Professor Dominic Lieven, a research professor at Cambridge University and author of: “Towards the Flame: Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia” makes some interesting points in this programme.
Professor Lieven stresses the importance of empire in the beginning of the 20th century. This was a time, he stresses, when you couldn’t really survive if you did not have an empire, and empire-building schemes were undoubtedly part of the reason WWI broke out when it did. The existence of other factors was also important, he adds, mentioning the industrial revolution, which started in Britain but quickly spread to other European countries and Russia. By the time WWI broke out, the Russian economy was already growing quickly, and it is possible that Germany, France and Britain realised that if a war had to be fought, it would have to be started around about then, before Russia would have become too powerful.
Ukraine was important at the beginning of WWI. As professor Lieven points out; 75% of Ukraine was part of Russia at the time, and the territory was vital for Russia as it contained valuable industrial facilities and resources. The country has long lost its importance, Lieven states, as the Ukrainian economy is in a bad shape and the kind of industry and resources available in that country are no longer highly valued. Ukraine’s real value was to act as a buffer state between Russia and what is know as “the West”. A role which unfortunately for all concerned, particularly Ukraine and its economy, has been jettisoned. Lieven is fairly optimistic that Germany may take on a “bridge” role between the East and the West.
Lieven interestingly considers another world war as possible, but not highly likely. If such a war does break out, Lieven considers, it will not be because of Europe, which he says is simply not that important anymore. The really important area, he mentions, is Asia; that is where a major conflict could break out, which would drag us all into a new war of global proportions.
Professor Lieven is an excellent speaker and his points of view are highly interesting. Please do listen to this programme.
There has been some recent controversy over whether Hillary Clinton is a progressive. Bernie Sanders has argued that she is a fair weather progressive, but otherwise is a moderate. Hillary Clinton argues that she is a born-again progressive. It appears both views may be distortions of reality.
In its recent article on what is a progressive, the BBC offers this definition “A progressive is someone who wants to see more economic and social equality – and hopes to see more gains in feminism and gay rights. They’re also supportive of social programmes directed by the state – and they’d like social movements to have more power in the US.”
Sen. Sanders has pointed out Clinton’s addiction to Wall Street money and asks whether a progressive can take that much money from the bourgeoisie and fight for the interests of working people. It is a good question.
In a recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Anderson Cooper asked Clinton why the special interest groups paid her $675,000 for a few speaking engagements. Clinton looked like a deer caught in a headlight when she was forced to face this question and answered fecklessly “I don’t know. That’s what they offered.”
Working people are not stupid even though Clinton may think they are stupid. It was easy for working people to see through this lame response. Any working person knows that when a wealthy person pays you $675,000 they expect something in return. Any working person knows that wealthy people are not generous. They always want something for their money.
Although Sanders talks about a “political revolution”, it is clear that neither he nor Clinton are revolutionaries. Some view the word “revolution” as another word for change. Lenin defined revolution as the passing of state power from one class to another. Neither Clinton nor Sanders advocate for working people to attain state power. Both advocate reform of the capitalist system so that there is a kinder, gentler capitalism. Anyone who has studied the history of capitalism knows that this is not possible and is a mere flight of fantasy.
Back to the BBC definition of “progressive.” Both Sanders and Clinton give lip service to striving for more economic and social equality-and hopes to see more gains in feminism and gay rights. They are also supportive of social programs directed by the state-and they’d like social movements to have more power in the US. So, according to the BBC definition, both Clinton and Sanders are progressives.
It is important to remember that Sanders also talks about revolution. He is famous for advocating for a more fair distribution of wealth in the USA. He also talks about making healthcare a right and making education accessible to all. These are noble goals, but hardly revolutionary. In effect, Sen. Sanders advocates that the USA start catching up with European countries such as the UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and others who have democratic socialist governments. He does not advocate abolishing capitalism and implementing socialism. He talks about socialism but is not a socialist in the historical sense of the word. He is a socialist who advocates that the people in the US are worthy of living in a country where working people have equal benefits to workers in socialist democracies in Europe. Although some might deem this revolutionary, it is not. It is merely catch up reformism which actually would be very good for the working people in the USA.
Although Clinton has given lip service to certain reforms, she has distinguished herself in her latest campaign to be president of the United States by saying that Sanders proposals are too good for working people and are not feasible because her bourgeois benefactors would not allow them. She’s making good money from the bourgeoisie and anyone can easily see where her loyalties lie.
So, wake up sheeple and Google heads in the USA! The people in Europe did not get universal access to healthcare and education by waiting for the bourgeoisie to give them handouts. They had to fight for every inch of ground that they have gained and have had to continue to fight to keep from losing all that they have gained. The bourgeoisie, especially in the USA, are not known to hand out special treats on silver platters even to their most prized lapdogs.
