Navy using munitions at ‘alarming’ speed to defend Israel

Navy using munitions at ‘alarming’ speed to defend Israel

Admiral James Kilby, Naval Operations acting chief, made the remark in his testimony during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the Navy’s budget in Washington when Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, asked about the Navy’s available munitions to defend against global threats.

“The latest round of conflict in the Middle East utilized large amounts of munitions to defend Israel from Iranian strikes,” Schatz said. “Does the Navy currently have all the SM-3s it needs for global threats?”

“We do, sir,” Kilby responded, “but we are, to your point, using them at an alarming rate. As you know, those are missiles procured by the Missile Defense Agency and then delivered to the Navy for our use. And we are using them quite effectively in the defense of Israel.”

Related:

Israel and US exhausting supplies of ballistic missile interceptors, source says

A Permanent Arms Economy

The background to the article reprinted here is the “long boom” of western capitalism during the 1950s and 1960s. It first appeared in International Socialism journal in Spring 1967. On the surface it appeared that the capitalist system had stabilised itself, had broken out of the boom-slump cycle and was now able to offer the workers of Western Europe and North America a steady increase in living standards.

This was a frustrating world for Marxists, who found themselves subject to two temptations. One was to surrender to the claims poured out by the system’s apologists that capitalism had solved its problems and that the path of gradual reform offered a sure road to socialism. The other was to deny the obvious signs of stability and prosperity and assert that capitalism was on the verge of imminent, catastrophic collapse. If these temptations were to be avoided, and Marx’s analysis of capitalism’s contradictions was to hold, then the long boom must be explained.

A Permanent Arms Economy

“The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself.”

Estranged Labour

All these consequences are implied in the statement that the worker is related to the product of labor as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the more the worker lacks objects. Whatever the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.

Related:

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

[03-08-1987] Thomas Sankara: The revolution cannot triumph without the emancipation of women

The revolution cannot triumph without the emancipation of women

The specific character of women’s oppression

Woman’s fate is bound up with that of the exploited male. This is a fact. However, this solidarity, arising from the exploitation that both men and women suffer and that binds them together historically, must not cause us to lose sight of the specific reality of the woman’s situation. The conditions of her life are determined by more than economic factors, and they show that she is a victim of a specific oppression. The specific character of this oppression cannot be explained away by setting up an equal sign or by falling into easy and childish simplifications.

Read More »

Trotsky: The Formalist School of Poetry and Marxism

LEAVING out of account the weak echoes of pre-Revolutionary ideologic systems, the only theory which has opposed Marxism in Soviet Russia these years is the Formalist theory of Art. The paradox consists in the fact that Russian Formalism connected itself closely with Russian Futurism, and that while the latter was capitulating politically before Communism, Formalism opposed Marxism with all its might theoretically.

Literature and Revolution: The Formalist School of Poetry and Marxism