« Limits of managerialism | Main | Intellectuals in politics »

October 21, 2013



It's almost as if capitalism is riddled with contradictions... someone should write a book on it.


It probably shows us that government isn't clever/agile enough to promote a single, cogent set of interests. It's a complicated beast.


You are confusing the state with the government. The state acts to defend the interests (as it sees them at the time) of the dominant section of capital. The Government, whilst ultimately it has to take into consideration the interests of Capital in General - or else in the extreme it faces the same fate as Allende - has to cater for that section of society upon which its core membership is based, and its electoral support comes from.

The current Government, like Thatcher's, is based on the small capitalists and associated layers. That is why it follows a policy needed by that class fraction, i.e. low wages/high debt to the detriment of Capital in General. It is why that policy has been criticised by the state officials both at national and international level.

But, what the view of the state officials is of what is in the interests of Capital in General itself depends on which section of capital is predominant at the time. In the post-war period, big, multinational industrial capital was predominant, which is why Keynesianism was adopted in its interests at a national and international level, establishment of IMF etc.

But, a Marxist view cannot be mechanistic. We have to allow for the human beings that actually make up the permanent state to also be wrong, to suffer false consciousness. For ten years after it was clear Keynesianism could not resolve the problems of capital in the 1970's, it was still promoted by them.

Its no surprise that given that Monetarist policies have been orthodoxy for the last 30 years, that even when they are clearly failing and counter-productive, a generation of mandarins brought up on that orthodoxy takes time to change its stance too.


What anti-immigration policy?

JW Mason

I'm surprised to hear that you consider yourself a Marxist. Your analysis is straightforward liberal Keynesianism.


Too complicated an explanation.

It is a populist Govt seeking re-election by espousing policies that go down well at the Dog and Duck and appeal to commom sense ie general prejudice. Ther is no reason why such policies should form a coherent whole.


Take a different view.
Governments tend to be conservative, defend a status quo, and hence protect property rights (ain't it all what governments are about at the start?). Budget cuts is a protection of wealth and revenues. Anti-inflationary policies are a protection of savings.
Left-wing governments tend to be equally conservative. They protect the privileges of civil servants, trade unions and retirees. Communist governments served the interest of the Nomenklatura.
So, it is true that in a capitalist society, government can be seen as protecting the inrerest of capital, but it is far-fetched to consider there is a direct will to do it. Besides, why would governments be more efficient at protecting the interest of capital than at doing all the other things they are supposed to do?


Rich savers can simply pile their wealth into property. They don't need to hold their wealth in interest bearing securities, so low interest rates shouldn't really bother them.

The government's policies to inflate the property market support wealthy savers in this respect.


"Or does it instead tell us that the (cruder) Marxian conceptions of the state are mistaken, and that the state doesn't always promote capitalists' interests? I walk away muttering about the relative autonomy of the state."

A fair point!

Indeed, the notion of individuals could play a useful role: it's individuals who hold key government positions.

I think many people, for whatever reason, believe that both the capitalist class and proletariat are monolithic, undifferentiated entities. And that no other classes can be found under capitalism.

They're mistaken, big time.


Thanks for reminding us about Poulantzas and his theory of the capitalist state: but surely contradictions are at the heart of capitalism ( but probably not at the end of the day( Althusser. The anti-EU ideology preached by the Far Right, UKIP and the the very Tory Right is a case in point. It will scare the sh*t out of business here because we know leaving the EU will damage industrial & service sectors like finance. It is of course scary for us all as so much wage/social legislation would be at risk and we would leave our civilized friends of Europe as we sank into worse forms of Neo-Liberalism.

Churm Rincewind

As William Golding put it: "I have hung all systems on the wall like a row of useless hats. They do not fit. They come in from outside, they are suggested patterns, some dull and some of great beauty. But I have lived enough of my life to require a pattern that fits over everything I know; and where shall I find that ? Then why do I write this down ? Is it a pattern I am looking for? That Marxist hat in the middle of the row, did I ever think it would last me a lifetime ? What is wrong with the Christian biretta that I hardly wore at all ? Nick's rationalist hat kept the rain out, seemed impregnable plate-armour, dull and decent. It looks small now and rather silly, a bowler like all bowlers, very formal, very complete, very ignorant."


«Whilst anti-immigration policy is popular»

Anti-immigration policy as someone said does not exist: it is only a few show pieces aimed at extra-europeans, whether from rich or poor countries, while there is strong pro-immigration policy from poor labor-reserve-army places within the EEC.

