ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
“If high wages mean high prices, then no wages should mean no prices. In other words, if the workers agreed to work for nothing they should be able to receive the fruits of their labour for nothing likewise.”
I am afraid that line of argument won’t work. It does not follow from “if high wages mean high prices” that “no wages should mean no prices”. This assumes that wages are the only element entering into the price of something whereas in fact there is also the cost of the materials, power, etc.
So no wages would mean only lower prices and if workers agreed to work for nothing they would not be able to buy anything and would starve. They would be renouncing even that part of the fruits of their labour that they do now get.
A better approach would be to say that wages are a price and, when prices are going up, why shouldn’t the price of labour-power go up too. And that talking of a “wage/price spiral” is begging the question by assuming that an increase in wages leads to a rise in other prices. If you want to talk about a spiral it would be more accurate to talk about a “price/wage” one.
You could make the point differently: if there were no prices there would be no wages and, if there were neither, then workers would have price-free access to what they needed and would (collectively) get the full fruits of their labour. A bit laboured perhaps but at least logical.
Now Boris wants to recreate the Roman Empire. Only one problem — most of what is now Ukraine wasn’t part of it. Actually, there’s another problem (though maybe not for him). It was based on slave labour.
