Skip to main content

ECONOMIC POLITICS

Politicians are fond of pretending that they are concerned about ethical matters and would deny that their primary function is to concern themselves with the economic interests of their masters. So it comes as no great surprise to learn that the EU spokesmen prattle on about "the political rights of small nations" whilst in reality having sordid economic interests in mind.
"Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned the European Union not to turn a proposed partnership with former Soviet countries against Russia. He was speaking at the end of a Russia-EU summit held against a background of deep divisions over security, trade and energy supplies. A BBC correspondent in Moscow says the biggest concern at the summit was over Russian gas supplies to Europe. Deliveries were halted in January due to Moscow's price dispute with Ukraine. ... A year ago - when Mr Medvedev became Russia's new leader - there was hope that relations with the EU might gradually improve, the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow says. Instead, he says, they have got steadily worse. Relations plummeted after last year's brief war between Russia and Georgia. Since then there has been another gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine which led to gas supplies to many European countries being cut off for two weeks in mid-winter. There is also a growing battle over energy pipelines as the EU tries to find alternatives to its growing dependency on Russian gas." (BBC News, 21May) RD

Comments

aberfoyle said…
With the Ukraine being on its knees and close to compleat bankruptcy,no doubt the Russians are screwing them to the floor for the cost of their gas,and Russia will eventualy bank role them or move the tanks in.

Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…