In any case immigration is only unpopular with the electorally irrelevant lower paid, casualised working classes.

The pro-immigration policy by both New labour and the Coalition is wildly popular with the middle aged and older, mostly female, mostly property owning Middle Classes that are the swing voters in the South-East.

For them more immigration means cheaper home care, cheaper gardeners and plumbers, higher rents and higher property prices.

«Growing inequality (in the sense of the share of income going to the very wealthy) might eventually trigger a backlash which jeopardizes the interests of the rich. There's little sign of this yet, but history suggests things can change quickly.»

Since 1989-1991 collapse of the symbol of the potential alternative the anglo-american elites are confident that they can go back to the 50s, I mean the 1750s.


«the function of the state is not so much to act as a Platonic philosopher-king disinterestedly aiming to maximize a social welfare function, but rather to advance the interests of capital.»

«Poulantzas and his theory of the capitalist state: but surely contradictions are at the heart of capitalism»

I think that "capitalism" here is rather overused, especially it has transformed over the centuries in something quite different from what it meant in Karl's time. And dear old Karl wrote about the state being the tool of the elites of the era, not just capitalists, and government being the managing board of capitalism.

However as other commenters have noticed the "elites", whether capitalists or not, apart from contradictions can also have division in factions.

My impression of the politics of the past 30 years is similar to that of a previous commenter:

«The current Government, like Thatcher's, is based on the small capitalists and associated layers. That is why it follows a policy needed by that class fraction, i.e. low wages/high debt to the detriment of Capital in General.»

But more general: I think that in the past 30 years the dominant politics have been those of incumbency, and in particular of incumbency in property and other sources of rent (e.g. managerial control, professional license, career in the City, being a swing constituency).

Voters with incumbency in positions of rent have provided the brawn, the mass, to support electorally the governments of the past 30 years, and they have been pandered to enthusiastically by the political classes.

My impression is that however this enthusiasm has not been motivated mostly or solely by the desire to please that particularly constituency, except tactically,

My impression is that the brains of the politics of the past 30 years have been a quite different constituency, the asset strippers, and that the long term strategy has been asset stripping the first world.

There are several signs that the ruling elites of the Anglo-American culture countries started applying the BCG matrix to entire countries, and then classifying Anglo-American countries as "cash-cows" at best, and most usually as "dogs", to be asset stripped following Jensenist principles, to reinvest the proceeds in higher growth nations.

In other words doing to whole countries what Romney and those inspired by his success did to many otherwise viable (and some unviable) companies.

My impression of the strategic aims of the interests behind New Labour and the Coalition is for the UK to pump, pump up asset prices with credit, dump them at the highest price to suckers, and turn the South-East itself into a wasteland like the North, a mere reservoir of cheap, docile hired help begging for jobs in London, as now is the North wrt to the South-East; while continuing to sell London as a kind of bigger Monaco or Caymans or Zurich/Geneva, a freewheeling international casino, refuge for international looters and for hiding and laundering the proceeds of fraud and looting (someone has even written a book about this latter strategy).

With the Etonian ruling class continuing to live in a grand style by extracting rents from the patrons of the casino.


I should say that this government is pro-capitalism and populist in as much as policies are generally in line with capitalism. The capitalists are not a homogenous and unified group. They are in a competitive fight to the death, in relation to accumulating profit, with other capitalists and their businesses. The Government and states will reflect this conflict in their policy decisions. Overall policies will benefit capitalism: even if they do cause short or medium term pain to some capitalists. What's seen as vital by the disparate and conflict riven capitalists is the continuance of capitalism.


Of course the people who MOST benefited from Thatcherism were not the rich, but those of the working class who bought their council houses. Left-wing = lie about Thatcher is it Chris?



Within a couple of years of buying their Council houses, a large portion of those workers found themselves homeless, because they could not pay their monthly mortgage payments as mortgage rates soared to 15%, and unemployment rose. They formed a large portion of the tens of thousands of workers that were evicted as the banks and building societies repossesses properties that fell in price by 40% in a matter of months in 1990.

They then found that Councils couldn't re house them, because they had not built houses, and their stock had been sold off and was now in the hands of banks and private landlords, who picked them up on the cheap when their former tenants couldn't pay the mortgage.

We see a similar situation today with the huge property bubble about to burst, and with a shortage or Council housing for people to move into, and a squeeze being put on rents by the cuts in Housing Benefit.


«that Councils couldn't re house them, because they had not built houses»

The law that obliged Councils to sell houses to a huge discount to potential tory voters also *explicitly* forbade the Councils to use the relatively little money so earned to build more Council houses.

