The AUKUS pork-barrel rolls on…

 Written by: Nick G. on 15 February 2026

 

The announcement today (February 15) of a $30 billion federal government release of funds to South Australia for AUKUS expansion comes just five weeks before the 21 March SA State election.

There is no doubt that Malinauskas is a popular SA Premier.  He has provided enough popular entertainment in the shape of LIV golf (being played today), the AFL Gather Round and motor racing championships, to supply local media with endless promotional photos and TV spots.

But he has not had it all his own way. His last election win came with a pledge to solve the ambulance ramping crisis. Yet ambulances continue to be ramped outside hospitals. 

The figures for last November show that patients spent 3,422 hours waiting in ambulances for emergency care during that month.
That brings the total number of hours lost on the ramp during 2025 to 48,466 hours - already a historic high with a month still to go. For comparison, patients spent 47,380 hours waiting on the ramp in 2024 and 40,474 hours in 2023.

SA is gripped in the national housing crisis. Despite claims that it is building more houses than ever, rents are increasing and so are housing costs. Residential property sales recorded throughout 2025 have shown a mere 5.22 per cent of all sales in metropolitan Adelaide were in the sub-$500,000 price bracket. Median house prices in December 2025 rose a massive 14.5 per cent increase compared to the December 2024 quarter.  No-one’s wages have gone up that much.

The Premier also lifted the heavy rock of his call for Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah to be dropped from the Adelaide Writer’s Week program. That rock fell from his grasp onto his own toes when 200 Writer’s Week participants withdrew in protest, causing the much-loved festival to be cancelled.

So Malinauskas does seem to have lost some of his gloss. 

The $30 billion figure appears to have been plucked from the air.  There will be an immediate $3.9 billion “down-payment” with the rest to come online across the 30 years of the project. However, there has been no reliable costing of the various stages of the project.

And despite all evidence to the contrary from the US Congressional Research Service, and a former UK Navy Chief calling from withdrawal from AUKUS because Britain is “no longer capable” of running a nuclear submarine programme after “catastrophic” failures pushed it to the brink, Albanese, Marles and Malinauskas continue to believe that AUKUS will deliver on its promises.

There is no doubt that public spending on health, housing, education, regional roads and so on, is being sacrificed  on the AUKUS altar. At an average cost of $30 million a day across the 30 years of the project, our lifestyle is being sacrificed to a dream…or nightmare!

AUKUS must be stopped now.

We must come out from under the stranglehold of the US empire.

Workers should not hold their breaths waiting for the so-called AUKUS “jobs bonanza”.

Sydney’s anti-Herzog rally – snipers, a police riot, and defiance

Written by: Lindy Nolan on 12 February 2026

 

(Source: www.newsandcams.com)

In the leadup to Sydney’s rally against Israeli war criminal Isaac Herzog, it was clear to this writer that police would attack protesters at some stage.
They tried for over two years to cause trouble, to ‘prove’ those marching for justice around the country are dangerous, bringing trouble here from overseas. But strict organisation and discipline, loud opposition to antisemitism, and the presence at every rally of Jewish organisations and people (including holocaust survivors and their families) ensured they didn’t succeed. 

 Fascist-leaning laws were strengthened in the days before Monday’s protest, when a special event, usually reserved for sporting events, was declared. Stop and search powers and move on orders were announced. Carrying a flag or placard was made illegal and $5000 fines applied for not carrying ID in a restricted zone. 

Nearly 90 years after Australian Attorney General (and later PM) Robert Menzies met Hitler and declared he was good for Germany and the German people, and that it would be good if Australians behaved more like Germans, NSW Premier Minns outdid himself in grovelling to a mass murderer.

Minns deliberately created fear, telling people to work from home, to avoid the city, that public transport would be disrupted and people may not be able to get home. That it would not be safe. As if the protest were a natural disaster.

In response to the Palestine Action Group (PAG) legal challenge, police provided an unsigned briefing to the minister which failed to state NSW Police was the promoter of the special event. Ten minutes before the rally was to commence, they miraculously provided correct details in a signed version. 

The protest in Town Hall Square was declared illegal. Minns said 3000 cops stationed in Sydney to protect Herzog would be at Town Hall. Pictures have now emerged of snipers stationed above the Square. We are clearly the enemy.

The protest was big, but not huge. Many were intimidated to stay away, and show support in other ways. Many were blocked from entering. Yet, thousands defied Minns and filled Town Hall Square anyway. They were disciplined, brave and full of spirit. 

