tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post2152033962155935509..comments2024-03-28T11:04:16.315+00:00Comments on Boffy's Blog: Third World War?Boffyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-8488929866444872552008-08-19T12:47:00.000+01:002008-08-19T12:47:00.000+01:00Thankyou for your reply, I concluded many years ag...Thankyou for your reply, I concluded many years ago that New Zealand might offer some protection from nuclear devastation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-50347249581583035262008-08-19T10:59:00.000+01:002008-08-19T10:59:00.000+01:00I've been thinking about the similarities between ...I've been thinking about the similarities between now and the period prior to 1914 for some time now. It has developed slowly from the background reseacrh and analysis I was doing looking at Kondratiev's Long Waves.<BR/><BR/>In a sense I was thrown for some time due to how WWII fits into that schema, and how the end of the last long boom in the mid 70's didn't.<BR/><BR/>I think the answer is actually fairly straightforward. WWII was really just a continuation of WWI, which failed to resolve the basic issues at stake i.e. the redivision of the world in accordance with the new economic realities - the existence of the British and French Empires when their economic base no longer could suport it. WWII started out as the continuation of the attempt by Germany to redivide the world, but ended necessarily as the ending of all old division in the interessts of an increasingly hegemonous and globalising US Capital. In many ways I think that new order reflected the changing structure of Capital at the micro (!) level described by Michael Barratt Brown, the change of corporate structure that enabled the development of multinational corporations udner the control of a Central "Bank" administrative centre, or holding company.<BR/><BR/>As for the mid 70's and the absence of any new war drive that too is equally easily explained. IN the 19th century as Trotsky pointed out Britain held the position of world hegemon. There was a Pax Brittanica based on its overarchiilitary power that flowed from its equally overarching economic and industrial power. Their were in fact what could be described as "sub-imperialist" conflicts. The Napoleonic Wars could be described in that manner, because at that time Britain was a Colonial rather than Imperialist Power. The drive to war of Colonial Powers is not the same as that of Imperialist powers, which is why it is stupid for a Marxist to talk about "Imperialism" in the wide sense of any expansionism on the part of a state. On that basis conflicts between tribes of hunter gatherers could be described as "imperialist". But, as Ronni Corbett would say I digress.<BR/><BR/>Until the latter part of the 19th century Britain was the only industrial power. There could be no actual inter-imperialist War. But, in a sense the same situation arises after WWII. The European powers and Japan are so devastated that they are reduced to virtually a dependency relationship on the US, indeed as the Marshall Plan demonstrated an actual dependency. Moreover, the existence of the USSR and Eastern Europe meant that what inter0imperuialist rivalry did exist was subsumed within the greater threat just as bosses subsume their competition amongst themselves to defeat a threat from the working class.<BR/><BR/>The crisis was resolved effectively in a number of ways. The drive to War did ome hence the increased threat of War with the USSR and the response seen in the siting of Cruise Missiles etc, the growth of a response in the growth of CND and peace mvoements throughout Europe. But the USSR was not an imperialist power it did not have the necessary drive to expand that an imperialist power does. It was expansionist, but expanionism is driven by different motives. Motives which are subjective as opposed to the objective need of imperialist Capital to expand beyond national borders. If War had come with the USSR it would have been an accident such as that which nearly happened on Revolution Day in 1987.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, the main imperialist power the US resolved its problems effectively at the cost of its weaker European partner. It allowed the dollar to devalue against the mark and other European currencies. I threw the main burden of paying for the crisis on to them - Nixon in response to DeGaulle's demand to be paid in Gold had closed the Gold Window in 1971.<BR/><BR/>Imperialism responded also with a much tougher atatck on the working class than had been known for mre than 50 years. It might have to have resorted to much harsher mesures still were it not for the collapse of the USSR. The 1980's saw the Long Wave downturn show its full force. The world working class suffered severe defeats. The Labour Movement in Britain and the US in particular got smashed. The USSR and Eastern Europe collapsed, and that collapse was not lost on the Chinese Stalinists either. The defeat and demoralisation of the working class in the West meant that in the new situation Capital could employ a new strategy. The Chinese Stalinists having seen wha happened in the USSR abandoned planning for the market, whilst maintaining totalitarian control. The vast source of new cheap exploitable labour resolved the main contradiction in that regard for Imperialism. The ability to sate demand resulting from a huge increase in liquidity meant that price inflation could be controlled even if asset inflation soared. Asset inflation provided the basis for lending by workers to make up for - and exceed - falling real incomes.