Deviation From the Mean

I can't accept Boffy's contention that the Condem's are acting in the interests of the small capitalists. The austerity policies are reducing wages, British wages are reducing faster than anywhere else in the EU. The effect of this is to see many small capitalists go to the wall, because they rely on consumer demand. So more and more small capitalists end up in the proletariat. Potential small capitalists have poor conditions to start up businesses. Big business rides the storm and picks up the cheap assets. Big business are loving it. Power is being concentrated as we speak.

Investors do not invest in the nation but in companies and the big companies are doing ok, the nation can go to hell, along with the small capitalists, who are more reliant on the nation. The big, transnational companies are less concerned with the domestic picture.

The state more and more looks after the interests of the transnational ruling class, not the national one. The state follows the power.

I guess we are still in the transitional stage to a truly globalised capitalism from the historic one of nation states. And what we are seeing are the contradictions playing out. Can capitalism truly globalise the world, the answer is still in the balance I would suggest.

So to conclude, the problem isn't Marx's theory but with Marxists who are unable to develop theory in accordance with changing circumstances, dogma replaces reason. How very unMarxist!


«*explicitly* forbade the Councils to use the relatively little money so earned to build more Council houses.»

That law was designed to cover all bases in transforming Old Labour voting renters into tory (Conservative or New Labour later) voting rentiers.

This was done very intentionally, and the reason should be repeated here, as it is one of the most important facts of politics of the past 40 years, a fact that has been put to use in many Anglo-American countries.

Just as the Thatcher government took power a conservative think-tank had done a study of voting patterns and discovered that:

* People who owned cars, shares, or houses voted much more to the right than people who used public transport, had other forms of savings, or rented, *even given the same class and level of income*.

* When people acquired cars, shares or houses, or vice-versa, their voting eventually changed significantly as per the above.

Note the important bit: "*even given the same class and level of income*". That is the ownership of cars, shares or houses had an essentially *psychological* effect in itself, not just because it was an expression of a difference in class or income.

In other words, even people of means and class who rented, used public transport and did not have shares tended to vote for the left much more frequently than people of equivalent means who owned cars, shares, houses.

But that was electorally not very important,as there aren't very many people of means and class.

The really important discovery was that even people of limited income and within the masses of the working class would rather vote tory than Labour if they owned some shares or a car or a house.

Becoming property owners even on a really small scale transformed them into often intense supporters of "f*ck you! I got mine" politics, voting relentlessly for higher unemployment and lower wages, and for higher asset prices and lower capital gains taxes.

That study was widely circulated among Tories, Republicans, and their counterparts in other countries, confirming with solid numbers the much older intuition that a "property owning democracy" was a reactionary democracy.

Therefore the relentless policies of Thatcher and her successors for undermining public transport and the rented housing sector and savings into employer pensions and for selling cheap houses and shares whenever possible to potential tory voters, boosting asset prices with relentless credit bubbles, and subsidizing road construction despite NIMBY tendencies among their bases.

This had the effect to turn most of the South-East working class (especially middle aged and older, and female) into Daily Mail/Telegraph reading stereotypes, eager to vote tory.


エアジョーダン1通販 http://www.wbds.org.uk/styles/21-Nike-Mercurial.html/


瀹濈煶銇キ鍏搞伄閮ㄥ垎銇臣鍏? 鏀墪銇勩倰銇傘仾銇熴伄鑳藉姏銈掗厤缃? 浠绘剰銇祼濠氬紡銇疂鐭炽倰璩煎叆銆佹湁鍔规湡闁撱伄涓娿伀鏁f銇欍倠銇熴倎銇€佷唬鏇裤伄鏁忔劅銇簣绠椼倰浣溿倠銆傘伝銇ㄣ倱銇┿仚銇广仸銇偓銈ゃ儔銇€佺⒑銇嬨伀銇亜琚嬨€備竴搴︺亗銇仧銇儘銉冦偗銉偣銆佹柟娉曘仹銇傘仾銇熴伄棣栥伄鍛ㄣ倞銇總銈嬨亾銈屻倝銇儵銉炽儕銉笺伄閲嶈銇祵楱撴诞銇嶅嚭銇椼倰閬╃敤銈堛倞瀹躲伄褰伄浠c倧銈娿伀銇濄伄鎵€鏈夈仐銇︺亜銈嬨儉銈ゃ儰銉兂銉夈€傘儠銉儵 銈儯銉偄銇ㄨ病甯冦亰銈堛伋銉忋兂銉夈儛銉冦偘銇亜銇忋仱銇嬨伄鏈€楂樼礆銇ㄣ仐銇︽渶瀵勩倞銇瑕嬨仱銇戙倠銇撱仺銇屻仹銇嶃伨銇欍€傘儠銈°儍銈枫儳銉炽儠銈┿儻銉笺儔銆佸彈銇戝叆銈屻€併偄銉炽儐銈c兗銈€併亾銈屻倝銇銇枔閬曘亜銇亸銈傘偄銈偦銉炽儓銈堛倞銈傘偝銈广儓銇尽鍊ゃ亴銇傘倞銇俱仚銆傘儠銉儵 銉愩儍銈般倰鍥炪仚澶氥亸銇儲銉嬨兗銈仹浜烘皸銇屾柊銇椼亜銉曘儷銉?銈点儣銉┿偆銉ゃ兗銈掕臣鍏ャ仚銈嬨亜銇ゃ仹銈傘€併亗銇仧 100 pct 銇磾绮嬨仾闈?- 鍩恒仴銇忋伅銈ゃ偪銉偄銉?銈广偪銈ゃ儷銇渶閬┿仹銇欍€?
エアジョーダン6 http://www.thediamondshop.co.uk/order/21-Nike-Mercurial.html/