Working people need to recognize that they are not lapdogs of the bourgeoisie. Working people need to recognize that they are the vast majority of the population in the United States and therefore wield a lot of political power. When working people recognize the power they have, they will unite and fight for what is right.
Sen. Sanders proposals are modest at best. Former secretary Clinton’s positions are reactionary at best.
Working people need to ask themselves if Clinton is correct that Sen. Sanders’ proposals are too good for them. They should also ask themselves, “Which side are you on?”
Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption During the campaign, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have argued over who is a progressive
Two Democratic candidates for the US presidency, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, are fighting over the term “progressive”. But what does the word really mean?
In a CNN town hall on 3 February in New Hampshire Mr Sanders and Mrs. Clinton argued over what the word “progressive” means and who has the right to describe themselves in this way.
Mr Sanders said she’s not a liberal when it comes to foreign policy and other issues. She disagreed with him, saying that she’s “a progressive who likes to get things done”. She added that she was “amused” that he’d “set himself up as the gatekeeper of who gets to be a progressive”.
So what is a progressive?
Politicians, activists and others disagree about what the word means. Historians concede that there’s no precise definition. Still they say that in general a progressive fits certain criteria.
A progressive is someone who wants to see more economic and social equality – and hopes to see more gains in feminism and gay rights. They’re also supportive of social programmes directed by the state – and they’d like social movements have more power in the US.
Image copyrightAFPImage caption Protesters in Black Lives Matter – shown in Los Angeles – and other activists belong to the progressive movement
Within the realm of progressive, however, there are different, warring factions, explains David Greenberg, the author of a book called Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency.
One group is dominated by activists from social movements such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, he says, and the other is led by those who belong to the left wing of the Democratic Party (and aren’t part of a social movement or cause).
Pretty much all of of these progressives “view politics as a bottom-up progress”, says Julian Zelizer, an historian at Princeton, and they support the fight for social change. (Though not everybody is on the streets, clamouring for it.)
They also believe that the government can help people, and they look back fondly at Roosevelt’s New Deal jobs programs, which relieved suffering in the 1930s.
For these reasons they see the world and its problems in a similar way, but they often have different ideas about how to fix them. Nearly all progressives agree that banks should be regulated, for example, though they argue about how it should be done. Some believe the regulation should be aggressive – and dramatically change things.
Bernie Sanders, says Greenberg. “wants to break up the banks”.
Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption The left has gone through a revival under President Barack Obama, say US historians
Others are more moderate in their views. Mrs Clinton agrees with him in principle, says Greenberg, “but she doesn’t want to do it willy-nilly”.
But regardless of how they see the issue of banking, they’re proud to call themselves progressive. For Democrats it’s a coveted term. But it wasn’t always that way.
Conservatives attacked a Democratic presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis, for being too lefty in the 1980s and tagged him with the word “liberal” . “It was seen as a dirty word,” says Zelizer.
Afterwards Democrats tried to distance themselves from the term. When Bill Clinton ran for president in the 1990s, he tried hard to avoid the world “liberal”.
During his campaign he cited economic research from a think-tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, and in this way he could promote “liberal economics without calling it liberal”, says Greenberg.
In recent years Democrats have seen the notion of progressive politics in a different light.
The left has gone through a revival under President Barack Obama, says Michael Kazin, who teaches history at Georgetown University in Washington. explaining that “the Democratic Party has become a progressive party”.
The fact that Democratic candidates are now fighting to show how progressive they are shows the way things have changed. As Zelizer says: “It signals that there is more room for the left in American politics than there’s been for a while.”
Many people have noted that the leadership of the CPUSA currently is obviously bent on liquidating the party. The tactic that leadership has employed to these ends is to transform the Communist Party into the Democratic Party, thus alienating the membership. What would happen if Pope Francis announced that the Catholic Church would no longer be Catholic and instead would be Baptist? Of course, Catholics would either overthrow the Pope or bail out of the church and form a new church.
Working people are not fools and the CPUSA leadership should not attempt to fool workers in a play to abscond with party resources.
Why not try honesty for a change? Of course, this would be a novel concept to CPUSA leadership.
CPUSA leadership has been blowing out a lot of hot air about organizing mass movements. Anyone who has followed the party over the last 10 years knows that this is pure balderdash.
Now that leadership has jettisoned many party assets such as historical documents, books and other records of party achievements prior to the chairmanship of Sam Webb, advocated dropping communism, socialism and Marxism Leninism from party discussion and advocated the uncritical stance towards the Democratic Party, why not put your money where your mouth is?
The CPUSA has been posting articles very favorable to the Bernie Sanders campaign. If they want to be Democrats, let them be Democrats.
