Biased, politicised science is real science. Not the platonic ideal you have in your head.

That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.

Respectfully, this is a weak sauce excuse, and a completely unscientific attitude. Scientists do not establish arbitrary barriers between different fields.

These kinds of statements 99% of the time come from people who don’t even do science, and whose understanding of science consists of “take down data points, analyse data points, be neutral” (paraphrasing your comment).

In reality, scientific names are usually given to honor specific people. The idea that the community just gives names to people who discovered things is simply ignorant of history. There are literally cases of people purchasing name recognition. There are also cases of people being honored by having their name on a phenomena they didn’t even discover, or a unit they did not create (typical for units, which are standardised by committees and not named after people in the standardisation committee)

It’s absolutely possible for the UK to increase its defence spending while also not harming civilians, in the Middle East or anywhere else.

Not for imperial Britain. It’s possible for other countries, but not for imperialists. If you have the slightest concern for the people of Britain and people in other countries, you should oppose all attempts made by the imperialists to arm themselves. I oppose the imperial British arming themselves for the same reason I oppose nazi Germany arming itself.

Has there been a single year in my entire life where the western powers were not at war against some third world country? If the British really can be trusted with a military, they should prove it.

justified

Literally never even implied that. I’m sorry that your political education was limited to watching marvel movies with battles between good and evil.

Ukraine, a relatively weak country, joined NATO, it wouldn’t make a massive difference to the capabilities of NATO.

On the contrary, it would. Allowing western military infrastructure on an indefensible border would have been a catastrophic strategic error.

Also, kind of amazing to see liberal now hyping up Russian military capabilities when earlier in the war, they were calling it a “gas station with nukes”. Maybe the threat of these “advanced military capabilities” should have played a role in the political calculations of sending Ukrainians into an unwinnable war.

The reason some Ukrainians want to join NATO is because of the very real existential threat that Russia has posed to the state of Ukraine.

There was no such strategic or existential threat in the aftermath of the cold war where the west basically lotted and puppeteered Russia. Even putin had naively tried to join nato believing that this would alleviate western attempts at putting military pressure on Russia back in 2008 or 7, don’t remember the exact year.

I don’t know why you think Russia should be trusted to launch no more invasions of Europe.

Trusted is the wrong word. Prediction is better. The overwhelming majority of wars occur around previously predictable flashpoints. This does not mean that wars do not break out without reason, but this is rare. The same goes with Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had been predicted all the way back in Clinton’s time, with some of his advisors explicitly being concerned that arming Ukraine would undermine the post-cold war order and security in Europe.

Next time it might be another former-USSR country, like one of the Baltics.

On what basis, and for what gain?

The UK is of course obliged by its NATO membership to help the Baltics if they are invaded.

Precisely. You are positing that the Russians will invade and fight against NATO, triggering WW3. But why? What would the geopolitical drive be for such an action on the Russian part?

Also you mention “the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders” as if that’s a legitimate excuse for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and Georgia.

The behaviors of states and nations have nothing to do with “legitimacy”, which is a made up concept. On the Russian side, western military encroachment into Ukraine was viewed as an existential threat, and they had communicated this view over and over to the west even before Putin’s rise to power. When dialogue failed to produce results, and the maidan coup happened, the Russians supported the separatists in the Donbass. Even then, they signed 2 ceasefires (Minsk 1 and Minsk 2), both of which were still broken. The Russians thought that Trump would solve the situation, but he didn’t because he generally tends to fumble just about everything.

Then after all that, they decided to launch basically a decapitation strike on Ukraine in Feb 2022. By April 2022, the strike hadn’t worked, but the Ukrainians and Russians were in the process of another treaty, which as far as I remember, Boris Johnson convinced the Ukrainians to not take. It was only then that the attrition war mess started.

My point is, western powers had many many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. Russia also had the choice of not invading, but every Russian leader made it clear that a Ukraine militarily integreated into the west is a national security catastrophe for them. That includes everyone from Gobachev (the one who dissolved the USSR on behalf of the west), Yeltsin (the one installed by the west), and Putin (the Russian liberal who initially wanted to join NATO until the west made it clear that they basically wanted to continue the cold war).

In essence, every russian leader since the late 1980s started out as pro-west, and yet the west simply does not want to end the cold war. So now you’re back to the same situation as before the dissolution of the USSR. The formation of 2 competing blocs that engage in proxy wars to contain each other’s power. And let’s be clear, Russia is not the only taking military action. The west’s military adventurism in west asia directly threatens the security of Russia and China, and India, and Europe. Part of the reason for the west’s fanatical levels of support for Israel is precisely because it is a convenient launching pad for de-stabilization actions taken in the heart of Eurasia.

it is perfectly possible for the UK to increase its defence capabilities, while also refraining from attacks upon the Middle East

This is for a hypothetical UK that has divested from the imperial system in west asia, a hypothetical UK that does not exist.

