tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post5794131188772271048..comments2024-03-28T11:04:16.315+00:00Comments on Boffy's Blog: World War III Has Started!Boffyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-21017818430884503892018-04-15T18:20:41.742+01:002018-04-15T18:20:41.742+01:00You can find the re-post of your article <a hre...You can find the re-post of your article <a href="https://normanpilon.com/2018/04/15/world-war-iii-has-started-boffy-boffys-blog-analysis-of-politics-philosophy-and-economics-from-a-marxist-perspective/>here</a>, Boffy. Many thanks.Norman Pilonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15651072618167013357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-51561699702106380002018-04-15T18:04:33.175+01:002018-04-15T18:04:33.175+01:00"The fact is that the actions of the US, UK a..."The fact is that the actions of the US, UK and France have strengthened the position of both Assad and Putin, because they have given them the basis for rallying their own people around them against an external threat. "<br /><br />And that may be a third possibility, so to speak, to get Assad's and Putin's people to rally around them. <br /><br />My suspicion is that what we are really seeing in the Middle East is an entire region exploding into popular unrest and rebellion. <br /><br />Consequently, although the ostensible rivalry between the implicated states, that is to say, of the factions of ruling cliques involved, is doubtlessly real, if the bigger threat is perceived by them all to be the loss of control over the increasingly restive and rebelling masses, then for tactical reasons, the ruling capitalist cliques (be they Russian, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Israeli, American or whatever) will, so to speak, join forces and coordinate operations to quell the bigger and more urgent threat before proceeding to a settling of differences among themselves.<br /><br />For example, and to pilfer and edit a comment I left elsewhere:<br /><br />Have you seen this: <a href="https://redflag.org.au/node/6153" rel="nofollow">The greatest radicalisation since 1979 as Iran explodes</a><br /><br />My hypothesis: if Iran really does explode, and not on account of anything “instigated” by the so-called West, expect the U.S. to “invade” Iran. The scenario that many (perhaps even “most”) will buy into, is that the U.S. will finally be getting down to the business of toppling yet another regime on which it has had its guns trained for a long, long time. The reality, however, will be otherwise: there will be collusion, as there already is (a collusion to be corroborated by a link to be provided below), between the ruling capitalist cliques of Iran, on one side, and those of the U.S. and whoever else plays the role of the latter’s allies, on the other. The real reason for the invasion — one that many seem to overlook, if only as a possibility — will be "to drown Iranian popular unrest in blood."<br /><br />(Here is a piece that to my mind raises interesting questions about who might be allied with whom in the Middle East, and against whom this alliance might truly be standing: <a href="https://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/the-trump-putin-coalition-for-assad-lays-waste-to-syria-imperial-agreement-and-carve-up-behind-the-noisy-rhetoric/" rel="nofollow">Michael Karadjis</a> Another piece of interest which supports the presumption of widespread social unrest throughout the Middle East, but that speaks more narrowly to this unrest as it manifested and manifests in Syria, see this masterful piece of analysis by Raymond Hinnebusch, <a href="https://normanpilon.com/2017/11/26/syria-from-authoritarian-upgrading-to-revolution-raymond-hinnebusch-11-01-2012-international-affairs/>Syria: from ‘authoritarian upgrading’ to revolution?</a><br />Norman Pilonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15651072618167013357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-39905560015380185132018-04-15T17:24:05.181+01:002018-04-15T17:24:05.181+01:00Norman,
Permission granted.Norman,<br /><br />Permission granted.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-59308037179769076822018-04-15T15:49:20.876+01:002018-04-15T15:49:20.876+01:00With your permission, Boffy, I'd like to re-po...With your permission, Boffy, I'd like to re-post or re-publish this piece on my blog. Not a lot of traffic, but a steady and regular stream of views. Of course, I'd have to "copy and paste," and proper attribution and a link to this post and your blog would be made.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />--N<br /><br />BTW: I'm busy 'reading' some Paul Mattick at the moment (among other things), so the issue of "moral depreciation" is for the moment sidelined, but before the end of the week I should be back to it. Thus far, however, my feeling is that it most definitely trumps "historic cost" as the correct data point on which to 'calculate' the 'rate of profit.'Norman Pilonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15651072618167013357noreply@blogger.com