First Peoples adjust tactics to suit the circumstances

A First Peoples’ speaker said, ‘They try every attack on us first.’ They understand too well what it’s like to be on the receiving end of police violence. 

First Peoples have made compromises to ensure protests are big and powerful. During Covid they were told there could be no protest on January 26. They knew they had enough active support, and refused to comply. Instead, they agreed not to march, but the huge Sydney Domain was full of socially-distanced groups. 

Police attacked a small group as they walked to the station, just as they attacked another group at Central Station after the first huge Black Lives Matter protest during Covid. Those attacks ensured ‘demonstrator violence’, not Aboriginal deaths in custody, became headlines.

Before Invasion Day 2026, First Peoples determined to rally and march with or without police permission. They agreed to police conditions to rally in Hyde Park and march along an altered route. 30,000 attended. 

Much of First Peoples’ staggering achievement in resisting British and settler invasion in almost 140 years of guerrilla warfare is documented in Ray Kerkhove’s brilliant How They Fought. It doesn’t include Pemulwuy’s attack in Sydney Town itself, on the George Street where Monday’s attack. took place.

Probably dragging hidden spears gripped in their toes, they made a lightning attack, retreating into sunset’s blinding light with no losses. 

Just as First Peoples adjust their tactics to suit the circumstances, we need to think about doing the same.

The same offer of a rally and march to Central Station was made to PAG, who refused, stating they wanted more visibility than a park in the dark, though sunset wasn’t till almost two and a half hours after the rally’s start. 

A host of unions sponsored the Harbour Bridge March. This time only the MUA did so. The NSW Teachers Federation has for decades supported Palestine and ensured its biggest flags flew over the biggest union contingent at every protest since October 2023. Its members were there in numbers on Monday, but not under union flags or with union authority.

Yet those aerial images of Town Hall Square and its surrounds were powerful. There were certainly many more people than the 7000 Zionists welcomed to the International Convention Centre, with all Sydney City Hotels allegedly booked out by the NSW Government.

History’s sweep

On Monday night, encouraged by several speakers, thousands chanted, ‘Whose streets? Our streets!’ 

There was no leadership, no guidance, no training. That’s a huge problem.  

Calling, ‘Let us march! Let us march!’ they spontaneously confronted a wall of police on George Street. They were held at bay, until many had dispersed. Trained and armed police were always going to win. 

After a stand-off, smaller marches flowed like water in directions where there were no police. A large group who marched to Central Station, knowing nothing of the carnage behind, were elated at their success.

Another lesson? Despite being Aboriginal Land, the streets and everything else are – until we can overthrow it – the property of the ruling class. Capitalism’s iron fist, its laws, police, courts, jails and even military, aim to ensure it. 

If our protests are big enough, determined enough and organised enough to seize the streets temporarily, it’s a victory. 

(77-year old James Ricketson being brutalised during Sydney's anti-Zionist protests by the city's militarised police)

 

Many people were traumatised by police violence last night. They didn’t expect the brutality of the attacks, the pepper spray of the elderly and small children, the bashing of people praying or with their hands in the air. Breaking a grandmother’s back in four places, ignoring her agony.  At the Harbour Bridge protest police turned protesters back, with police chief’s ridiculously presenting themselves as our protectors, citing ‘danger of a crowd crush’ when the crowd was orderly, calm and patient. On Monday night police created a terrifying crush with military precision. 

It’s an old tactic. They did it in the second Vietnam Moratorium here, and before the Iraq War, against school students in the Books not Bombs protest. 
Monday was way more.  Australians have learned a new verb, ‘kettling’. On Monday night, police systematically confined people in four separate groups before attacking. 

And they learned about the men in black, the riot squad, physically hyped up, like players before the World Cup, ready to attack. Even some of the men in blue were overheard saying, ‘What the hell are they doing???’

Riot squad members are volunteers. Many sported moustaches identical to a prominent Australian Nazi. 

People don’t forget such images or vicious lessons. It broadcast across the country. It’s changed things. 

Who are we here for?

We have to ask before, during and after protests, why are we here? Who are we here for? What is our primary purpose? 

On Monday night, although Palestine was front and centre of most speeches, the protest itself, and police violence, became the media message. 

On Monday night Netanyahu announced Palestine would cease to exist from the river to the sea, as the bombings, bulldozing and genocide continue. 