璨挎槗銉椼儹銈般儵銉犮亴瑷晱銇曘倢銇熴亰瀹㈡銇濄倢銈夈儢銉笺偣銇槑銈夈亱銇弿鐢汇仐銆併伅銆併儣銉儮銉笺偡銉с兂銇磮銈婄墿銇屾彁渚涖仌銈屻伨銇欍€傘偑銉偢銉娿儷銇偄銉笺儐銈c偣銉堛伄銉忋兂銉夈儛銉冦偘銇€併仢銈屻仦銈屻€併仚銇广仸銇棩銇儠銈°儍銈枫儳銉嬨偣銈挎剾銇ㄨ壇銇勩偒銉笺儔 銉忋兂銈裤兗銇仱銇勩仸 nerely 璨″竷 rrnside 鍊ゃ伄鍐呴儴銇仈銇忎竴閮ㄣ仹娉ㄦ枃銇椼仧銉°儍銈汇兗銈告妧琛撱伀銈堛仯銇﹂瓍浜嗐仌銈屻倠鍙兘鎬с亴銇傘倞銇俱仚銆?
ジョーダン1 http://www.devbuild.co.uk/devfloors/32-Football-Uniforms.html/


銇椼亱銇楀銇忋伄淇濊銇枹銇椼仸璩囬噾銇潪甯搞伀澶с亶銇儸銉欍儷銈掓暎璨°仚銈嬨亾銇ㄣ亴閲嶈銇с仚銆傘儸銈姐儓銆傘儶銉欍儶銈€侺ibia銆傘仾銇溿偘銉兗銉?A 闈淬偘銉冦儊闈淬伄銇熴倎銇皞銈夈優銈ゃ偙銉偢銉с兗銉€銉冲饱鐗╃敺灞ョ墿銇屽唴銇у緟姗熴仐銇︺亜銈嬭嚜鍒嗐仹銇綍銈掋仚銈嬨仧銈併仹銇欍亱锛熺祼鏋溿伄銈堛亞銇仚銈嬪繀瑕併亴銇傘倞銇俱仚鐘舵硜鍗板埛闈淬倰璩煎叆銇欍倠鍚稿紩绌烘皸銉娿偆銈┖姘椼儴銉儉銉充互涓娿儔銉儊銈?銈儍銉愩兗銉婇澊瀹夊績銈搞儯銉笺儕銉渶鎮偗銉笺儩銉?銈炽兗銉夈仹闈炲父銇珮銇勫绱勩倰浜ゆ彌銇欍倠浠栥伄澶氥亸銇皬澹插簵銆?
ジョーダン1 http://www.lawcarpentry.co.uk/Pages/36-Nike-Air-Jordan.html/