When Billy Bragg rewrote “The Internationalâ€, he sang “Don’t hold so tight to your possessions because you’ve got nothing if you’ve got no rights!â€
CPUSA leadership: “Don’t hang on so tightly to the party resources because you’ve got nothing if you have no credibility!†Don’t fret and worry about your pensions and how much money Elena Mora will need to go shopping and buy new hats! Liberate yourself from your ill-gotten gains! Instead of taking the money and running, give it to a real people’s movement! Donate all of the worker’s money that you clutch so tightly to the Bernie Sanders campaign. Turn over all party property to the campaign. Offer up your lavish, but unused offices in New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles to the Bernie Sanders campaign.
You’ll feel better in the morning if you do this because you can be sure he won’t squander these precious worker’s resources as you have done.
The corporate media has provided coverage of both the Democratic party and Republican Party debates. However, the coverage has been chaotic at best and difficult to follow. Some of the debates have been aired on free media channels such as ABC, NBC and CBS. However, many of the debates have been covered on cable channels such as Fox and CNN.
A number of my friends have pointed out to me that they cannot view the debates at the time they are broadcast because they are not subscribed to the cable channels.
When the debates are broadcast on cable channels, access is limited to those who can afford to subscribe (i.e. pay the subscription) to the various cable channels. Lower income people who cannot afford to pay the subscription are excluded and unable to watch the debate.
This system is inherently unfair and breeds political ignorance among the populace. Political ignorance among working people always benefits the wealthy classes.
Why not air the debates on one public channel such as PBS? Why not provide broadcast and rebroadcast on this channel as well as in public libraries?
All of the people of the US could benefit if access to the debates was granted to all people.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have clashed over Wall Street and foreign policy, in the Democratic presidential candidates’ first one-on-one debate.
Mrs Clinton cast him as an idealist who will not get things done and Mr Sanders accused her of being too tied to the establishment to achieve real change.
The TV debate in New Hampshire was their first since the Democratic race was whittled down to two this week.
Without a third person on stage, the policy differences were laid bare.
The former secretary of state said Bernie Sanders’ proposals such as universal healthcare were too costly and unachievable.
And she went after her rival aggressively over his attempts to portray her as being in the pocket of Wall Street because of the campaign donations and the fees she had received for after-dinner speeches.
“It’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out,” she said.
Mr Sanders, a senator of Vermont, used a favourite attack line against her, that she backed the Iraq War, but she questioned his foreign policy expertise.
The debate comes five days before the second state-by-state contest in the battle for the presidential nominee, in New Hampshire on Tuesday.
Other highlights include:
She represents the establishment, I represent ordinary Americans, said Mr Sanders
By standing up to big money interests and campaign contributors, we transform America, he said
Mrs Clinton: “I am a progressive who gets things done, and the root of that word progressive is progress”
“Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterise me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment”, she added
Mrs Clinton was asked to release the transcripts of all her paid speeches – she said she would look at it
He demanded the break-up of the big banks but she said her regulatory policies would be tougher on Wall Street
Asked what she stood for, she named clean energy, the affordable care act and getting paid family leave
He said he was stronger because “Democrats win when there is large turnout” and he could enthuse young people
Analysis – Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, New Hampshire
When in doubt, say you’re with Barack Obama. It was telling in this last debate before the New Hampshire primary that both candidates, when forced to defend themselves on grounds where they felt vulnerable, turned to Barack Obama for protection.
Early in the debate, when pressed by the Vermont senator on her ties to Wall Street, Mrs Clinton noted that Mr Obama had taken donations from the financial industry and still passed comprehensive reform. He did it because he was a “responsible president,” she said.
Later in the evening, Mr Sanders was pressed on his foreign policy views and willingness to normalise relations with Iran. He noted that he agreed with Mr Obama on the issue, despite Mrs Clinton criticising the then-senator in 2008 for being “naive”.
The Democratic president is still overwhelmingly popular among Democrats – and he proved to be a reassuring refuge.
But if this, in fact, revealed where the candidates were weakest, that can only be good news for Mr Sanders. Polls overwhelmingly show Democrats are much more concerned about the economy than they are about international affairs.
Image copyrightReutersImage caption There were handshakes and smiles at the start and the finish
Despite the tensions over policies, the debate ended on a warm note, when Mrs Clinton said the first person she would call would be Mr Sanders, if she won the nomination.
The debate was their first without the presence of the former governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, who quit the race on Monday night.
He was a distant third in the first state to vote, Iowa, where Mrs Clinton narrowly beat Mr Sanders after a prolonged count.
Mr Sanders holds a big lead in polls in New Hampshire, which borders the state where he is a senator, Vermont.
Both Republican and Democratic parties will formally name their presidential candidates at conventions in July.
Americans will finally go to the polls to choose the new occupant of the White House in November.
The winner of the Democratic contest will likely face one of Ted Cruz, Donald Trump or Marco Rubio, who finished in that order in the Iowa primaries.