On Monday night, Four Corners showed ASIO had failed to protect Jewish and other Australian people from terrorists they had been warned about. Despite its $600 million budget last year, apologists cried poor unchallenged by the reporter.  

On Monday night, Four Corners reiterated the police refusal to send officers to protect the festival at Bondi. Yet they can send thousands to police to smash demonstrators. 

In history’s broad sweep

The 300,000 March for Humanity across Sydney Harbour Bridge gave inspiration across the world. 

It terrified the ruling class. Its state machine always resorts to force when threatened by such a movement. 

Growing numbers who confronted police on Monday night have lost their fear, or act despite it. They understand, in history’s sweep the masses in action are stronger than the state and its police, that we are many and they are few. But that’s a strategic assessment, not an immediate tactical one.

Though the attack by two terrorists at Bondi emboldened the ruling class and Zionism to build more active and organised community support, the majority of Australians have seen the horrific truth too clearly. Support for Palestine is as strong as ever. Now the police have exposed their brutality for all to see.

In the Frontier Wars, only once did Aboriginal warriors take on the murderous invader front on. The Kalka Dunga (Kalkadoon), after years of guerilla warfare, determined to protect their most sacred site with their lives. They lined up and faced an overwhelming force. Even brutal racists acknowledged their bravery.

A small group has led these protests. They’ve had successes and inevitable failures. But they’ve refused to consult about tactics or anything else. 

Rising Tide has successfully blockaded and shut down Australia’s biggest coal port using guerrilla tactics. While one group occupies police attention, another seizes the opportunity elsewhere. Rising Tide provides systematic and thorough training both to minimise arrests and make those that happen worthwhile.

Everyone works in teams that suit their strengths. They provide safe and culturally vibrant protest places. We need to learn from them. 

Just as at Bondi, many people on Monday night rendered assistance. Teachers remained in the Square to provide support. Shopkeepers provided refuge and other help. This can be systematically built upon. 

We need to create more active community engagement beyond the punishing weekly rallies. The Vietnam Moratoriums succeeded in ending our involvement in Vietnam and ending conscription. It had just three major rallies over one year. It gave time and energy to build in every other mass space.

That’s already happening now, but can we expand on it? 

Above all, in the 1970s workers stopped work to stop the war. They provided the leadership that young people expanded upon. We are in such a different situation now, after 50 years of deliberate ruling class disorganisation and disempowerment of the working class.

We need to build anti-imperialist understanding and organisation for peace in unions and among workers. Unions need to speak out and organise about Palestine, about rising fascism, about police violence.

We also have to join the dots, to give meaning and understanding to scattered and unsystematic ideas and experiences. In that way, with eyes open, we can chart a forward path with optimism.

The ground’s fertile. From negative things, positive can grow. 

Richard “Hiroo Onada” Marles

 Written by: Nick G. on 11 February 2026

 

We reproduce without comment a ten-minute transcript of part of an Australia Pacific Defence Reporter podcast number 127. The APDR is an online journal of news about military contracts, personnel appointments and military technology. The podcast is by its editor, Kym Bergmann, who has worked for, and with, some of the more significant armaments industries. He does not oppose the US-Australia Alliance, but is concerned about Australian subservience within the Alliance. (For a previous excerpt from a Bergmann podcast, see here: AC+2023.pdf pages 26-7) - eds

Hiroo Onada was a 2nd Lieutenant in the Intelligence Corps and in certain circles he is famous because he was the last Japanese soldier to surrender in the 2nd World War, which he did in 1974, almost 29 years after the war had officially ended. He hid out in the jungles of the Philippines, living off the land, and for all that time killing the occasional citizens. 

Now, 2nd Lieutenant Onada was so convinced of the invincibility of Japan that he refused to accept reality and believed all of the information he received about Japan’s surrender was enemy propaganda, and he was having absolutely none of it. 

As I say, he kept that up for 29 years, and in fact, once he had been located by a Japanese adventurer, the only way he was finally convinced to give up was when the Japanese government sent his former commanding officer to the Philippines to order him to surrender.

And why am I telling you this story?

 

It’s because our Defence Minister Richard Marles and his total devotion to AUKUS means he is the spiritual heir of 2nd Lieutenant Hiroo Onada.

No matter what evidence he is presented with, he can only continue to bleat and insist AUKUS “is on track”, and as I predicted previously, he repeats that phrase repeated by that greatest monster Donald Trump that “everything is going full steam ahead”.

