War and capitalism

War is part and parcel of capitalism all around the globe all wars are related to capitalism and the drive for increased profits all the time. So for organizations like the Stop the War coalition fronted and lead by counter fire who have their roots in the SWP in Britain to celebrate the vote in parliament last week which by the way was by a very narrow margin that this is a victory for democracy and for the anti war movement is just horrid. War is a big business industry with weapons and arms being mass produced and creating jobs and huge profits for capitalism. The Second World War for example increased the rates of profits for war nations as huge investments were made to produce things for the war effort. A snippet from a comrade of mine who I’ve been lucky enough to meet who runs his b log at the socialist way you can follow and read at http://thesocialistway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/capitalism-cause-of-all-modern-wars.html?spref=tw&utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer2d98b&utm_medium=twitter "So when we say that capitalism is the cause, it is also necessary to recognize a distinction between what may in general be called ‘economic’ causes of past wars and the particular causes of wars that arise under capitalism. For instance, insufficiency of food in the past ages could induce a tribe to make a war on a neighbouring tribe to gain control of more fertile land. Such a war would accordingly be described as being due to an economic cause, the absolute shortage of food; and it might be impossible with poor tools at hand and methods known at the time to solve the problem in any other way than fighting it out for the chance that the victors might survive. In our own time the problem is a different one. Now at this present time the means exist for producing enough to supply continuously the needs of all. With modern industrial and scientific knowledge ample food, clothing, houses and the rest of the needs of human beings could be produced if all the resources were used and none were wasted. The trouble is that they are not used to the full. In a multitude of ways production is deliberately restricted; land and materials are utilised for profitable non-productive purposes; millions of men and women through unemployment or military service and armament production, are withdrawn from the task of satisfying human needs; growers are given financial inducements to curtail production, and periodically vast amounts of food and other materials are destroyed in order to keep up prices - quite apart from the destruction that takes place in war itself. If in our own day millions of people are still undernourished or starving, while simultaneously in the US and other countries enormous quantities of foodstuffs are withheld from the market (with deterioration or even destruction as the likely end), it cannot be said that undernourishment or starvation is economically unavoidable. It is capitalism that presents governments with the choice between releasing the food for sale at what it will - which would ruin farmers by depressing prices - and withholding the food to get the high prices with the result that poverty-stricken people cannot buy it. Capitalism and capitalist interests induce every government to behave in a manner which creates antagonism with other capitalist groups and governments, with war as the threatened outcome. The needs of the world’s population could be satisfied by co-operation but it is in the nature of capitalism to prohibit genuine co-operation. " It is clear that war is a necessary enventuallity under capitalism where resources are fought for and markets are competitively fought over. Most wars come down to economic reasons behind it even if it’s not spelled out. Under socialism three would be no need for wars and conflict due to the fact that people’s needs will be met under a democratically planned system. To get there we have a long long way to go but there can be no pace on this planet for as long as capitalism exists and reigns supreme.

Will Britain still go to war in Syria?

Well they will have to do it without the approval of parliament after a motion from David Cameron and the government as surprisingly voted down tonight thankfully in my view. David Cameron: "It is clear to me that the British parliament... does not want to see British military action" Tonight British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons. A government motion was defeated by 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes. Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly". It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime. And it comes as a potential blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt. Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence - rejected by MPs by 114 votes. But - in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians. So where does David Cameron and his pro imperialist supporters go now? I don’t think they’d get away with pushing forward with military action now without a vote before parliament. It shows that Cameron and his authority are weakening all the time and he can be defeated too. This should spur the working class on to know that the government can be defeated if organised and willing. Will there still be intervention in Syria? Well possibly but it may have to be without America’s good friend Britain. This will be interesting to se what America in particular does next.

