Sputnik

amodernmanifesto:

Looking through the mists of obligatory sentimentalism that enveloped the 70th aniversary of the outbreak of WWII, James Heartfield remembers the pitiless subordination of people to production on all sides of that crisis, and argues against the idea that the war tipped the scales in the favour of the working class.

The labour question was not an afterthought in the Second World War. It was the greatest question of all. The victors in the national struggle were those who best mobilised their domestic workers and so best equipped their armies. The net impact of the war on the working class was that more of them worked much harder, and got paid less. Even in the biggest and most successful wartime economy, the US, personal consumption fell from 72 percent of output in 1938 to 51 per cent in 1945.

At the same time, the numbers in work grew by ten million and hours increased by a quarter. All of that excess production was going somewhere: it was going to fight the war. The sheer waste is beyond our wildest dreams. But the waste was not hurting everyone. Business, especially, US business, was reborn through the war effort. Like business across the globe, they needed new markets for the great amount of goods they made. The war fixed that.

Destructive as it was, the war laid the basis for new industry. Plants created in Detroit and Dagenham, the Urals and Silesia during the war would lay the basis for the post-war boom. ‘A Nazi public utility like Volkswagen, or private utility like Daimler-Benz, laid down plant and equipment in the 1930s (and early 1940s) that would form the basis for post-war growth’, says Mark Mazower.1Even in Soviet Russia 55 percent of the national income was given over to war production that would be the basis of industrialisation after.2

Before one shot could be fired in the Second World War the bullets and the rifles, the uniforms, the trains and lorries to carry the soldiers, the steel to supply the munitions factories, the coal to furnace the steel, the oil to power the engines all had to be made, dug and drilled by another army, the industrial workforce. In the decade from 1935 to 1945 the warring nations turned their factories into engines of destruction. Between 1933 and 1936 US armaments spending rose from $628 million to $1.161 billion, by 1942 government awarded $100 billion to US business in military contracts.3 The growth in output was phenomenal. Aircraft production was more than twenty times greater in 1944 than in 1935. To get this much out of industry, factories had to be placed under military discipline – not just in the Fascist countries, but in the democracies too.

As these lines are being written hundreds of thousands of Iranians have poured onto the streets to celebrate the victory of Hassan Rouhani, in the presidential elections. Pictures of mass celebrations all over Iran are circulating the internet. This is an open defiance of Khamenei and the whole security apparatus of the regime which was dealt a humiliating defeat in the elections.

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

The Syrian government on Sunday condemned Egypt’s decision to cut ties with Damascus and back the armed uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, calling it an “irresponsible” move.

“The Syrian Arab Republic condemns this irresponsible position,” an unnamed Syrian official told state news agency SANA.

The official said Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi had joined the “conspiracy and incitement led by the United States and Israel against Syria by announcing the cutting of ties yesterday.”

“Syria is confident that this decision does not represent the will of the Egyptian people,” the official added, accusing Mursi of announcing the severing of ties to deflect attention from internal crises.

Mursi, an Islamist who hails from the Muslim Brotherhood, announced Saturday the “definitive” severing of ties with war-torn Syria, and the recall of Egypt’s charge d’affaires in Damascus.

He called for the international community to impose a no-fly zone and denounced the role of Lebanon’s Hezbollah in Syria, where its members are helping the army battle rebels.

cashmensch:

Everybody knows the famous Karl Marx quote, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” but because of a changing historical and medical context in regards to opiates, most people in the modern era misinterpret it.

In 2013, the word opiate conjures up images of heroin abuse and the stigma that goes along with it. You hear the word opiate and think of junkies, and you also think of the stigma attached to drug addicts which is that they are weak and to be looked down upon. (This misinterpretation explains a lot about New Atheism’s dickish attitudes.)

When Marx wrote that, opiates were mainly regarded as a painkiller for only the worst kinds of pain. This is before drug addiction was really understood from a medical standpoint, and decades before opium addiction ravaged China and the ensuing Opium Wars. (On a side note, it is interesting to note that the widespread opium addiction in China in the late 1800’s is one of the first well recorded drug epidemics, and can easily be compared to the crack epidemic of the 1980’s in America, the current meth epidemic and the spread of the drug krokodil in Russia. Also, it is interesting to note that Mao Zedong, an adherent of Marx, was hardline anti-drug and despite the terrible things he did in the 1950’s, Mao did play a crucial role in decreasing opium addiction in China during his stay in power.)

What Marx meant by that quote was that religion soothed the pain of the masses, not that the masses were weak, addicts, or “sheep” like so many New Atheists claim. In areas of widespread poverty, famine and overall hardship, religion does provide a sense of security, belonging and meaning for people afflicted by the horrors of the world. Karl Marx did not try and defame the intellect or moral fiber of the religious, but to understand why religion is appealing in the darkest times in life.

If only more people knew that.

thebeastinsidethebombshell:

Just putting the call out again!
Protest in Sligo, Ireland, on Saturday against the Russian Delegation of the G8 summit staying in a local hotel.

We are hosting a protest to highlight the abuses currently underway in Russia!

I’m asking my dear friends and…

amodernmanifesto:

An ecologically sustainable society would look radically different from the individualistic, capitalist-dominated society we currently live in. Among others, such a society would have these features:

•Production for human need:Instead of producing for profit, the governing principle of the economy would be to meet the needs of people and the ecosystems we depend on. This would allow us to produce in the ways that are most sustainable, rather than most profitable, as well as eliminate whole branches of industry which are only necessary for making profit, such as advertising.

•Collective: More things would be held and enjoyed in common, such as public transit, parks and recreational facilities, healthcare and quality education. This would reduce waste as well as give everyone access to social goods.

•Planned: We need economic planning in order to allocate resources in the best way possible for people and the planet—to build cities instead of suburbs, wind farms instead of coal plants. 

•Democratic: Democracy is essential for successful planning. When workers and communities are empowered to make decisions about production, they will be able to find creative solutions that respect ecological limits while fulfilling people’s needs.

•More fulfilling: Because we’d be producing to meet people’s needs rather than to fabulously enrich a small elite, we could reduce the workweek, freeing people to develop their talents and live with more leisure time.