He was prompted to say this because there was a burst of publicity prompted by yet another report by the Congressional Research Service which posed a number of scenarios and not for the first time – that is the job of the CRS – about Australia not receiving Virginia-class submarines, either second-hand or new, and Australia using that money for other capabilities, such as B-21 long-range bombers.

Now, the Congressional Research Service is very high, very authoritative, and it has excellent contacts in the US government, and so when they produce a report like this, it is taken very seriously. It is not the sort of thing that should be dismissed, yet as I said in a previous podcast, this government, and the Coalition were no better – they have no time for think-tanks, academia, the media or the opinion of retired military people.

The Department has become entirely self-referential, as once they have collectively made up their minds about something, they are not in the slightest interested in alternative opinions or alternative views.

BOOK REVIEW—The Eye of the Master: A Social History of Artificial Intelligence

Written by: Alex M and Duncan B on 6 February 2026

 

Matteo Pasquinelli, the author of The Eye of the Master- A Social History of Artificial Intelligence, is Associate Professor in Philosophy of Science at the Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage of Ca’ Foscari University Venice. His research focusses on the intersection of Philosophy of mind and language, political economy and the techniques of automation such as AI.

The Eye of the Master is an important book because it looks at AI from a Marxist viewpoint. Pasquinelli begins by tracing the origins of AI in the division of labour in the 19th century factories. He examines Babbage’s Difference Engine which was an early invention in computing. Its principle was based on a division of labour. 

Pasquinelli examines the invention of machinery and in doing this he refers extensively to Volume 1 of Marx’s Capital, and to his earlier book Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy.

In Volume 1 of Capital Marx wrote, “The machine, which is the starting point of the industrial revolution, replaces the worker, who handles a single tool, by a mechanism operating with a number of similar tools and set in motion by a single motive power, whatever the form of that power.” The need for a constant source of power which could be easily regulated led to the invention of the steam engine.

The spread of capitalism world-wide and the increasing size and complexity of factories created the need for more advanced systems of control and communication. This need gave rise to developments such as cybernetics, operations research, computers and the early forerunners of today’s AI such as pattern recognition machines.

Amid all the hype surrounding AI and the millions of words being written about it, it is easy to forget that AI is just another new application of technology, in this case computer technology. 

Workers have been confronting new technology for over 250 years, since the late 18th century when spinning and weaving became mechanised. The development of steam power allowed machinery and the workers who operated it to be concentrated in factories.

In chapter 15 of Capital Vol 1, titled Machinery and Modern Industry, Marx showed how capitalists used machinery to the detriment of the workers. The use of machinery made it possible for commodities to be sold cheaper, reducing the need for workers to seek wage rises. 

Machinery made it possible for 19th century capitalists to increase their profits by reducing the number of workers needed and by substituting the use of skilled workers with unskilled workers or women and children. The modern-day creators of AI are selling It based on the (as yet-unfulfilled) promise that it will allow capitalists to get rid of workers.

Machinery allowed capitalists to lengthen the working day to an intolerable extent. As Factories Acts came into force restricting the length of the working day, capitalists protected their profits by increasing the intensity of work in the shorter working day. 

Capitalists used machinery to keep the workers under control and to repress strikes.  In chapter 15 of Volume 1 of Capital, Marx wrote, “But machinery not only acts as a competitor who gets the better of the workman and is constantly on the point of making him superfluous. It is also a power inimical to him, and as such capital proclaims it from the rooftops and as such makes use of it. It is the most powerful weapon for repressing strikes, those periodical revolts of the working class against the autocracy of capital.”

Marx quotes from several inventors of machinery, factory owners and apologists for capitalism who boast how machinery has enabled the defeat of attempts at struggle by the workers. 

One of those apologists was Andrew Ure, who was an early 19th century Scottish physician, chemist, geologist and viciously anti-worker business theorist. In his book The Philosophy of Manufactures, Ure spoke approvingly of how new machines used in calico printing and wool weaving enabled factory owners to defeat workers’ struggle and reassert their control over their workers.

Writing of the invention of the self-acting mule (an automatic machine to spin cotton and other fibres), he said: “With regard to the invention of the self-acting mule, a creation destined to restore order among the industrious classes. …This invention confirms the great doctrine already propounded, that when capital enlists science into her service, the refractory hand of labour will always be taught docility.” Today’s capitalists are in full agreement with Ure!

The modern-day tech billionaires behind AI are no different to the 19th century capitalists. In their pursuit of profits, they do not care about their own workers or anyone else harmed by their actions. They do not care about workers who will lose their jobs to AI. They also do not care about the effects of their activities on the environment. 