This feels like Iraq all over again

With a recalling of parliament for a debate and a vote on what action to take in Syria this all feels like de JA vu from 2003. I was not so political back then but I do remember what happened very vividly and it feels too similar for my liking. Do we ever learn? Apparently not the government is a Tory lib dem one yet Labour who was in power in 2003 with Tony Blair famously taking the country to war to remove Sad am Hussein we were told. It later turned out that there were no claimed weapons of mass destruction as claimed and we could not be hit in 45 minutes. The Iraq invasion still haunts this country and the political class in particular they claim as labour do that they are sorry and Ed Miliband is sorry for watt happened this is all very well and good yet nothing has changed his party under his leadership has backed the Libyan intervention of a no fly zone and now look set to back western intervention in Syria. Lessons clearly have not been learnt then. I put a tweet out tonight saying if labour support intervention here will they loose members or face a back lash and I don’t think they will as most good socialists are no longer members of labour anyway and those wishing to reclaim it unbelievably still will look even more ridiculous than they already do. The likes of Owen Jones who claim to want to reclaim labour will have a difficulty explaining this latest pro war intervention and pro imperialist action by their party. What is labour if it is not acting in the naked class instincts of global capitalism now? Clearly there will be a few good Labour MP’s who may oppose this vote but on the whole it will be minimal and the government will have its so called mandate to go ahead and move towards military action in Syria. What form this will take is still not clear. Syria is not Libya and has a much more densely populated areas and where the apparent use of chemical weapons was used and it is still apparent as UN weapons inspectors never ones to support the mass’s have not been able to get in to investigate on safety grounds so I’m suspect right from the start. I will say that any action taking by our government will not be in my name I do not oppose this intervention for the sake of it or just because it’s the Tories and America is involved but quite simply this will not solve anything and will do more to create more toil and division in the region than doing nothing at all. This may seem like I’m standing back and advocating doing nothing but I’d suggest as socialists we support the worker son the ground in Syria and we should point to uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia in recent years to show how a brutal dictator can be removed without western intervention. I’d far more support a popular uprising of workers and the oppressed than an American backed intervention that have no regard for local rights or feelings on the ground. In the desperate pursuit to rise the rate of profit America and Britain are turning to more and more desperate ways. This latest jaunts will do nothing to help any sort of recovery if anything it may create further tensions in the market especially in oil prices. I’ve said for a long time there will be another bigger crisis of capitalism around the corner as the contradictions of the system have not been solved still so could we see an oil price spike set off another slump in the world markets. Only time will tell.

No to western intervention in Syria, for a socialist solution

Over the weekend the rhetoric has been ramped up by the west and military action is looking a growing possibility. I felt I needed to write this blog to oppose this and put my reasons why. There has been a flow of western leaders condemn an apparent chemical attack in Syria by President Assad. A lot of similarities to the claims of WMD’s are quite stark. John Kerry the secretary of state for the US government has recently come out with this. “US Secretary of State John Kerry has condemned what he termed the "moral obscenity" of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people. He said footage of the alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus was "real and compelling" and "undeniable". He said President Barack Obama was considering a response. It comes hours after UN chemical weapons inspectors came under attack near the Syrian capital. The team was dispatched to five sites around Damascus where hundreds of people were reported to have been killed on Wednesday. "What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said in a televised statement on Monday. The US administration had additional information about that attack that it would make public in the days ahead, he added. He said the delay in allowing UN inspectors to the