ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, in Marx’s day there were people who wanted to “abolish money” and replace it by “labour notes”. In a footnote near the beginning of chapter 2 of Capital he refers to a group
“which wants to perpetuate the production of commodities while simultaneously abolishing the ‘antagonism between money and commodities’, ie abolishing money itself … (Penguin translation)
He compares this to abolishing “the Pope while leaving Catholicism in existence” since “money only exists in and through this antagonism”, and refers readers to what he wrote in a previous book he published, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy where he discuss the views of a currency reformer called John Gray.
Here he says Gray was inconsistent:
“as Gray presupposes that the labour-time contained in commodities is immediately social labour-time, he presupposes that it is communal labour-time or labour-time of directly associated individuals. In that case, it would indeed be impossible for a specific commodity, such as gold or silver, to confront other commodities as the incarnation of universal labour and exchange-value would not be turned into price; but neither would use-value be turned into exchange-value and the product into a commodity, and thus the very basis of bourgeois production would be abolished. But this is by no means what Gray had in mind – goods are to be produced as commodities but not exchanged as commodities.”
And
“The fact that labour money is a pseudo-economic term, which denotes the pious wish to get rid of money, and together with money to get rid of exchange-value, and with exchange-value to get rid of commodities, and with commodities to get rid of the bourgeois mode of production, – this fact, which remains concealed in Gray’s work and of which Gray himself was not aware …”
In other words, money won’t cease to exist unless commodity production (the production of goods for sale) does. As long as goods are produced for sale money is needed and will arise because it is needed.
Socialists want to replace commodity production by production directly for use on the basis of the common ownership of the means of life — which will abolish the need for money.
You seem to be missing the distinction between “tactical” and “strategic” nuclear weapons:
“A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon (NSNW) is a nuclear weapon that is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. Generally smaller in explosive power, they are defined in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons, which are designed mostly to be targeted at the enemy interior far away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy’s ability to wage war. As of 2024, no tactical nuclear weapons have ever been used in combat.“
The speculation has been that Russia might respond to NATO’s provocation of allowing Ukraine to use NATO long range missiles to attack Russian territory by using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine’s armed forces.
If they were to be used this would not result in the “nuclear winter and mass starvation” you fear. “Only” a chernobyl incident (I guess).
It’s becoming tedious trying to convince you that the end of the world is not nigh as you insist on wanting to believe.
The EU has no military wing or powers if only because some member states are not in NAT0 (Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta). On the other hand, some European countries are not in NATO (Norway, Iceland, Albania).
All the EU does is fund the Ukraine state’s administrative functions.
The only European country that has independent nuclear arms is France (Britain is dependent on the US, in fact is a very small part of the US arsenal, which couldn’t really be used without US support).
More on France’s nuclear pea-shooter here:
After Keir Starmer Kid Starver and Keir Starmer Pension Harmer, it’s now Keir Starmer Freebie Farmer.
Not all politicians are necessarily dishonest but the present prime minister, with his pre-election talk of cleaning up politics, doesn’t fall into this category. The man’s a complete and utter hypocrite. A money-grubber and a person without principles. What a despicable character. Mind you, it wouldn’t matter if he was a saint he’d still have to put profit before people.
A lurker on the forum has drawn attention to this.
Excellent title and interesting stuff on the Democratic Party as the Party of Wall Street.
https://www.leftvoice.org/whos-funding-harriss-lesser-evil-campaign/
I can’t see any left of Labour Party party getting off the ground unless the electoral system is changed. As if there wasn’t enough evidence to show this — ILP, SLP, Respect, TUSC, Left Unity, WPB. And fancy inviting Fiona Lali of the RCP. If they were to get off the ground they would soon find themselves infested with all sorts of Trotskyist groups not just hers.
Now it turns out that he occupies the same moral low ground as other politicians — accepting gifts from a dodgy businessman not just for himself but for his wife too:
“THE PM had a day at the races with his wife yesterday — as a row erupts over clothes given to her by a Labour donor.
(…)
This year Lord Alli, ex-chairman of fast fashion firm Asos, gave Sir Keir £18,685 worth of work clothes and several pairs of glasses.”His day at the races probably also involved some gift from some betting firm.
What a hypocrite.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30445314/keir-starmer-races-wife-labour-donor-clothes/amp/
I wasn’t relying on the Orinoco Tribune as a source of news but on it being, on this occasion, the news itself — that “a blatantly pro-government outfit” was suggesting that it might be a good idea for the electoral commission to publish the detailed election results. Surely that is newsworthy.
Further mention by the pro-government Orinoco Tribune of the electoral commission’s
“controversial delay in releasing the poll-by-poll electoral results that may negatively affect the solidity of the democratic foundation of the Bolivarian Revolution.”
Trump is a (rather eccentric) personification of the interests of a section of the US capitalist class which, under the name of “isolationism”, has always existed and which has opposed getting involved in conflicts between European states.
This section might be a minority with in the US capitalist class, but, like the Brexiteer section in Britain, could triumph at the ballot box putting its representatives in control of the state with the power to implement its foreign policy.
Having said this, I agree with your implication that a Trump administration is likely to be just as chaotic as was the Johnson Brexiteer government here, if only because the other section of the capitalist class will try to sabotage it.
Of course the abolition of the wages system entails the end of the need for money. Isn’t that precisely the point that Bill was making?
We don’t want to simply “abolish money” and leave the rest of capitalism intact with wages being paid in kind. We want to see the end of the minority class ownership of the means of life which obliges the rest to work for wages. Once class ownership is replaced by common ownership the wages system ceases to exist as does the need for money.
I can’t see what this argument here is about. In saying that the abolition of the wages system entails the abolition of money Brian is saying the same as Bill — that the abolition of the wages system ends the need for money. Nobody here is saying that the abolition of the wages system does not entail the abolition of money.
I think you are right that NATO is the aggressor in the sense of having taken steps to upset the previous status quo in the area but I don’t think they want a war with Russia.
After Russia took military action to try to prevent Ukraine (previously a large and important chunk of the old USSR ruled from Moscow) being incorporated into the US sphere of influence through joining NATO, the US announced that its aim in supporting Ukraine was to weaken Russia by keeping it bogged down in an unending military operation.
This is not the same as the vital economic interest that the US has in dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves and trade routes, which motivates its support for Israel and its slaughter in Gaza as a state on the ground to counter the US’s current main challenger there, Iran.
Trump seems to realise this and seems to want the war in Ukraine to end so that the US can concentrate its military might on defending its vital economic interests in the Middle East and in opposing the challenger to its domination of East Asia, China. Of course he might just be saying this to put pressure on the European members of NATO to pay more on military spending snd relieve US spending on protecting Europe.