The 19th century capitalists did not care about the pollution of the air, soil and water from their factories. The fact that data centres need enormous quantities of electricity and drinking-quality water does not worry the tech billionaires and would-be trillionaires.
                                                               

***********

Duncan B above outlines the major strength of Pasquinelli’s book which is the historical contextualizing of AI. By situating AI as part of the ongoing technological advances that are part and parcel of capitalism Pasquinelli has made a significant contribution to our understanding of AI from a historical materialist perspective.

As Pasquinelli notes, Marx was aware that the introduction of machinery in manufacturing not only made workers more productive, it also had the effect of making workers mere appendages to the machines. Marx cited Adam Ferguson, the 18th century Scottish philosopher and mentor to Adam Smith where Ferguson highlighted the negative aspects of manufacturing industry: “Manufactures, accordingly, prosper most where the mind is least consulted, and where the workshop may … be considered as an engine, the parts of which are men.” Ferguson’s 18th century insights still resonate in this era of AI hype Pasquinelli asserts: “This should serve to remind us that the public mythology of artificial intelligence has always operated on the side of capital together with a hidden agenda to foster human stupidity, including the promulgation of racist and sexist ideologies.” (Pasquinelli, p. 111)

After forensically tracing the development of artificial intelligence in the twentieth century from its roots in Babbage’s Difference Engine in the early 19th century, Pasquinelli reaches some conclusions about AI: “Ultimately, AI is not only a tool for automating labour but also for imposing standards of mechanical intelligence that propagate, more or less invisibly, social hierarchies of knowledge and skill. As with any previous form of automation, AI does not simply replace workers but displaces and restructures them into a new social order.” (Pasquinelli, p.246)

Moreover, the growing demand for resources such as more computer chips, more electricity and water to power and cool massive date centres and the cloud infrastructure to host datasets etc, has contributed to the monopolization of data, knowledge and logistics.

Pasquinelli contends that we need to wrest our futures back from the big monopolies that are integral to the AI project:

To criticize and deconstruct complex artefacts such as AI monopolies, first we should engage in a meticulous work of deconnectionism, undoing – step by step, file by file, dataset by dataset, piece of metadata by piece of metadata, correlation by correlation, pattern by pattern – the social and economic fabric that constitutes them in origin. This work is already being advanced by a new generation of scholars who are dissecting the global production pipeline of AI … (Pasquinelli, p.252)

Evident here is the limit of Pasquinelli’s understanding of the urgent need of a more revolutionary approach to not only AI but the whole edifice of global capitalism and imperialism. Despite this shortcoming, Pasquinelli’s book is highly recommended for those who wish to understand the history and development of AI.

 

Three lies about value

Written by: Humphrey McQueen on 30 January 2026

 

To understand ‘capital-within-capitalism’ is to conceptualize ‘value,’ a coupling approached through a trio of questions and answers:

 

Q. What is capital within capitalism?

A. The accumulation of values.

Q. From where do those values come?

A. From our labour as wage-slaves.

Q. What happens to the values we add?

A. Some are accumulated to expand reproduction and exchange, while some maintain the personifications of capital and their agents. 

 

From these starting points, it is necessary to take a broader and deeper look into how Marx conceptualizes labour-value. This missile explodes three lies about his critical analysis of political economy. Their perpetrators serve as ‘teachers by negative example,’ to quote Mao. Their thinking is not ‘wrong’ from the standpoint of the needs of social capital, but expresses the daily doings of its personifications and agents in corporations and the state.

 

1. Mud pies

 

It would have no more importance for theoretical analysis than does the exchange of toys between two children in the nursery, an exchange which is fundamentally different in character from the purchases made by their fathers at the toy shop.

Rudolf Hilferding, Finance Capital (1910).  (1)

 

The first lie is about mud pies. Student comrades at the Australian National University report that this blather is taught in what passes for economics in academe. The mud-pie story is supposed to show how silly Marx is. It goes like this: a child makes mud pies in her backyard. To do so, she must expend labour. In doing that, she transfers her labour to the dirt and water. Mud pies, thereby, acquire an economic ‘value.’ 

 

One version stops here. Students are supposed to see how childish are Marx’s ideas. A more advanced version is that the mud pies will not have a price, which neo-Classical economists equate with value. Marx is again exposed as a fool.