sites of the alleged chemical weapons attack were signs the Syrian government had something to hide.” I myself am very wary of believing what the west has to say. Not because I’m anti western but their track record speaks for itself. The unsubstantiated charges that the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad carried out a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus killing large numbers of civilians have all the hallmarks of a staged provocation aimed at provoking Western intervention. Reports of the attack were made by Western-backed opponents of the Assad regime early Wednesday, just as a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team, admitted to Syria by the government just 72 hours earlier, began its work. Indeed, according to the opposition sources reporting the chemical weapons attacks, they took place in Eastern Gout in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, just a few miles from where the UN inspection team is headquartered. Initial contradictory reports of the alleged attack put the number of victims at as few as 20 and as many as 1,300. Why the Assad regime should choose such a moment to launch large-scale chemical attacks—under the noses of the UN inspectors—and what motive he would have for doing so, under conditions in which his military has been inflicting a series of defeats on the US-backed “rebels,” has not been explained in any of the extensive media coverage of these unverified allegations. Nonetheless, the US and its NATO allies, the principal supporters of the bloody war for regime change in Syria, lost no time in issuing condemnations and demanding an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, which convened behind closed doors in New York Wednesday afternoon. The White House issued a statement declaring itself “deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons.” Together with its allies in London and Paris, it called for both the Security Council session and for the UN team on the ground in Syria to immediately investigate the report. Proponents of direct US intervention in the Syrian civil war went further. The Washington Post rushed an editorial statement onto its web site declaring: “If the allegations of a massive new attack are confirmed, the weak measure adopted by President Obama in June—supplying small weapons to rebel forces—will have proved utterly inadequate.” The newspaper concluded that Obama must respond to the alleged chemical attacks by “ordering direct US retaliation against the Syrian military forces responsible and by adopting a plan to protect civilians in southern Syria with a no-fly zone.” Sounds familiar? Yes it does the very same language was being used in Libya when there was a no fly zone put in place that has done nothing in the long term to maintain stability and prosperity in the region if anything its made things worse. Not that we can equally believe the Assad regime either who have come out with this The Syrian government and its military, which have repeatedly insisted that they would not use chemical weapons against the population, denied the charges made by such US-backed outfits as the Syrian Opposition Centre. The Syrian Foreign Ministry issued a statement charging that the cooperation between Damascus and the UN inspection team “didn’t please the terrorists and the countries supporting them, which is why they came up with new false allegations that the Armed Forces used toxic gas in Damascus countryside.” Syria’s ambassador to Moscow, Riyad Haddad, told the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS that the charges were false and were designed to reproduce the “Iraqi scenario,” i.e., a direct US military intervention in Syria. “Our Armed Forces have never used chemical weapons and all fabricated concoctions in this respect aim to disorient international observers and defocus their efforts in achieving the set goals,” said Haddad. “It is no secret for anyone that all these falsifications that appear from time to time about the use of chemical weapons are nothing but an attempt to repeat the scenario that was used in the past with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” the ambassador added. There can be no support for western intervention or for President Assad either or the rebels who the west did support briefly. Socialists must support independent workers organisations to control their own destiny. Socialists do not support Assad or the ‘rebel’ leadership. We would give all necessary political and active support to workers on the ground fighting for a common front on a class struggle programme which is badly needed. With references and extracts from http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/22/syri-a22.html and www.socialistworld.net

