ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If you want a really detailed discussion of the various meanings and etymology of the word “value” or, rather, of its equivalent in German Wert the thing to read is the notes Marx wrote in 1881 on a book by a man called Adolph Wagner:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/01/wagner.htm
Here is an example:
“What annoys (shocks) Mr. Wagner about my presentation, though, is that I will not do him the favour of complying with the patriotic German professorial “striving” for confusing use-value with value. (…). He says:
“In harmony with the view of Rodbertus and also of Schäffle I place the use-value character of all value in the fore, and emphasise the assessment of use-value all the more, since the assessment of exchange-value is simply not applicable to many of the most important economic goods,”
The only thing which clearly lies at the bottom of the German stupidity is the fact that linguistically the words value [Wert] or worth [Würde] were first applied to the useful things themselves, which existed for a long time, even as “products of labour,” before becoming commodities. (…)
As the commodity is bought by the purchaser not because it has value but because it is a “use-value,” and is used for definite purposes, it goes without saying that 1. use-values are “assessed,” i.e. their quality is investigated (just as their quantity is weighed, measured, etc.); 2. if different sorts of commodities can be substituted for one another for the same use, one or the other will be given preference, etc., etc.
In Gothic there is only one word for Wert and Würde: vairths, τιμη, τιμαω, assess, i.e. evaluate; to determine the price or value, to rate; metaphorically: to appreciate, esteem, honour, distinguish. (…)
Wert and Würde [value and worth] are thus closely related in both etymology and meaning. What conceals the fact is the inorganic (incorrect) inflexion of Wert which has become customary in Modern High German: Werth, Werthes instead of Werdes, since Gothic th corresponds to High German d, not th = t, and this is indeed still the case in Middle High German (wert, gen. Werdes, loc. cit.). According to the rule in Middle High German, d at the end of a word became t, giving wert instead of werd, but genitive Werdes.
But all this has as much or as little to do with the economic category “value” as with the chemical valency of the chemical elements (atomicity) or with the chemical equivalents or equal values (combining weights of the chemical elements).
Furthermore it should be noted that — even in this linguistic connection — if it follows automatically, as if by the nature of the thing, from the original identity of Würde and Wert that this word also referred to things, products of labour in their natural form — it was later directly applied unchanged to prices, i.e. value in its developed value-form, i.e. exchange-value, which has so little to do with the matter that the same word continued to be used for worth in general, for honorary offices, etc. Thus, linguistically speaking, there is no distinction here between use-value and value.“
Good luck ! In English this sort of discussion is more complicated as the meaning and etymology of two different words are involved — “value” and “worth”. Actually three different words as the word “commodity” is also linked linguistically with the idea of being useful . . .
I hadn’t realised that the founder of IKEA (after whose initials the firm is named) was a Nazi in its youth. But it seems that he was:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_Kamprad
You learn something new every day.
Another proof that the Labour Party is politically bankrupt. From today’s Times:
“Sir Kier Starmer has suggested that he will expel Labour MPs who do not voice ‘unshakeable support for Nato.’ The Labour leader said he was ‘very clear’ that support for the military alliance is ‘the root of the Labour Party’.”
His next move, as he subordinates everything else to furthering the political careers of himself and the rest of his gang of place-hunters, must be to change his name. The man he is named after, Kier Hardie, was not a socialist but at least he didn’t think that the root of a party claiming to represent “Labour” was support for a military alliance.
What a despicable creature he is.
How MyLondon reported the list of candidates standing in Clapham East ward:
“Clapham East: Andrew Collins (Lab), Bobbie Craney (TU & Soc), Jake Freeman (Con), Tim Gingell (Green), Nicholas Hattersley (Green), John Hindson (Con), Daniel Lambert (Socialist), Jessica Leigh (Lab), Iestyn Williams (Lib Dem).”
It is wrong as the nomination of one of the Green candidates was not accepted but it is right in identifying our candidate as the Socialist candidate.
When Borys gave his Churchill impersonation before the Ukrainian parliament today he said (read):
“When my country faced the threat of invasion during the Second World War, our parliament — like yours — continued to meet throughout the conflict.”
True, the House of Commons did continue to meet during the Second World Slaughter but only one MP was interned. By contrast in Ukraine, a number of opposition parties, making up about 10 percent of their parliamentarians, have been banned by the Zelensky government. They weren’t present but either on the run or detained by the Ukrainian secret police.
Members of Kent & Sussex branch finished distributing leaflets throughout the ward on Sunday and Monday. Quite a few left over. Waiting to see if there will be any coverage tomorrow in the local free paper The Times of Tunbridge Wells, also online.