<BR/><BR/>Only in this historically limited sense is it correct to speak of a super-imperialism that was able to overcome the problems of competition within a world economy.<BR/><BR/>Recent events show how limited that is, and how much more limited it will become as a description of the world economy and imperialism in coming years. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous said how do you cling to hope. I have to say that in a way I don't. Hope suggests that there is some external force which controls what happens. The only historical force which brings about change is class struggle. As a Marxist I beleive that force continues to operate by now fairly well understood laws. If you are asking am I confident that those laws will play out with a happy ending, then I would have to say that based on an analysis of how things stand at the moment. No.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I'd been looking at moving to Spain, but I am now looking at doing some analysis of where if anywhere would be the safest place to live if a Third World War did kick off. In every past cycle war has been the jumpstart for revolution. Yet, as Trotsky tells us Wars cannot be prevented other than by revolution, it is not possible to stop a war by limited action, or even to control the armed forces of a bouregois state. Only control of the State enables that.<BR/><BR/>But, if a War cannot be stopped without revolution, and if revolution comes after War then we could be screwed. In past wars there was severe devastation and suffering, which is part of why they spark revolutions, but there was also still huge human and technological resources left to undertake those revolutions, and as Trotsky says of WWI the devastation was quickly restored on the back of the new technology. A Third World War will not be like that. It will necessarily be a nuclear war that even if it doesn't wipe out the whole of humanity it will destroy all of the technology and basis for rebuilding a civilised society. It will certainly mean the end of civilisation, and probably the end of the rule of mankind.<BR/><BR/>Worse the forces to confront imperialism are very weak and confused. Prior to WWI the forces of Marxism and of the Labour Movement were huge. Prior to WWII they remained very large if badly led. Yet even the forces of the Fourth International were larger than those of the Third at the outbreak of WWI, and much larger than theose forces are today. <BR/><BR/>That does not bode well, and outmoded views about the nature of revolution and of the working class do not help. That is why I beleive that one of the most important things that marxists can do today is to forget about that Big Bang theory of Revolution, and get back to the nitty gritty. Act to change workers lives here and now through self-activity. Use the changes in the nature of the working class and its condition the existence of Workers Capital. Demand the Workers Capital in the pension funs be put under democratic workers control. Workers have the basic democratic right to control their own money. Use that money intelligently to bring large sections of the economy under workers ownership, and develop co-operative industries that can integrate their activities. Use capitalism's tools against it.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-39756965542735339882008-08-18T17:01:00.000+01:002008-08-18T17:01:00.000+01:00I'm actualy on the move driving through France at ...I'm actualy on the move driving through France at the moment - not actually typing and driving at the same time obviously. I'll post some replies when I have chance.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-2388275882264592042008-08-18T11:07:00.000+01:002008-08-18T11:07:00.000+01:00An excellent and very thoughtful post, Arthur. I c...An excellent and very thoughtful post, Arthur. I cannot see Ukraine being accepted into NATO this side of the US presidential elections this November, so it will be interesting to see what policy differences exists between McCain and Obama on this. The received wisdom is Obama is more of a multilateralist and so could be expected to pursue a more conciliatory line than the more bellicose tops of the Republicans. But surely either side is aware of the destabilising effect a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine would have. Will the more far sighted sections of the US ruling class prevail?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-64323081704668118362008-08-17T18:13:00.000+01:002008-08-17T18:13:00.000+01:00I always admire hope, but how do you cling to it?O...I always admire hope, but how do you cling to it?<BR/><BR/>Oh, and as for Wigan, if only I could drop a black bomber now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-39849641387114162092008-08-17T17:02:00.000+01:002008-08-17T17:02:00.000+01:00Arthur I see you have two interests in common with...Arthur I see you have two interests in common with me: the political economy of capitalism + northern soul (I was at Wigan from 2nd anniversary thru to about 1979).<BR/>Send me your email.<BR/>Cheers<BR/>Paul Mason<BR/>Newsnight<BR/>paul.mason.01@bbc.co.ukAlexei Medvedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02907898261889768173noreply@blogger.com