エアジョーダン6 http://www.kubacreative.com/asp/32-Football-Uniforms.html/


閮藉競銇嬨倝鎺ュ湴銇曘倢銈嬬潃甯儭銉冦偦銉?銈搞儯銉?銉愩儍銈?銈般儵銈︺兂銉夈€侀瓍鍔涚殑銇彇寰椼伄灏傞杸瀹躲伄銇熴倎銇銇嬨倝銇嶃倢銇勩仾寮曘亶鍙椼亼銈嬨儩銈便儍銉堜娇鐢ㄣ亗銇俱倞銇倐澶氥亸銇汉銆?銇亾銈屻倝銇銇瑕炽€傜銇ソ銇裤伀瑁戒綔銇椼€佺敺鎬с伄銇熴倎銇銇柟銇碁璩涖伀褰遍熆銈掍笌銇堛倠銈炽兗銉併儚銉炽儔銉愩儍銈般偄銈︺儓銉儍銉堟垿鍒╁搧銇枹銇椼仸銇銇潃鐢ㄣ伀灏戙仾銇忋仺銈?銇ゃ伄鑷垎鑷韩銈掓暀鑲层仐銆佸郊銇仼銇倛銇嗐仾銈傘伄銈掕鏄庛仐缍氥亼銇?- 銉栥儵銈ゃ儉銉倰銆佷竴渚嬨仹銇傘倞銆併儢銉笺偣銉堜笂銇с亾銈屻倝銇洸鐩伄闁撱伄鐗瑰畾銇劇鐩娿偣銉椼儶銈偣銆傘仭銈囥亞銇┿亗銇仧銇偄銈偊銉炽儓銇偄銉偆銇屽仠姝仐銆佷换鎰忋伄閮ㄩ殜銇€佸熀鏈殑銇偖銉c儹銉冦儣銈傘€併儵銈圭姸 - 璧ゅお骞虫磱鍖楄タ銇Μ銇箺銇c仸宸ㄥぇ銇€佽銇敺銈掋€侀厤鍒楀簳瓒呫亪銉椼儹銉撱儑銉炽偣鑷崇鏂溿倎銇嬨倝銈兂銉栥儶銉炽偘銇曘倢銈嬨伖銇嶃仹銇傘倠銆?
エアジョーダン6 http://www.naturalstoneindustries.com/pages/35-Nike-Air-Force.html/


HCG 銇屽繀瑕佸€嬩汉銇椼仧銇?(鐢锋€у樊鍒嗗饱姝磋▓绠楀焦绔嬨仭銇俱仚鐗瑰垾銇劶銇忋亾銇ㄧ⒑銇嬨伀 Hcg 鐥呯殑鑲ユ簚銇敮涓€銇儮銉嬨偪銉笺仐銇俱仚銆傘偪銈帮細 鐤梾銆併偓銉炽儎銉掋儷 銉涖兗銉犮仺鑷垎銇洰銇ч爲鍥恒仾鑵归儴姗熴倐鍙傜収锛?銉儸銉冦偪 Dangelo |2013 骞?7 鏈?9 鏃?- 浣曘亴銆丄 椋熶簨鐧傛硶銈掓尟銈婃墪銇嗛噸閲?WomenIf 銇傘仾銇熴伄瑕佽珛銈掓焙瀹氥仚銈嬪洶闆c仾鏅傛湡銈掓寔銇c仸琛屻亞蹇呰銇屻亗銈嬪牬鍚堛儐銉笺儣銇ㄣ仐銇﹀郊銈夈伄銈儯銉撱儘銉冦儓銇儹銉冦偗銈掓瑷庛仐銇俱仚銆傘偪銈帮細銇撱仺銇倛銇c仸鑷垎鑷韩銆佺礌鏁点仾銆乵otionHcg銉€銈ゃ偍銉冦儓锛氥儹銉儍銈緿angelo | 7鏈堢浜?013 - 浣撻噸銈掍娇銇c仧HCG銇笡閲廝lanChoose銇偡銉°偑銉炽伄鎶€琛撱伅銆佷汉銆呫亴銉撱偢銉嶃偣銇病鍕欏箙銈掕秴銇堛仸銆併亾銈屻倝銇亜銇忋仱銇嬨倰鐧鸿銇椼伨銇涖倱銇с仐銇熴€傜柅鐥呫€佸弬鐓с€乧ityBest闋戝浐銇吂閮ㄣ優銈枫兂褰笺倝銇洰銇儧銉笺儬銇с仢銇椼仸銇俱仧銇倛銇c仸锛殀 - 銇┿伄銈堛亞銇?013骞?鏈?鏃ャ儹銉儍銈緿angelo HCG銇紙鐢锋€у樊鐣板饱姝磋▓绠椼伅纰恒亱銇敮涓€銇偪銈癏CG銇梾鐨勮偉婧€銈掔洠瑕栥仌銈屻仸鐕冦亪銈嬨倛銇嗐仾鐗瑰垾銇姪銇戙仧銇勫€嬩汉銇倛銇c仸蹇呰銇ㄣ仌銈屻倠銇傘仾銇熴亴銇傘仾銇熴伄琛濆嫊銈掓焙瀹氥仚銈嬪洶闆c仾鏅傛湡銈掓寔銇c仸銇勩倠WomenIf蹇呰銇屻亗銈嬨仺銇嶃伀閲嶉噺銈掓尟銈婃墪銇嗐仧銈併伀銉€銈ゃ偍銉冦儓銈掓寔銇c仸銆併仢銈屻倝銇偔銉c儞銉嶃儍銉堛伀銉嗐兗銉椼仩銇戙仹銇亸銆併儹銉冦偗銈掓瑷庛仐銇︺亸銇犮仌銇勩€傘偍銈偘銉兗銉炽儛銉冦偘銇鏂欏搧銇卜銇勭墿銇銇忋仧銈併伄銈广偪銈ゃ儶銉冦偡銉ャ仾鏂规硶銈掓彁渚涖仐銇俱仚銆併仢銇椼仸琚嬨伄妞滅储銇汉銇偣銈裤偆銉伀鍚堛倧銇涖仸銈偣銈裤優銈ゃ偤銇с亶銈嬨倛銇嗐伀瑷▓銇曘倢銇︺亜銇俱仚銆傘亾銈屻倝銇=鍝併伅銆侀潪甯搞伀鏈€灏忋仹銇傘倞銆併仾銇┿伄闋荤箒銇娇鐢ㄣ仌銈屻倠銆傘伄銇裤仢銇緦銇銈掍娇銇嗕汉銇仧銈併伄澶氥亸銇偣銉笺儎銈便兗銈广伄涓娿伀銆併仢銇搧璩伀闁仐銇︺仢銈屻倝銇惤銇$潃銇忋€傘個銇嬨仐銇嬨倝銆傘仢銈屻仦銈屻亴鑷垎鑷韩銇仧銈併伀銆併亾銇偪銈广偗銇屻偑銉兂銈歌壊銈掓湜銈撱仩銆?
エアジョーダン http://www.edutrain.co.uk/asp/21-Nike-Mercurial.html/