Ilya Kiva doesn’t seem to be exactly a reliable or unbiased source of information:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illia_Kyva
It wouldn’t be surprising if Zelensky’s had a few million dollars statched away somewhere (a million dollars is about £800,000) but $1.2 billion. That’s a lot of money — about £960,000,000. So much as to make the claim unbelievable.
I suppose it is a good thing that propagandists always exaggerate so much as to lead to people not believing them.
A bit like when a Russian missile kills 6 or 7 civilians in Lvov as collateral damage the deputy mayor cries “genocide!”
A good article here, by Caitlin Johnson, as to how difficult it is not to be taken in by war propaganda:
This news item is instructive:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61285833.amp
especially the explanation of why it was spread:
“Ukrainian military historian Mikhail Zhirohov described the Ghost of Kyiv story as “propaganda for raising morale”. Speaking to the BBC from Chernihiv, he said that early on in the war the Russians dominated Ukrainian airspace, so a Ukrainian pilot “could only shoot down two or three”.
“It’s essential to have this propaganda, because our armed forces are smaller, and many think we can’t be equal to them [the Russians]. We need this in wartime,” he said.”This explains why they exaggerate the number of enemy planes downed, tanks destroyed, troops killed, buildings targetted, civilians under the rubble, etc. etc. They will all be lies or unbelievable exaggerations aimed at raising the morale and/or hatred of the enemy amongst soldiers and civilians.
The same goes for Russian propaganda (though we don’t hear the same amount of that as it’s banned as disinformation — as it is, but so is the Ukrainian propaganda that is religiously relayed by the pro-war-against-Russia media here)
Unfortunately yesterday’s MayDay march in London turned out to be another Bokshevikfest rather than a trade union event. Without contingents from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Greece and Sri Lanka it would have been a rather small event.
Each Bolshevik group presented its case on the Ukraine War. Most supported Russia. At least one, calling itself the “Communist League”, supported Ukraine. The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign were handing out a leaflet, in English and Ukrainian, from some Trotskyists in Ukraine (“Social Movement” which presents itself as an NGO so as not to get banned by the government) which called for “free supply of modern weapons to Ukraine, in particular, air defence systems that would allow to minimise civilian casualties.”
The pro-Russia ones based their case on Lenin’s mistaken theory of imperialism which divides capitalist states into “imperialist” and “non-imperialist”. They were at pains to classify Russia (and China) as “non-imperialist”. According to “Socialist Fight” (whoever they are):
“Neither Russia not China are imperialist powers, they are not integrated into the IMF and World Bank and cannot extract surplus value from the global south in that way, though China in particular aspires to do so. (…) Russia‘a and China’s spending on their military and naval warships are completely defensive …”
Oh yeah, pull the other one.
Another group proclaimed “For the right of Russia to defend itself against imperialist encroachment!”:
“Although Russia has been capitalist since 1991 it is not an imperialist power in its own right. Imperialism is more than when one state employs military force against another. Imperialism is a stage of capitalism represented by the dominance of finance capital. Russia is not part of the ‘imperialist club’ but a relatively backward dependent capitalist economy.”
Maybe, but why is that a reason to abandon socialist internationalism and support one capitalist state against a group of other capitalist states? (Incidentally, what are the Russian oligarchs if not finance capitalists?)
I thought it referred to those members of the British CP (and their descendants) who supported the Russian tanks crushing of protests in Czechoslovakia in 1968 which the party’s leadership criticised (and which turned out to be the beginning of the end for the party since, apart from loyally supporting everything the Russian government did, the party had no reason to exist). In 1956 the leadership of the British CP supported Russian tanks crushing an uprising in Hungary. But I don’t think they were called “tankies” at the time.
That a Maoist group should defend post-USSR Russia so fervently is odd seeing that the Maoists didn’t even regard post-Stalin Russia as socialist and sometimes even referred to it as state capitalist with a new, bureaucratic ruling class. But there is a perverse logic in their position — they are opposed to “imperialism” and, for them, Russia is the victim of Western imperialism and, as such and even as an openly capitalist country, it should be defended.
This ignores the fact, of course, that present-day Russia is as imperialist as it always has been, seeking to expand its territory and spheres of influence. Everyone can see that. “Imperialism” is a slippery concept anyway as any state is potentially imperialist in the sense of expansionist. China, India, Indonesia and Turkey are examples of successful expansionism; Argentina and Iraq of states that tried and failed.
In any event it is not imperialism that is the enemy but capitalism of which imperialism, war and militarism are products.
