After agreeing that the US attack upon a Syrian air force base constituted a violation of international law, a violation of Syrian sovereignty, an Ivy League law professor told NPR that he believes that the premeditated strike was justified nonetheless. The professor likened it to running a stop sign or a stop light in an emergency.
Statement by the Political Bureau of the Lebanese Communist Party Condemning the U.S. aggression on Syria
The political Bureau of the Lebanese Communist Party condemns the direct U.S. aggression against Syria which targeted the Shayrat air base in the area of Homs, flagrantly violating Syrian sovereignty and International law. This clearly reflects the rise of the aggressiveness of the U.S. as a result of its economic crisis and reveals the real face of terrorism, the state terrorism that it practices as an attempt to regain its lost role as the world leader. Hence, the Trump administration is trying today to demonstrate its power to the world at the expense of the unity of Syria and its people and institutions. It is also trying to give a boost of support to its tools in the region and to block any negotiated solution in Syria that would end the war and stop the bloodshed.
Treasury and Reserve Bank are the biggest obstacles
The South African government’s economic policy is still based on the
neo-liberal paradigm and the National Treasury working with the Reserve Bank
are responsible for these policies.
The National Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Ireland, meeting over the weekend of 11 March, evaluated the political challenges facing the people at both the national and the international level at the present time. The recent elections to the Belfast Assembly highlighted a number of features. Unionism lost ground, and we witnessed the near-collapse of the old Ulster Unionist Party, with the DUP losing seats but remaining the largest party and Sinn Féin significantly improving its position. Clearly “liberal” unionism is fragmenting, and a significant number have shifted to the Alliance Party.
Dr. Priscilla Metscher – “National interests and internationalism do not cancel each other. They should be an important part of left-wing politics todayˮ
by Milena Rampoldi, ProMosaik. In the following my interview with Dr. Priscilla Metscher about socialism, history of socialism, and the challenges of today’s socialism in Europe. Dr. Priscilla Metscher was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland. She taught Irish studies at Oldenburg University, Germany, from 1974 to 1999. She has published many articles on the history of radical Irish politics and is the author of James Connolly and the Reconquest of Ireland (2002) and Republicanism and Socialism in Ireland from Wolfe Tone to James Connolly (2016).
Why is it so important to study the history of politics and of political movements, like socialism for example?
First of all I think it is important to study the history of politics and political movements, as such an insight shows us that the primary motivating force in the history of class societies is productive relations and ultimately the class struggle. The centre of that struggle is politically active class consciousness and political organisation. So ideas as they evolved must be seen within the context of social and political movements. They cannot be examined as some abstract ideology apart from their social and political context.
They have variably proclaimed (1) China’s economy is in decline; (2) the debt is overwhelming; a Chinese real estate bubble is ready to burst; (3) the country is rife with corruption and poisoned with pollution; and (4) Chinese workers are staging paralyzing strikes and protests amid growing repression – the result of exploitation and sharp class inequality. The financial frogs croak about China as an imminent military threat to the security of the US and its Asian partners. Other frogs leap for that fly in the sky – arguing that the Chinese now threatens the entire universe!
The ‘China doomsters’ with ‘logs in their own eyes’ have systematically distorted reality, fabricated whimsical tales and paint vision, which, in truth, reflect their own societies.
In recent times, ‘peace accords’ (PAs) have become a common refrain across the world. In almost every region or country, which are in the midst of war or invasion, the prospects of negotiating ‘peace accords’ have been raised. In many cases, PA’s were signed and yet did not succeed in ending murder and mayhem at the hands of their US-backed interlocutors.
We will briefly review several past and present peace negotiations and ‘peace accords’ to understand the dynamics of the ‘peace process’ and the subsequent results.
While most of the US has been occupied with post-election insanity, looking for Russians under every bed, and longing for some reason to have confidence in governing institutions, a curious article appeared in the February 15 issue of the influential conservative magazine, Commentary.
Authored by a deeply embedded member of the intellectual and political elite, Nicholas Eberstadt, the article, Our Miserable 21st Century, paints a dismal portrait of economic and social life in the US since the turn of the new century. On the face of it, it appears odd to find such a searing critique, such a negative portrayal of the state of the nation from a staunch defender of the capitalist system.
We will proceed in this essay to compare and discuss the unbroken rise of militarism over the past seventeen years. We will then demonstrate that militarism is an essential structural feature of US imperialism’s insertion in the international system.
THE political struggle has a logic all its own. A man may be an adept at walking the tight-rope. He may strain every nerve in doing so, and be entirely successful in avoiding a fall either to one side of the arena or the other. But in the class struggle man cannot walk the tight rope. The more he tries, the more obvious it becomes that he is on one side and not the other.
Something like this has happened to Trotsky in his History of the Russian Revolution. For all his pretensions that it is “an honest study of the facts, determination of their real connections,” his book is none the less—or all the more—a bulky, three-volume pamphlet against Leninism, and above all against Lenin’s Party. It would indeed be strange were matters otherwise, when a man fought Lenin’s Party, off and on, from 1903 to 1917, and again from 1927 (to take only the date of his formal expulsion) up to the present day.