I think that’s a separate issue from the UK and its allies spending more on defence in order to protect themselves from Russia, though.

It very much isn’t. You don’t have 2 seperate militaries, one for defense against Russia and one for use against everyone else.

If you think Europe and the UK should do more to try and stop Israel’s conduct in Palestine then that’s fair enough.

I’m talking more big picture. You have to look at geopolitics from the big picture, and the little details as well. What kinds and quantities of weapons will your new defense spending provide? What social services will your government cut using the excuse of managing the budget? What are the energy and mineral costs of these new weapons? Are these new weapons actually of the type that will address the threat profile from Russia towards the UK? Where will these weapons be used? Who is gaining the money from these military contracts?

Once you start asking these questions, the whole narrative around western rearmament falls apart. Especially when you look at how these people who want to ramp up military spending are simultaneously pursuing further austerity and de-industrialization. Your government are theives stripping out the copper from your walls, and promising you that they will use the copper wire to build an electric fence around your house. Except also an electric fence doesn’t protect you from the threats you actually face, and the thief doesn’t have the equipment to build you a fence.

As someone living in Europe, I actually do want to see this continent prosper, but I am seeing people repeating the same mistakes of the pre-ww1 era.

I do think Russia is a threat to Europe though.

This idea is contradicted by 3 factors

1. Russia was willing to prop up European industry by selling it cheap energy and commodities right up until Europe sanctioned Russia. Hell, even today, Russians are indirectly selling gas to Europeans.
2. Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine and Georgia is based on unique factors that do not apply to the rest of Europe (the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders. Remember, the Germans were able to march all the way to Moscow by invading through the border at Ukraine in living memory. That border is very difficult to defend).
3. The idea of “eurasianism” was popularized starting in Russia, that is, the idea of a pan-Eurasian economic and political cooperation. It is easy to see why such an idea would appeal to Russians, since it is in the long-term interests of Russians to cooperate with their neighbors and multi-lateral trade between India, China, Russia and Europe would allow these countries to economically surpass and de-couple from the US.

Now I do not assume that the average European is going to look at Russia after the invasion very fondly, however, Europeans must accept the fact that a) Russia isn’t going anywhere, b) They have 0 incentive to invade Europe unprovoked and finally, c) the de-industrialized neoliberal west has overextended itself in the post covid years to an unsustainable degree. At this rate, the west will be ripped apart by internal forces faster than external ones.

In any case I don’t think the UK is planning new military action in the Middle East.

You’re basing this on what? And who said that the UK’s future aggression will only be limited to the middle east?

Starmer recently criticised Israel for its conduct in Gaza.

Congratulations for the mildly worded letter while still providing military parts and daily reconossaince missions I guess.

If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza

They should start by not supplying Israel and America with military support and parts.

Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.

Is it? The European countries have fought scarcely any defensive wars since ww2. Do you think the weapons built today in the name of defending against Russia will not be used for Europe’s next colonial adventures?

Not to mention, everytime europe arms itself, other countries also arm themselves in response. And this time, the Europeans don’t even have the industrial capacity to actually arm themselves for a peer to peer conflict (only for suppressing insurgents in colonies). They really just want to shovel money to consultants and the MIC.

I don’t think Europe plans to invade anywhere.

Have I been imagining the euro-american wars and colonialism in the middle east then? The ones literally ongoing right now?

Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia

And these are also the most neoliberalised, nationalistic and militantly anti-communist states in europe. And these were heavily armed states well before the Russian involvement in Ukraine.

The doctrine of “peace through strength” has scarcely ever worked out, especially not in europe. Modern European history is a basket case of out-of-control arms races.

Are European countries donating weapons to Israel?

Literally yes. Germany is a major one. And Britain helps with reconnaissance and supplying parts for things like F35s.

Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong

Congratulations to the European politicians I guess for realising that maybe giving unconditional public support for fascism has a negative effect on your optics.

I guess they can move on to trying to hide better their assistance to israel. Perhaps they can launder it through Al jolani and his dictatorship in Syria. He did recently meet with the European heads of states, and he did afterwards announce that he would collaborate with israel. Not to mention that the fall of baathism in Syria severely negatively impacts the logistics of supplying the Palestinian resistance. So even if jolani did nothing else, by proping him up, the European states can ensure that no one can actually stop Israeli soldiers on the ground.

You seem to suggest that a powerful military is a good thing then.

It is a good thing if only it is used for defensive purposes. Other than WW2, the UK has practically never seen a defensive war. However, I am using your logic here. You want a powerful military for “national security”. I am telling you that your politicians are not creating a powerful military.

I don’t believe in the UK harming anybody in the Middle East.

Then you are not keeping up with the news. The UK has provided a lot of arms to the occupation in Palestine and runs daily reconnaissance missions for them. Furthermore, the UK has been a willing partner of America in its war on terror.

This is cope. It is precisely because the British people keep falling for idiotic nationalistic cope that their nation has become so catastrophically de-inudstrialised and impoverished.

Your politicians gut everything resembling a healthcare system, education system, energy infrastructure or useful industry, things that would actually allow you to create a healthy, innovative and powerful military. Then they throw money at consultants and contractors in the PMC sector and trick you into believing that you are strengthening your national security.

No, the only thing you are doing is subsidising the lifestyle of a few scammers. In exchange, you will get a small amount of overbudget and late weapons that will be shipped off to kill people in the middle East.

Ukraine is in Europe.

Ukraine is not the whole of Europe or a majority of Europe. It’s 1 country in Europe.

the idea

The ideas don’t matter, reality does. Russia is not fighting NATO because the attacks on NATO or Russian territory have been extremely limited, and most of the attacks on Russian territory or infrastructure are carried out by Ukraine.

If that’s true then why have many European countries been making plans to vastly increase their defence spending?

That’s the standard neoliberal playbook. Neoliberals have been overspending on war and invading every part of the planet since the end of WW2. Pretending that neoliberals increasing war spending is a sign of greater national security threats is like saying that the sun rising from the east is a sign that it’s going to rain today.

The current crop of eurolibs is in simple terms using the war in Ukraine as a pretense to militarise. If they were so worried about an imminent Russian invasion or threat after Ukraine, they would not be pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine. Instead they would be conserving resources.

Defending the UK

From what? Affordable living costs and welfare? Middle Eastern people being alive?

Russia is not waging a war against Europe, but against Ukraine. They are literally explicitly not waging a war against Europe to prevent escalation. And that’s also why all European attempts to (openly) send soldiers to Ukraine failed. Cause none of the European countries wants to go to war with Russia, and none of their leaderships really think that Russia is a military threat to them.

1. Rainy, damp, cloudy, windy weather is peak weather and beats a “nice sunny day” 80% of the time.

2. Ice cream is winter food and not summer food because of how fatty it is. Popsicles are summer food and not so appealing in the winter.

3. All countries should be making a 100% effort towards eliminating all meat (except that produced by subsistence farmers and the like) in their diets for the sake of the climate. Poverty is not an excuse because vegetarian diets use many many times less resources (which is why wealthy countries eat much more meat).

4. Large wealthy countries should provide free vitamin supplements worldwide to reduce diseases.

Oh, I didn’t even realize this. Thanks.

A number of proposals have been kicked around for decades. There hasniot been the will to implement.

That’s the point. A dictatorship of the bourgeoise will not implement progressive policies unless you fight hard for them. They will however, in the absence of resistance, implement increasingly reactionary policies in a heartbeat.

The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class.

No, the overarching goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless and moneyless society.

Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.

No. At best, you could say that coops are a proto-socialist element within a capitalist society. Firstly, I am using the term “socialist” as separate from “communist” here, and secondly, a proto-socialist element is a very different thing from an enclave of socialism within a capitalist world.

The simple problem is that capital is capital. A capital is a self-reproducing social relation that competes with other capitals in a sort of evolution by natural/sexual/artificial selection on the markets. The problem is capital itself, and the solution is to destroy capital. Creating a new type of capital that is less destructive, or one that operates under less destructive modes is fine for countries where development has not reached to the point that they can directly gun towards communism. However, for advanced, and especially late-stage capitalist economies, the task is not to pursue further development of market forces, because market forces have already matured. The task is to eliminate market forces (although this may take time).

Coops may give a more equal distribution of wealth amongst the workers, but the aim of the communists is to abolish wealth, because the very meaning of wealth is that a private individual gets to command the labor of others. That is the fundamental social relation that money embodies and facilitates. The only way to remove the power to exploit other people’s labor is to remove the ability to command labor. But if you cannot command labor, then money becomes worthless and your ownership of the coop doesn’t mean anything.

Are organizations focusing on this and I just don’t know about it?

Yes. A quick google search shows examples such as the international labor organisation

If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?

Part of the fundamental problem is just that the bourgeois class is not stupid. They want exploitable workers and profits. If you deprive them of that, prepare to face their wrath as they abandon all pretenses of human rights or fairness or the sanctity of markets.