Ipod 銇х従閲戙倰鍨i枔瑕嬨倠銇撱仺銇屻亗銈嬪牬鍚堛伀琛屻亶銇俱仚銆傘偍銉儭銈?銉忋兂銉夈儛銉冦偘銇ч仈鎴愬彲鑳姐仾钖伄澶氥亸銈掑挤瑾裤仚銈嬭瓨鍒ャ儊銈с儍銈倰閫氥仒銇﹁博澹层仌銈屻倠銉椼儹銈枫兗銈搞儯銇墍瑕佹檪闁撱倰闁嬪銇椼伨銇欍€傘伀銇ゃ亜銇︺伄鎳稿康銈掓寔銇や汉銆?銇仧銈併亗銇仧銈掓焙瀹氬仴搴蜂笂銇俱仧銇儠銈c儍銉堛儘銈广亗銇仧銇嫢銇勫勾銇尰甯倓浠栥伄鍖荤檪銇珮搴︺仾浼氳珖銇欍倠銇岃尝鏄庛仹銇椼倗銇嗐€?
エアジョーダン13 http://www.chaincare.com/css/32-Football-Uniforms.html/


銈兗銉?銉曘儸銉炽儔銇枹閫c仚銈嬪銇忋伄鏍煎畨銇?david 銇枹銇欍倠銉淬偅銉堛兂璨″竷浣跨敤鍋ュ悍銈勩儠銈c儍銉堛儘銈广倐 tike 銇偦銉炽偪銉煎唴銆佸仴搴蜂粙璀枫伄銉椼儹銇ㄦ暟銇尰甯伀鐩歌珖銇欍倠鍫村悎銇屻亗銈娿伨銇欍€傝Κ鍒囥€併儣銉┿偆銉愩偡銉笺仺鍚屾銇枹淇傘倰銇撱伄鍫存墍銈掑埄鐢ㄣ仐銇熸ソ銇椼伩銈掑繀瑕併仺銇欍倠銈掗€氶亷銇椼伨銇欍€傘仩銇嬨倝銆佸銇忋伄銈汇儶銉笺儗銇壍瑷€呫伅e銈炽優銉笺偣銈点偆銉堛伀銇濄倢銈夈倰鍙栥倠閬告姙銇椼伨銇欍€傘仌銇︺€併亗銇仧銇仧銈併伀鍒╃敤銉椼儵銉€銉愩儍銈般伄銈堛倞鏈夌敤銇悊瑙c€侳ranceCeline銇嬨倝澶栬Τ銇銇勩伄銈儯銈广儓璨犲偡鑰呫伅銆佺従銈屻仧銇ㄦ渶鍒濄亱銈夈儠銈c儷銉犺浜嬨伀銈堛仯銇︽爠銇堜綇瀹呫儹銉笺兂1954骞淬€佸唴銇叄銈屻仸銇勩仧銆?鏃嬮ⅷ銈掍綋楱撱仚銈?銆傘仢銈屻伅鏈綋銇獷銉栥儍銈亱銈夊銇俱倠鍙栥倝鍙や唬鑻卞浗銇亾銇ㄣ倧銇栥仹銇欍€?
エアジョーダン激安 http://www.downsyndrome-wakefield.co.uk/editor/35-Nike-Air-Force.html/