 

Let’s not dwell on the ignorance and stupidity of the professors pushing this lie. Instead, let us turn to what Marx would have said if asked about mud pies.

 

First, he would accept that the child has added value to the dirt and water. She has made a use-value. Of what use is a mud-pie? The use is that it amuses its maker, fulfilling what Marx calls a ‘fancy,’ her need for play. We could go further and point out that her act of shaping the mud teaches her something about form. In addition, when the mud dries, its consistency will be different. In brief, her making mud pies has psychological and pedagogical uses. Another use, since she is bound to ingest some dirt, will be to strengthen her gut.

 

But use-value is not the same as exchange value. The presence of exchange-value is crucial to Marx’s concept of labour-value. In the case of a child’s making mud pies for fun, two essential exchanges are absent. First, she has not sold her capacity to make mud pies – i.e. her labour-power – for money wages, as some children are still forced to do to make bricks. Secondly, she has not exchanged the product of her labour for any other commodity. In short, her labour is not part of the capitalist mode of reproduction and exchange. Indeed, it is not part of any mode of production, as Hilferding has it. Her parents will have to be part of some mode of production in order to keep her alive so that she can play in the dirt.

 

The ANU academics dispose of Marx’s analysis of capitalism by making up an example from which capitalism is absent.

 

Before leaving these frauds behind, we might give the thumbscrew one more turn by relocating mud pies from backyards into the capitalism where mud is used as a cosmetic. The customer pays money to have mud applied to her face. The use-value is to improve the quality of the skin. The exchange-value is in the money she pays the Beauty Parlour to supply this service. The exchange-value is also present in the sale of labour-power by the persons who mix, apply and remove the mud. Finally, someone has had to earn the money that pays for the treatment.

 

Why not give the thumbscrew yet another twist? In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith writes of poor folk who collect and sell pebbles. Picking up pretty stones, is another form of child’s play. But, like the sale of mud-packs, the Scottish paupers performed that labour to earn money. The use-value to the people who buy the pebbles is to fulfill a fancy, not to fill their stomachs. We can bet Paris to a peanut that few of the mud-pie scholars will not have read beyond the first three chapters of The Wealth of Nations. Their ignorance extends beyond Marx to their own master-mind.  

 

2. Mona Lisa

 

At the other extreme is the labour of Leonardo. Should a child’s mud pie ever happen to have an exchange-value, its sale price would be no more than a dollar or two – unless recognised as a Work of Art, which is by no means impossible in an era when an artist’s faeces entered a state collection.

 

Mona Lisa on the other hand is deemed ‘priceless,’ which it is, in part, because it is in the Louvre and unlikely to come onto the market. Were it to be stolen again and enter the Dark Web, bidding would start at well above a billion Euros.

 

In the case of Leonardo, Marx’s critics do not deny that the artist added ‘value’ to the paints, canvas and brushes. Rather, their accusation is that the price that the masterpiece would fetch today bears no relation to the cost of the labour that went into its production. That qualification holds even when the cost of materials are added to the cost of the labour-power that went into making them. Hence, like the mud pie, the Mona Lisa refutes the concept of labour-value.

 

How would Marx respond? The first thing he might point out is the Mona Lisa was produced in 1500, more than 250 years before the capitalist mode of reproduction and exchange became dominant. The second point is that the price that Leonardo put on his creation had been related to the costs of its production at the time. The third, and more important point concerns the nature of those costs. 

 

Here, we need to spotlight a crucial element in Marx’s concept of labour-value: what is ‘socially necessary’?

 

Marx writes about a wage-slave selling her labour-power to this or that personification of capital. Such simplifying assumptions introduce how social capital exploits social labour. Hence, the concept of labour-value applies only to such products of labour as are reproducible. You cannot mass produce works of genius.  (2)

 

A fourth aspect makes that point clearer. Leonardo could have made an exact copy of the Mona Lisa. Many portrait painters did that after being commissioned to provide one for the family to keep, and the other to be sent to a suitor hundreds of miles away. An ocean separates copies by the artist from the mass production of postcards. The social labour of factory hands who produce millions of mementoes confirms Marx’s conceptualizing of labour-value in terms of the socially-necessary costs of its reproduction. The market-price of their product is also subject to competition. The demand for postcards of Mona Lisa has dropped off in an era when gallery-goers jostle each other out of the way to take selfies in front of masterpieces other than themselves.