What did those behind the ‘Ring of Steel’ decide ?

www.socialistworld.net, 28/06/2013 website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI Representatives of the 1% pledge more austerity, war and environmental degradation Kevin Henry, Socialist Party (CWI Ireland) Sixty million spent on security so that people could have a peaceful protest, Obama parades around as a man of peace as bored school students listen on and the local politicians get to bask in the reflected glow of the G8’s ’great’ leaders. But when the media are discussing all that, what were those behind the huge security fence around the Lough Erne Resort actually discussing? "Fire up the world economy?" In the Belfast Telegraph we are told by Cameron that “the whole point of this meeting in Lough Erne is to fire up our economies and drive growth and prosperity around the world, to do things that make a real difference to people’s lives.” The summit began with an announcement of EU/US free trade agreement. This is despite the fact the mandate to negotiate the deal was approved by trade ministers meeting in Luxemburg the week before and discussions had been ongoing. Of course never let the facts getting the way of a good story! Cameron claims that such an agreement would create two million jobs and mean adding as much as £100bn to the EU economy. These figures are effectively plucked out of the air and change in every statement made by the key proponents of this free trade agreement. The real agenda of these negotiations is the ’liberalisation’ of our public services and a race to the bottom in terms of workers’ rights and environmental standards. This agreement will include an ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement’ mechanism that would allow foreign investors both in the EU and the US to bypass the normal legal system and directly challenge governments at international tribunals whenever they find that laws in the area of public health, environmental, labour or social protection interfere with their profits. For example, many of those protesting against the G8 visit in Fermanagh were specifically concerned by the issue of ’Fracking’ or hydraulic fracturing. This mechanism is used in other free trade agreements and currently by a US energy firm to challenge a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. This agreement is will be used as part of a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms workers’ wages and conditions and to undermine trade union rights in the name of competitiveness and free trade. Including making it easier for EU companies to access the labour market in the so-called ’Right to Work’ states i.e. states that deny basic trade union right such as to collective bargaining. (For more on this Free Trade Agreement see: EU-US Free Trade Agreement: Race to the Bottom of the Atlantic) Rewriting the rules on tax? We are also told that the summit would deal with transparency around tax issues. The leaders of the G8 clearly feel the pressure on tax evasion. Global tax evasion means multinationals get away with hiding $3 trillion a year in profits, according to research from Tax Justice Network, while as much as $32 trillion could be stashed away by individuals in tax havens. Every time these leaders close hospital or propose new austerity measures they are faced working people asking what about Vodaphone or Starbucks taxes. The capitalist leaders claim that action on tax evasion has to be dealt with at international gathering and a big song and dance was made that it would be dealt with at the G8 summit. British Prime Minister David Cameron said the summit declaration had "the potential to rewrite the rules on tax and transparency for the benefit of countries right across the world, including the poorest countries in the world." Unsurprisingly, however the ’Lough Erne declaration’ on tax commits governments and multinational to very little. It outlines a few basic principles, such as the sharing of tax information among authorities and that more steps are taken to force companies to report where they pay taxes. But, in the words of a War on Want spokesperson, “as always the devil will be in the detail, and there’s no detail here." The deal falls far short of the comprehensive public register of owners that NGO groups had being calling for. The deal does not commit countries to making information public, only to share it with other tax authorities. Of course talk is cheap! Not a penny more in taxes will be paid by Amazon, or any of the other companies that operate intricate webs of offshore companies to avoid tax. Syria: “Blood is on the hands of both parties." Away from the formal sitting of the G8, the focus of the meeting was on Syria, a conflict which has left an estimated 93,000 people dead and which is a source of massive tension between the G8 leaders. With the US, Britain and France wishing to more openly arm the rebels (in reality, they already do through Turkey and Gulf regimes) and with Russia central to arming the Assad regime, this tension is reflected in the comments of the Canadian Prime Minister Harper that the summit is “the G7 plus one.” On the eve of the summit, Russian President Putin and Cameron held a press conference. When Putin was asked whether he had “the blood of Syrian children on his hands” - a reference to Cameron’s recent comments at the UN - Putin replied that “the blood is on the hands of both parties." Obama is now public in his intention to arm rebels and Putin claims that all that his government is doing is supplying "to the legitimate government of Syria.” Even within Harper’s G7 there is divisions. While Chancellor Merkel is complicit in dropping the EU’s arms embargo, she ruled out taking part in arming the rebels and stressed the need for a ’political process.’ The resolution the G8 managed to cobble together on Syria stressed the need for a "political solution to the crisis based on a vision for a united, inclusive and democratic Syria". For all the Western powers claiming to be defending the Syrian people, the resolution makes no reference to the alleged use of chemical weapons or the future of Assad, due to resistance from Putin. It only states that a transitional government must be formed "by mutual consent" between the different sides of Syrian society. Importantly, however, it makes clear that Syria’s military and security forces will be allowed to remain intact following a transition of power - seen as a tacit encouragement to Assad’s senior officers to launch a coup. In reality, while both sides will continue arming their respective sides, the Western powers do not feel confident enough in the opposition, either politically or militarily, to openly fully back and arm them, at this point. Some of the powers fear further destabilising the region and they also realise there is little public support for imperialist intervention in Syria. A Pew Research poll indicated that 70% of Americans oppose arming the opposition. For socialists, the Syrian civil war, which is also a proxy conflict between big powers’ interests, is a testament to the failure of capitalism in the region. None of the parties – all of which have blood on their hands - offers anything for the Syrian masses. Arming factions or holding ’peace conferences’ or encouraging a military coup will just replace one butcher regime with another. It will take revolutionary struggle, as we saw in Tunisia and Egypt, armed with a socialist alternative that can end the rule of the reactionary forces trying to carve up Syria. The rule of the 1% Despite a massively publicised campaign by charities around aid and world hunger, where was that on the G8 agenda? In fact, the amount of money the world’s richest countries give to ’developing countries’ fell by $2.9 billion between 2011 and 2012. And on climate change, the issue is all but ignored accept a tag on page at the end of the summit communique. The pro-big business politics pursued in the ‘Ring of Steel’ at Lough Erne, is a vindication of what the Socialist Party and others who organised against the G8 said in the course of our campaign; the G8 represent the interest of the 1% and the policies of austerity, war and criminal environmental policies. We need to build a socialist alternative, so that the decisions that affect the future of our society are not taken by CEOs in boardrooms or unrepresentative politicians behind Steel fencing. But instead the resources of society are publically owned and democratically controlled and managed by working people.

The hypocrisy of the west when it comes to Syria

As we have been watching on our tv's today the Syrian government is trying to crush the dissent from the anti government protesters today with huge force.

Syria's army has advanced into the southern city of Deraa, using tanks to support troops amid an intensified effort to curb popular protests.

One activist was quoted as saying that security forces were "firing in all directions", and at least five people were reportedly killed.

Witnesses also said security forces had opened fire in a suburb of Damascus.

A prominent human rights campaigner said President Bashar al-Assad had launched a "savage war" on protesters.

In the US, the Obama administration is considering imposing sanctions on senior Syrian officials to pressure the regime to stop its violent crackdown, Reuters news agency quoted a government official as saying.

The official said steps taken could include a freeze on assets and a ban on business dealings in the US, but gave no time-scale for the measures.

According to a UN Security Council diplomat, the UK and other European states are circulating a draft statement condemning the violence in Syria.

There have been numerous reports of crackdowns and arrests around Syria over recent days, despite the lifting of an emergency law last week.

Deraa is the city in which protesters, many of whom are now demanding that President Assad step down, began calling for political reforms last month.

It is just a few miles from the border with Jordan, which has been closed by the Syrians, according to Jordan's information minister.


Opposition activists said Monday morning's raid on Deraa involved as many as 5,000 soldiers and seven T-55 tanks.


This is a big move by the government, an attempt to sort this out once and for all I think. We'll now have to see if the protesters are going to be forced back into their homes, or whether they will remain defiant despite what's happened.

Syria is a one-party state and it has been extremely repressive in the past. The last time this happened was 1982 when there was an insurgency in just one town, Hama. The father of the current president sent in troops and they killed possibly 10,000 people and razed a whole quarter.

That is the history of this government. We may not be seeing anything on that scale but we are seeing something of that character, with troops being moved in to make sure the government remains the government.

The US has suggested that sanctions may be imposed on Syrian regime officials in response to the crackdown, but I don't think many people in Syria think targeted sanctions will make a difference in a situation like this.
Tanks surrounded the Omari mosque in the old city with snipers firing from rooftops, anonymous opposition sources said. The opposition reported than more than 25 people were killed, and their bodies could not be reached because of the fierce gunfire. This claim could not be independently verified.

One activist, Abdullah al-Harriri, told AFP: "The men are firing in all directions and advancing behind the armour which is protecting them."

"Electricity is cut off and telephone communications are virtually impossible."

While there are reports of growing strife among Syrian army officers on different levels - with suggestions that some soldiers have changed sides and are now fighting with the people of Deraa - foreign journalists have been prevented from entering the country, making information hard to verify.

But the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones, in neighbouring Lebanon, says the use of tanks has not been reported elsewhere in Syria, and would mark a scaling up in the government's response to protests.

It appears from the latest reports that the government is absolutely determined to use force to suppress the protest movement, he says.


All this news is very worrying for the good people of Syria. Several questions come to mind though firstly will this finnish off this uprising by the good people of Syria or will they cease for now but come back and defy the governments orders at a later date looking to push back the government more ?

also the key here again just like in the Egyptian uprisings the army could be key here. In Egypt as we saw the army split and a lot downed guns and joined the rebels in trying to over over throw the government which ended up in a success in that instance.

Many questions still there for me and what is most notable is the western hypocrisy on this situation. When you looka cross the region to Libya where NATO planes continue to bomb Tripoli and Libya itself enforcing their "no fly zone " which i think they have destroyed all targets now so no idea why they are still there is striking when you look at Syria and American, British and french polititains are not calling for intervention there this time ? this all seems very wrong and why Libya is deamed nessesary to enforce a no fly zone yet Syria is looked at ok to let it carry on while putting up silly sanctions which have no affect at all.

So it will be interesting to see how this one develops. I do hope the government is over thrown in Syria and the power is given to the workers in a trade union movement to brin about a socialist society but i am guessing if there is any chance of that the imperialist west will not like to see that and will act then.