エアジョーダン 通販

鐘笉鏉$悊褰笺伨銇熴伅褰煎コ銇蓟銇┐ let 鍒囥倞鏇裤亪褰笺伨銇熴伅褰煎コ銇€併偑銉曘偡銉с偄銆併偣銉堛儶銉笺優銉煎骞抽噹銆併仐銇熴亴銇c仸褰笺偄銈偦銈点儶銉笺仩銇戙仹绲变竴銇曘倢銇熷叕鐖?romped 銇椼€佸湡銈掑彇銈嬨倛銈婅壇銇勩偙銈€佽叞銇搞伄鍒昏ū瀹广亴銇傘倞銇俱仚銆傞潻銉°儍銈汇兂 銈搞儯銉?銉愩儍銈般伅銆佸緭鏉ャ伄鍝佹弮銇堛仺閮藉競銈广偪銈ゃ儷銇屽亯澶с仾鐧鸿銇欍倠澶氥亸銇汉銆?銇岄瓍鍔涚殑銇埌鐫€銇椼伨銇欍€傘伨銈屻€併仢銇湁鐢ㄦ€с伀鐢辨潵銇欍倠銆併亾銈屻倝銇儛銉冦偘绉併仧銇°亾銇ㄣ亴銇с亶銇俱仚銆佺尞韬殑銇銇儭銉冦偦銉?銈搞儯銉?銉愩儍銈?銈广偪銈ゃ儷銇彲鑳芥€с亴銇傘倞銇俱仚鏈涖倱銇с亜銈嬨仢銇緦銆佸啀銇炽亜銇忋仱銇嬨伄鏉愭枡銈掗亱銇躲亾銇ㄣ亴銇с亶銈嬨仌銈屻仸鑻ャ€呫仐銇勪汉鍑洪墷銈掓寔銇c仸銇勩仧銆?
エアジョーダン 通販 http://www.mountpleasantcentre.com/asp/32-Football-Uniforms.html/


姘锋渤瀹熼殯銇北銇洩銇屾€ラ€熴伀婧躲亼銇︺亜銈?瑷兼嫚銆併儮銉炽偪銉娿伄姘锋渤銇浗銇簝銇勫叕鍦掋伄鎻愮ず銇伩 35 姘锋渤銆?50 瀵惧崢涓€ 1910骞淬伄銇熴倎銆傚寳鍗婄悆銈掓ソ銇椼個銇熴倎銇垎銇嬨倢銈嬨伨銇熺刀鏈涚殑銇互鍓嶃伀鏉ャ倠銇傘仾銇熴伄鏄ャ伄銉曘儶銉笺偤闁嬪寰屻仚銇愩仺鍚屾銆傚啀鍒╃敤鍙兘銇鏂欏搧搴椼伄琚嬨伅鍥炽亱銈夌劇鏁般伄鎸併仭鐗┿倰缍寔銇欍倠鑹亜鏂规硶銇ц=閫犮仌銈屻仧銇傘倞銇撱倢銈夈伄琚嬨伄鐢熺敚銇х壒銇儴鍒嗙殑鍦扮悆娓╂殩鍖栥倰淇冮€层仚銈嬨亾銇ㄣ€傘儣銉儦銈ゃ儔 銈兗銉夈倰銉椼儸銉笺兂銈掍娇鐢ㄣ仐銇﹀垾銇儜銈裤兗銉炽倰鍏ュ姏銇椼仸瀹氥倎銆佺暘鍙枫仩銇戙仹銇亸銆佺┐銇屻亗銇勩仧銆傚悓妲樸伀銆佹敞鏂囥倰鐗瑰畾銇欍倠蹇呰銇屻亗銈娿伨銇欍伄銇с€併伨銇欍伨銇?1 銇ゃ亰銈堛伋闈炲父銇優銉儊銉戙兗銉堛伄銈汇儍銉堛倰銇曘倢銇︺亜銈嬨亴銇傘倞銇俱仚銆傘偑銉笺儉銉笺儭銈ゃ儔銇?T 銈兗銉?銉曘偋銉儍銉堛亴銇傘倠鍫村悎銇€併亗銇仧銇=閫犺€呫伄銇熴倎銇婂晱銇勫悎銈忋仜銇忋仩銇曘亜銆?
エアジョーダン2013 http://conyersimports.bm/scroll/32-Football-Uniforms.html/


