front groups”. I would love to know what MSM rag or CIA front it is that you have in mind that shares our principled opposition to both sides in this capitalist conflict. Care to name one TS or is this just the usual ill-informed bluster that you come out with ? As a muddlehead you are unsurpassed on the pages of this debate forum.
I think your disgusting anti-working class views, your dehumanizing view of fellow workers as mere cannon fodder or raw material to turn into “fertilizer” puts you on par with the fascists you claim to oppose. Your far-right ultra-nationalism is certainly something you share with them.
As has been pointed out before if you feel so passionately about the cause of Russian capitalism why not volunteer to take up arms on behalf of your capitalist master instead of being the perpetual armchair warrior cum computer nerd scouring the web for conspiracy sites to fuel your nationalist fantasies? Do you have the bottle to put your money where your mouth is and bugger off Russia if you feel so strongly about this cause? It would be good to have some sanity restored to this forum sans the ravings of a quasi-fascist like yourself
In a battle for a city, the customary rule is that it is the attacker who suffers the heavier casualties, not the defenders. I see no evidence that the battle for Bahkmut should be any different.”
Erm, except that your assumption isn’t true.
__________________________More distraction from the main issue – the anti-working class aspect of this capitalist conflict
More drivel from TS who continues to comprehensively miss the point as per usual…
It is frankly irrelevant from the standpoint of this forum whether Russia is winning this war, whether decisively or otherwise. “Decisively” is not a word that springs to mind, though. The small territorial gains the Russian military and its mercenary supporters have recently made to offset territorial losses it suffered last year, have come at an enormous cost and the battle for Bahkmut is still not over after months and months of fighting.
Yes, we know there is more to this war than just territory and TS continues in his pointless endeavor to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. Sure Russia´s population (and military) is substantially larger than Ukraine´s and you would expect, all things being equal, for the former to prevail over the latter. Although all things are not equal and it would seem that morale and determination would favour the Ukrainian side. At any rate, it is difficult to predict the outcome of the war if for no other reason than that we cannot rule out completely the possibility of NATO forces being drawn directly into the conflict. In that case, we are talking about a whole different ball game. The Russian military would be comprehensively destroyed in that case but, if things went nuclear, we would all be destroyed
But all this is by the by. The real issue here is what should be the attitude of socialists to this stupid senseless war?
TS has made it perfectly plain that he fervently sides with Russian capitalism in this war. Laughably, this clown goes on about “faux socialists”, having demonstrated again and again his vehement opposition to socialism which he doesn’t really understand anyway given that he seems to think the state sector of the capitalist economy amounts to “socialism”. If anything is “faux socialist” it is that.
This war is a war being fought over capitalist interests as TS himself has inadvertently revealed – with himself identifying strongly with the interests of Russian capitalism and its appalling far-right repressive capitalist regime against the equally appalling far-right repressive capitalist regime of Ukraine (both sides of which have their own fascist supporters). Whoever “wins” this war, the workers on both sides will have lost.
And that, TS, is the real issue we should be focussing on here – not looking upon this sordid conflict from the dehumanized perspective of some parody of an armchair military strategist who whiles away his time scouring the web for conspiracy sites to lend support to his perverse bourgeois-nationalist take on the world
What a great idea! That’s the kind of direct action I would endorse if I were a trade unionist on strike. And the idea of making free energy available might encourage some people to think more on our wavelength. The problem I guess is that it is difficult to see how such a strategy could be extended to other sectors of the economy…..
“Soldiers are killed in wars. It’s the risk one takes for signing up for such work. Though the deaths are tragic for the families involved its hardly “catastrophic” for Russia as was the suggestion made by the original poster.”
————————What an admission that the capitalist nation-state couldn’t care a stuff about the lives of ordinary workers who it treats as mere cannon fodder! That’s a good enough reason for workers not to care a stuff about the cause of nationalism and the spurious reasons it gives for encouraging workers to put their lives at risk for the sake of odious capitalist warlords like Putin or Zelensky
“Are you making the same mistake as the EU’s Usula Von Der Leyden conflating casualty figures with deaths”
_____________________Not saying I agree with the figures Alan but this is what the Independent newspaper reported
“Nearly 200,000 Russian troops have been killed in Ukraine, US officials say
Top US official said last month that casualties on both sides were ‘significantly well over 100,000 now’ ”https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-death-toll-b2274969.html
“Albeit, an individual author rather than an organisation’s statement, this anarchist anti-war statement makes a number of valid points that many of us can recognise, although the potential actions of the anti-war movement are optimistically inflated.
https://libcom.org/article/british-anarchism-succumbs-war-fever”
_______________________________________________That’s a very good article, Alan. I note also its criticism of the suggestion put forward by PGB here that socialists (or anarchists) should organise to defend themselves independently of the Ukrainian state to militarily resist Russian imperialism. In practice that would not happen. These groups would simply be absorbed into the command structure of the Ukrainian military and end up fighting for the self-same deluded nationalist cause of the latter
We often attack those naive romantic Leftists who want to overthrow the modern capitalist state by violent means as engaging in a suicidal fantasy. It’s the same when confronting an invading army. It’s sheer stupidity to put your life at risk and for no good purpose whatsoever. Better to become a refugee or stay if you must but drop the heroics. Who cares what tacky piece of cloth called a flag you end up living under anyway? Better alive than dead
“Russia has annexed huge swathes of resource rich territory, grown its population and all at the cost of less than 20-30,000 lives. Remind me, what’s this “catastrophic error” of which you speak?”
=================================
TS inadvertently exposes the capitalist motives behind this sordid capitalist war – resource-rich territory indeed! But note the callous capitalist calculus at work here. Russia´s imperialist annexation has come “at the cost of less than 20-30,000 lives”. It’s like 20-30,000 lives don’t really matter, they are expendable from the standpoint of those who hope to benefit from this annexation.
Incidentally, where does he get this figure of 20-30,000 lives lost (I presume he is referring to “Russian” lives). Russian official propaganda? The latest figures according to NATO propaganda is that approaching 200,000 Russian soldiers have lost their lives in this human tragedy. Which is the more accurate figure? I suspect neither TS nor anyone here really knows for sure….
.
PGB
You go on about this “common life” Ukrainian workers are supposed to share with each other by which I presume you mean some vague abstraction that differentiates them from say, Russian workers. What precisely is it? It seems to be the subtext of what you are saying is nationalism. You are endorsing a nationalist worldview and of course, as a socialist, I vehemently oppose that – “shrilly” or otherwise. How could any socialist not do so?
As for your distinction between workers who organise militarily outside of the state and workers who enlist to fight for their capitalist state against some rival state – yes superficially there would appear to be some difference insofar as the former might not be motivated by nationalist sentiments. But in reality, how much traction would this distinction have? As a parallel, look at the relationship between the Wagner Group and the Russian military for example.
Your “non-state fighters” would need to coordinate with your “state fighters” not just over strategy and the provision of weaponry but also, military objectives. The current Ukrainian regime has as its objective the eviction of all Russian forces from what it regards as its national territory, including Donbas and Crimea. How could your non-state fighters go along with this without giving credence and legitimacy to nationalist propaganda and the spurious concept of the “sovereign nation-state?
But, apart from that, I stand by my claim that it is dumb beyond comprehension to organise militarily to resist an invading army intent upon wiping out all resistance. You are not asserting your “right to live” but making it far more probable that your life will be extinguished. That’s not sensible. Far better to become a refugee and I couldn’t give a flying fuck about jingoistic claptrap about this being the “coward’s way” out. Such language is reminiscent of the First
World War generals comfortably ensconced in their headquarters miles away from the Front, giving the order to execute some poor shell-shocked squaddie who lost the will to fight any longer. I have nothing but contempt for people who use this language.The same is true of the invading army. I have infinitely more respect for the Russian soldiers who deserted having asked themselves why the hell they were fighting against and destroying the lives of, ordinary Ukrainian workers with whom they had no quarrel whatsoever. They are more likely to desert when they are not being shot at by deluded nationalists on the other side.
This is the thing about this despicable death cult called nationalism. It divides workers from each other and mortally weakens our ability to challenge capitalism
For a liberal who seems to think that an obnoxious autocratic regime like the Zelensky regime is somehow worth defending, PGB certainly exhibits in abundance that peculiar liberal trait of sneering at a principled socialist opposition to capitalism´s wars on the grounds that things are oh-so-much-more complex and convoluted than us simple-minded socialists imagine. He airily declares; “this is what comes of a crude reductionist reading of Marx’s materialism and class analysis, where everything political is determined by economics”. Except of course in PGB´s case, there is no class analysis of anything. He is above that sort of thing.
No doubt, political factors do impact the economic situation and I have never denied this. Patron-client networks are a good example, these are a feature of both the Russian and Ukrainian regimes, both of which have been noted for their high levels of endemic corruption according to the Transparency index. (Ukraine comes in at number 122 out of 180 countries, and Russia at number 136). There is a revolving door between politics and economics and their respective actors. But that is no excuse to completely dismiss a Marxian class analysis of the situation in the way that PGB does in true liberal fashion.
PGB declares
“Robbo is bound to view Putin as a capitalist and of course Zelensky has to be a capitalist too. In fact neither are capitalists. Nor is there any credible evidence that they are acting at the behest of capitalists or in the broad interests of capital”
Actually, whether Putin or Zelensky as individuals are capitalists is not important to the thesis that a capitalist regime acts primarily in the interests of a capitalist class. In the Soviet Union, according to his daughter, Stalin left his desk with unopened envelopes stuffed with money. As a dictator, he didn’t need the physical cash. Political influence easily converted into economic power. For what it is worth, Zelensky´s personal fortune has been officially disclosed as being $8.2 million (though what it is unofficially worth in a corrupt country like Ukraine is anyone´s guess). I suppose that would qualify as just about scraping into the bottom runs of the capitalist class. Putin´s personal wealth is likely to be much greater and Forbes did an analysis of this some years ago which produced different estimates according to which explanatory model you use – the highest estimate amounting to $200 billion (https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2022/03/how-rich-is-vladimir-putin/). There is strong evidence that Putin has an equity stake in various properties here in Spain, for example as I have mentioned before.
But, as I said, the argument that both regimes act essentially in the interest of the capitalist class does not depend on the leadership of these regimes being capitalist themselves. It is the very nature of capitalism itself that these regimes seek to administer that requires them to do this. They must serve the interest of capital upon which their tax revenues depend amongst other things.
PGB asserts_ “Nor is there any credible evidence that they are acting at the behest of capitalists or in the broad interests of capital.” To which I respond – BULLSHIT!. The very fact that a class of exceedingly rich and obviously capitalist individuals exists is proof positive of this fact. They exist because these capitalist regimes allow them – nay, actively encourage them – to exist.
No doubt PGB, like the liberal he is, will say that I am just being “reductionist” here. But I invite him to imagine what would happen if these regimes took steps to economically eliminate this class for example through punitive levels of taxation. What would happen is capital would drain out of the country. Political regimes around the world clearly don’t relish the prospect of capital flight. On the contrary, they go out of their way to attract foreign capital even to the extent of muzzling local trade union movements to ensure a compliant local workforce that would be suitably attractive to foreign investors. The state is a pimp for capitalism. Nothing to do with the class war, eh, PGB? Would saying there was a class war going on be too reductionist for your ever-so-sophisticated liberal outlook?
Finally, I cannot let PGB get away with this liberal balderdash:
“Always consistent, Robbo finds it “dumb beyond comprehension” that workers risk losing their lives, becoming seriously wounded, or having their homes destroyed, all for the sake of a “tacky cloth called a flag”. Here again, the only meaning Robbo gives to workers taking up arms to defend their common life is to say that they are “heeding the call of a capitalist regime”. Maybe they are. But they may also be heeding the call of their conscience in believing it right to defend their lives when it’s their lives and the lives of others that are directly threatened. What’s incomprehensible about that?”
Where to begin in deconstructing this gibberish? Perhaps most obviously if you are a “Ukrainian” worker so intent upon defending your life in the face of an approaching army why not do what sheer commonsense tells you to do and get the hell out of this situation? I have far more respect for the refugees than for the deluded patriots who feverishly imagine they have a “common life” to defend in the form of the “imaginary community” called “Ukraine”. What is so different about their common life from that of the equally deluded “Russian” soldier who feverishly imagines “Ukrainian” workers are his mortal enemies? Where is the sense in “defending your right to live” by very clearly putting your life at risk? It is indeed, “dumb beyond comprehension”.
No PGB – what you are defending is the sick death cult of nationalism for the sake of that peculiarly perverse product of capitalism – the nation-state – that you so fondly identify with. This in clear opposition to the Marxian idea that “workers have no country” – a sentiment you might have heard of since you claim to have had contact with many Marxists No socialist worth their salt would regard your views with anything but the uncompromising hostility they so richly deserve.
