ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes he was a revanchist who wanted to revive Japanese militarism. Which of course is why US and other Western politicians are heaping praise on him. They see a re-militarised Japan as an counterweight to China. Also they don’t like the idea of politicians being assassinated for their views as they could be next. We don’t either of course.
The Liberals will need to be more astute than last time when they extracted a promise from their Tory coalition partners to hold a referendum on electoral reform, only to be stabbed in the back as the Tories did nothing to discourage their supporters from campaigning and voting against it.
What was proposed in the referendum was not proportional representation but the alternative vote under which people vote 1,2,3 and votes are redistributed until one candidate crosses the 50% mark (similar to the system under which executive mayors are now elected). This allows those who finished 2nd and 3rd to gang up against the one who finished 1st.
Actually, this has what has been happening – or rather the same effect had been produced — in recent by-elections were the Labour has run a token campaign in the Tory shires so their supporters vote liberal and the Liberals doing the same in the big cities so their supporters vote Labour.
Of course you can devise and introduce the most democratic electoral system but it won’t make much difference as long as the voters support one capitalist party or another, as they currently do. Even with such a system, the need for socialist activity to win over a majority for socialism remains.
With the economy in the state it is and likely to still be in two years, I can’t see how the Tories can win the next election. So, what we are seeing is the scramble to become the next Leader of the Opposition after a brief spell as a lame duck prime minister. I’m surprised that there are so many applicants.
This article, originally from Bloomberg, is quite insightful. It makes the point that Western politicians and journalists won’t be able to sustain popular tolerance of the war in the face of the economic pain they assumed people would put up with. People will eventually get fed up with governments spending money to prop up some government abroad while they suffer from the rising cost of living.
https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/ukraine-shouldnt-overplay-its-hand-with-allies-1.89130375
I use Kiev, Kharkov, Lvov, Odessa, etc because that’s what they have long been in English. On the other hand I am prepared to spell Boris the Ukrainian way as Borys. But I am not going to spell Trotsky as Trotskyy. Using Ukrainian transliteration is an affectation.
There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the streets of Kiev at Johnson’s demise:
Like the last one, the new Chancellor if the Exchequer is a multi-millionaire. Today’s Times says of Nadhim Zahawi:
“Most of his wealth is tied up in property assets, said to be worth £100 million.”
Another example of a capitalist taking direct charge of their class’s general interest rather than entrusting this to a career politician.
Yes I don’t think that was the case. The question is who said it (or made it up). The Ukrainian nationalist journalist attributed it to Johnson and is the sort of exaggeration that Johnson might make but it might just be a journalist speculating.
In any event, the fact is that after Johnson visited Kiev the Ukrainian regime changed its position and broke off negotiations with the Putin regime.
Here’s the source of the claims:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/index.amp
Ukraine will be a basket case for years and a lot of the money contributed to rebuild it will be syphoned off by corrupt officials and politicians (which would be par for the course there).
These protesting self-employed are the victims of XR’s main achievement — increased repressive legislation:
Not sure blocking the Severn Bridge was a good idea, though.
Yes, speaking of Bukharin, here’s a review from 1930 of his book on imperialism:
We know that capitalism is a war-prone system but I have to confess to being surprised as to how far both Russia and the West are being prepared to go, in terms of wanton killing and destruction, to incorporate Ukraine into their sphere of influence or to stop the other side getting it.
Here’s that article. What is interesting is that, written in 1919, it was during a time of rising prices whereas his other article, from 1925, was one of falling prices. In both articles he makes the same point — that wages follow prices (that the price of labour power follows the price of the goods and services workers must buy to maintain and reproduce their labour power).
But I still don’t get the argument that if high wages mean high prices then no wages would mean no prices. It doesn’t make sense either in logic or as a debating point.
Found this by Eric Boden, which is good and still relevant:
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2021/06/do-wages-determine-prices-1925.html?m=1
In Capital Marx quoted John Stuart Mill: “If labour could be had without purchase, wages might be dispensed with.” And commented: “But if the labourers could live on air they could not be bought at any price.”
Doesn’t seem a good idea to talk about no wages without also talking about the abolition of capitalism !
Anyway, where can that quote you mentioned be found?