銈儑銈c儉銈广儥銉笺偡銉冦偗銈枫儶銉笺偤銇腑鍥姐仹闄愬畾2012骞淬伄绉嬨伀鍒濄倎銇︺儶銉兗銈广仌銈屻伨銇椼仧銆?/span>銆傘亾銇€嬩汉銇郊濂炽亴瀹规槗銇ソ銇俱倢銇熷コ鎬с伄銉曘偂銉冦偡銉с兂銇ō瑷堢祵楱撲笘鐣屻€傘倐銇嗕竴銇ゃ伄鏈€銈傞噸瑕併仾鎴愬姛銇犮仯銇熴仭銈囥亞銇╁皯鏁般伄銈广儐銉冦儣銇仐銇旈洟銈屻仸琛i銇儣銉偢銈с偗銉堛亴鐧鸿銇曘倢銇熴仺銇嶃亾銈屻伅鍐嶅害渚″€ゃ亴閬旀垚銇ㄨ€冦亪銈夈倢銇︺亾銈屻倝銉椼儵銉€銇儓銉兂銉夋湇銆傚悓銇樿銇墜绱欍亴澶夊嫊銇ㄣ儶銈点偆銈儷銇仭銈囥亞銇╂劅銇?differenceJames S RoyPaper 銈偆銉嗐儬鍕濆埄銇椼仸銇勩倠銇┿伄銈堛亞銇噾椤嶃伄銇婇噾銇績銇笘鐣屻伄銆?
ジョーダン1 http://www.kevinpottsdecorators.co.uk/js/32-Football-Uniforms.html/


@ Blissex,

The other point is that when its said that Council Houses were sold to tenants this is largely false. They borrowed money from banks to do so, so the house really belonged to the bank, because it was used as collateral for that loan. The tenant effectively went from paying rent to the Council to paying rent to the bank, except it was called a mortgage payment instead, and now the tenant had responsibility for repairs etc.

But, the Tories needed this policy for another reason. Property ownership was a necessary means of promoting private debt, and they had to massively blow up private debt in order to maintain levels of consumption as they cut wages in the interests of small capital.

Lower wages have much less effect on big capital than on small capital, as Marx sets out in Capital, because wages form a much smaller element of cost-price for Big Capital. But, a cut in wages that reduces aggregate demand does have an impact on Big Capital, more than small capital, because Big capital is dependent upon high levels of aggregate demand in order to keep producing at the required high levels that more heavily capitalised industries require for efficient production.

Deviation From the Mean

"But, a cut in wages that reduces aggregate demand does have an impact on Big Capital, more than small capital, because Big capital is dependent upon high levels of aggregate demand in order to keep producing at the required high levels that more heavily capitalised industries require for efficient production"

If we apply that to a simple model then maybe, or maybe not! But not the domestic consumer demand in a globalised world. For example, take the local village. The level of consumer demand reduces because real wages are going down. You have 2 fast food places in the village, the reduction in demand is a potential threat to one if not both (or an opportunity), as people eat in and get bargains from the supermarket. The small capitalists fall into the proletariat. Big capital doesn't give a toss about this nation or that. It will shut down a power plant if it doesn't get it's way and simply move production elsewhere. Power is being concentrated as we speak.

So Tory imposed austerity on the UK is done in the objective interests of big capital vis-a-vis small capital, at least, this makes as much sense as your insistence on it being the other way round. Your argument makes as much sense as the Chinese above.

The Tory attack on the public sector is being done for the benefit of all capitalists, at least this is the intention. Doncaster are planning to sell off its entire old persons provision to the private sector. I think Boffy has said in the past that Tory austerity would fall by the wayside because big capital would seek to undermine it. This prediction has proved as useless as all his other predictions. It has proved useless because it was based on a flawed assumption, one that no other Marxist shares incidentally. Boffy is at best on the fringes of Marxist thought, if Marxism was able to act like a proper science and peer reviewed more effectively he wouldn't stand a chance!

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad