ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Zelensky is talking about a negotiated settlement again. This of course is the only way out (and the sooner the better for the working class there) other than one side or the other capitulating, which is not going to happen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61535353.amp
This goes against what Borys and Truss have been telling the Ukraine regime — that the only way out is to drive Russian and pro-Russian forces out of the whole of Ukraine, even including Crimea (which would involve massive ethnic cleaning) — and which members of the regime have believed. They haven’t yet cottoned on that Borys is a notorious bullshitter.
His “strategy” is even out of line with the US’s which is to supply arms to the Ukraine regime so as to strengthen its hand in the inevitable negotiations.
I wonder what they discussed — how to avoid a nuclear war breaking out by accident perhaps or breaking out at all?
That reminds me that about 20 years ago we were conned by a group of jokers in Ukraine (as were a number of other groups). Here are some leaflets they told us were distributed in Kiev (but would not have been). As can be seen, they did know how to win our confidence by showing that they were able to produce the sort of leaflets we would have done. It’s a pity they weren’t distributed (or that they didn’t sent us them in Ukrainian too) !
They seem an unsavoury lot, just like all Ukrainian nationalists. Not more a socialist party than was the “German National Socialist Workers Party”.
This is pathetic:
“UN food chief David Beasley appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin: “If you have any heart at all, please open these ports.” Mr Beasley heads the World Food Programme, which feeds some 125 million people and buys 50 per cent of its grain from Ukraine.”
It isn’t a question of having a heart. Those who are in charge of a capitalist state can’t have one. They have to decide and do what is in the best national capitalist interest. So why would the Russian state release Ukrainian grain, the proceeds of which will go to their enemy and help finance their war effort?
Now if he had said if you release them I will ask Biden to relax some of the economic sanctions on your state or told him Russia can keep the proceeds of their sale . . .
Here’s an odd thing:
Nuclear Free Local Authorities seek assurance that UK reactors are Russian uranium free
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities say they are a group of local councils opposed to nuclear energy. That’s a position, but shouldn’t they be opposed to nuclear energy irrespective of where it comes from? Why single out a particular source? Or are they saying that as it comes from Russia it is more dangerous?
This seems just to be crude Russophobia. Councillor Blackburn is a Green Party councillor in Leeds. It might be thought that the Green Party was above this sort of thing But, then, the German Green Party has gone even further and, as part of governing coalition there, is promoting the revival of German militarism.
Musk’s view of who’s in charge in the USA. Good point but who does control the teleprompter?
Spot the difference.
Kherson(under Russian control)
“The Russians were interested in who organised the [pro-Ukrainian] rallies in Kherson’ (…) They are still hunting the organisers. ‘The Russians went from house to house, asking them who lived where in the building.(…) Later they came to specific addresses, kidnapping people and taking them away.’” (Times, 16 May)
Odessa (under Ukrainian control)
“Ukraine’s southern port city of Odesa has strong historical links to Russia. And many people there still identify as Russian.
Ukrainian officials say some local collaborators are helping the Kremlin’s war effort by supplying sensitive information.
Now, a hunt for alleged collaborators is under way in Odesa. Technology is playing a key role in this hunt as citizens use several apps and chatrooms to send information about suspicious people to the cybersecurity investigator. Once verified, they pass on the information to the SWAT police team deployed to find suspected collaborators and prosecute them for treason.“ (Al Jazeera video, 17 May https://massive.news/2022/05/17/ukraine-war-swat-police-hunt-for-russian-collaborators-in-odes/)Putin has confirmed that he doesn’t see Finland and Sweden joining NATO as such as a threat but only if NATO moved its troops or weapons there. A bit if shadow boxing going on here, then?
https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-russia-no-problem-finland-sweden-join-nato/amp/
I can understand the Finnish state wanting to join. It has a history of conflict and wars with the Russian state.
But the Swedish state. I can’t understand why. They don’t share a border with Russia and would be treated as just another US client state. No UN more peacekeeping roles, no more giving refuge to political opponents of other NATO states or of states NATO has attacked. In fact, the main victims of Sweden joining would seem to be Kurdish nationalists and other opponents of the Turkish state. Some are likely to have to be handed over to the Turkish state for imprisonment and torture before it lifts its veto on Sweden joining.
I am bit surprised that there isn’t quite a bit of opposition in Sweden to joining. Maybe there is and that’s why the government daren’t hold a referendum on the issue. Anybody know?
RT reports that Ukraine too is thinking of more nationalisations. So, not only is political superstructure of Ukraine and Russia converging but so are their economies:
https://www.rt.com/business/555551-ukraine-economy-russia-conflict/
I think YMS is right that what is relevant is the fact that in joint stock limited liability companies profit need only be enough to pay interest on the bonds issued to raise its capital, not the fact that they have “a high ratio of constant capital to the variable” (even if they do and why they take this legal form).
Marx is not saying that the return to capital in capitalist enterprises with a high c/v does not enter into the equalisation of the rate of the general rate of profit.
He is saying that the return to capital in capitalist enterprises with a high c/v and which take the form of a joint stock companies with limited liability does not have to enter into this equalisation.
On the other hand, the return in capitalist enterprises with a high c/v ratio but which didn’t have the legal form of a limited liability joint stock company would.
Marx was writing at a time — the 1860s — when joint stock companies with limited liability were only beginning to be adopted as the legal form of a capitalist enterprise; which had only been made legally possible in the previous decade. When Marx mentions this phenomenon earlier in volume 3 he gives railway companies and their bonds as the typical example. In fact Engels, editing Marx’s manuscripts nearly 30 years later, had to insert a note about developments since the 1860s.
Today of course nearly all capitalist enterprises are joint stock limited liability companies and it would be a badly performing or unambitious such company which only made or aimed to make enough profit to pay interest on its bonds (and so none to reinvest in expanding the business).
The other question is: what will you do if it doesn’t happen? Say like the Jehovah witnesses that you got the date wrong?
Meanwhile Ukraine is continuing to pass repressive laws to make the regime there the mirror image of the one in Russia. St. Zelensky has just signed a law making it easier to ban political parties without appeal. We would be banned under it if we didn’t follow the government line that the war doesn’t have the civil war aspect that it obviously does have. Saying that it does will get you into trouble just as in Russia saying that it is a war and not a special military operation will.
You can follow the story here:
https://www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-law-bans-pro-russia-parties-zelenskiy-signs/31849737.html
I doubt it. But,if happens, the British capitalist state will have to prepare to send the expeditionary force to go to northern Russia again that it has committed itself to.
But, to be serious for a moment, Finland is already trying to appease Russia by saying that nuclear weapons won’t be installed there.