  

3. The wealth of nature

 

A third fib about the concept of labour value afflicts some environmentalists. They overhear that Marx argues that only labour can add value. From this correct report, they conclude that he ‘devalues’ nature, a confusion which bedevils many a discussion.

 

The word ‘value’ has several connotations. We use it in a moral sense, in an aesthetic sense and in an economic sense. Only confusion can result from not distinguishing them. Marx fully recognises the value of nature in the ethical and aesthetic senses, but his concept of labour-value is not about our feelings.

 

In 1875, two factions of German socialists published a draft programme for a unity conference at Gotha. Marx sent his thoughts to his comrades about the first part of their Programme, which had proclaimed:

 

1.  Labour is the source of all wealth and all culture ….

 

He is scathing about a phrase which could be 

 

found in all children’s primers when one task of the labour movement is to enrich the understanding of working people: ‘But a socialist programme cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that alone give them meaning.

 

He lays down the law about why the opening ten words in the Programme are misguided:

 

Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labour.

 

Nor was Marx happy with the use of the word ‘labour.’ The draft would still have been wrong had it said that labour and nature are the sources of all wealth and culture. Marx had put a lot of his brainpower into conceptualizing the difference between labour and labour-power. Labour ‘itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labour-power.’ To correct these errors, the draft should read: ‘human labour-power and nature are the sources of all wealth and culture.’  (3)

 

A further distinction is telling. Marx did not confuse wealth with value. He demonstrates that labour-power, with or without tools or machines, is the source of all the values that could be added to nature. Nature will never add economic value – but neither can money nor machines.

 

These differences allow Marx to develop his concepts of surplus-value and the kind of exploitation peculiar to capitalism. His formulations are miles away from the Gotha Programme’s kindergarten belief that ‘labour is the source of all wealth and culture.’ 

 

To repeat, nature is ‘just as much the source’ of wealth as is labour.

 

Marx draws a line between wealth and value as economic categories. In short, only labour can add value to the wealth of the use-values supplied by or taken from nature. When he calls them a ‘free gift,’ he means that no labour has been expended on them – as with virgin forests. Solar power, however, requires outlays of labour-power at every step, from mine-sites to repairing panels. 

 

Corporates are in favour of putting a market-price on nature the better to exploit its wealth. They expect to be rewarded with subsidies, off-sets and tax-exemptions for doing their dirty business somewhere else and not fouling our nest.

 

Why must the hired-pens of capital peddle their porkies? The answer is as simple as it is complex. Marx’s concept of labour-value explains how the exploitation of wage-slaves is the life-blood of vampire capitalism. Scholars are paid to fail students who use naughty words like wage-slave or exploitation. Could Marx have had them in mind when he quipped that ‘conscience, honour’ can have their market-price but no value?  (4)

 

(1) Rudolf Hilferding, Finance Capital A study of the latest phase of capitalist development (London: Routledge, 1981), 28.

(2) Karl Marx, Capital, III (London: Penguin, 1981), 772.

(3) Karl Marx, “Critique of ‘The Gotha Programme’,” M-ECW, vol. 24 (London:  Lawrence & Wishart, 1989), 81-3.

(4) Karl Marx, Capital, 1 (London: Penguin, 1976), 197.

US Department of War releases Strategy Document

 Written by: Nick G. on 30 January 2026

 

The US Ozymandias

 

The US Department of War (DoW) has released its 2026 National Defense Strategy. The document builds on the National Security Strategy which we reviewed last December. Vanguard - Communist Party of Australia (M-L)

 

Both documents identify US domination and control of the Western Hemisphere (North,  Central and South America) as Trump's priority. Without control of the Western Hemisphere, the US does not believe it can effectively exercise global hegemony.

 

Both Strategies attempt to manage US imperialism's decline, and match the growing reach of its biggest competitor, Chinese social-imperialism.

 

During his first presidency, Trump attempted to deal with the cost of US over-reach. He instructed US "allies" to take on more of the financial burden of maintaining US global dominance.

 

The Strategies formalise that approach and are couched in a double-speak that attempts to sound benign, but is always backed up by the big stick.

 

It says that Trump entered his second term of office with the US "on the precipice of disastrous wars for which we were unprepared", and that having "the world's strongest, most lethal and most capable military", it no longer has to be "distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change and nation building."

 

The DoW Strategy identifies four key "lines of effort", namely:

 

1. Defend the US Homeland

2. Deter China in the Indo-Pacific Through Strength, Not Confrontation

3. Increase Burden-Sharing with US Allies and Partners

4. Supercharge the US Industrial Base

 

The "foremost" of these is the first one.

 

There are various ways to do this, according to the document. The first is using the DoW to seal US borders: "repel forms of invasion, and deport illegal aliens in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security". This has already plunged the US into the new ICE age as uniformed ICE thugs kill who they like, when they like and then have the Secretary of the DHS, Kristi Noem lie about it and label the victims as "domestic terrorists".

 

Another way is to "secure key terrain in the Western Hemisphere … especially Greenland, the Gulf of America (sic) and the Panama Canal."

 

Deterring China is the second most important "line of effort". It is almost conciliatory in tone, denying any US aggressive intent and offering a "balance of power in the Indo-Pacific that allows all of us – the United States, China and others in the region – to enjoy a decent peace." Breaking Defense, a website for the US military community, notes: "Interestingly, "Taiwan" does not appear mentioned anywhere in the document."

 

But it is to be peace though (US) strength, and that means "to build, posture and sustain a strong denial defense along the FIC".  The FIC is the so-called First Island Chain, stretching from the Kuril Islands and Japan, down to Taiwan, the northern Philippines, Borneo and around to the Malay Peninsula.  It is designed to be a barrier to Chinese entry into the Pacific. 

 

Increasing the burden-sharing has already been mentioned, and the last, super-charging the US Defense Industrial Base simply means spending heaps of federal money to try and catch up with those areas where China now holds a commanding lead.

 

US imperialism is in trouble.  It is beset with inter-imperialist contradictions and sharpening social contradictions at home.

 

No matter how it tries to secure its global domination, it is a weakening power and will inevitably use war as the only way to try and stay on top.

 

More Invasion Day reports

 Written by: CPA (M-L) on 28 January 2026

 

(Above -the banner says it all, Tarndanya)

We continue our reports on Invasion Day from Boorloo, Naarm and Tarndanya -  eds.

We start with Boorloo (Perth) where a terrorist attempted to detonate a homemade bomb to kill First Peoples.

The Boorloo event started pretty normally with about 5000 in attendance (Pretty big for Perth) but about 45 minutes into the speeches a 31 year old man threw a bomb into the crowd and ran off. Thankfully it only let out a small puff of white smoke instead of exploding as designed. As more details come out, it's becoming obvious it was planned to murder Aboriginals en masse. But interestingly the media hasn't called him a terrorist.

Around 30 minutes later the police decided to clear the area by demanding everyone leave without really explaining what the issue was and that annoyed everyone. So the 5000+ people started to march as planned which upset the police because they hoped everyone would just head home. 

We marched through the city and blocked the roads for around 2 hours while music played and rappers sang. A bus driver who was stuck in traffic decided to get out and dance with the rest of us for a while. 

We marched as planned to the Stirling gardens out the front of the Supreme Court building and yarning circles formed for some more speeches. 

There was originally a music festival planned to be there with stages and Indigenous performances but the City of Perth pulled funding last week and gave it to Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting event, which started later that day. 

On the other side of the City, the March for Australia folks managed to get around 250 - 300 to attend their rally. One Nation and former Nazi Party speakers spoke about 'white replacement' and mass deportation. (The Nazi Party, or NSN, says it has disbanded because of Albanese’s hate speech legislation, but its members were prominent in March for Australia events around the country).
.....................
The Naarm/Melbourne rally was big as usual.  Organisers estimated anywhere between 80,000 - 100,00, although perhaps 50,000 - 60,000 might be a more realistic estimate, but it was huge and 90% were young people.  

Mainstream media (MSM) claimed 17,000 at the Invasion Day and 2,000 anti-Immigration.   They underestimated the first and overestimated second.   MSM said neo-Nazis infiltrated the leadership of the Australia Day march and led it.  Not a peep from Zionist leadership on presence of Nazis and their hate speeches!

There were many good speakers.  Gary Foley called for unity between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous.  He reminded people there were no Australia Day celebrations and public holidays until 1988 when Bob Hawke declared 26 January to be a national day of celebrations - Gary called it right wing nationalism.  He warned of the Mussolini in Mar-a-Lago. At the end of his talk, he said he wanted to finish by quoting the greatest Indigenous philosopher Mao Zedong - "educate yourself and educate the people".  He received rousing cheers and applause. 

Another Indigenous speaker called for an independent, sovereign republic.
.....................

About 2,000 people rallied and marched in Tarndanya (Adelaide) today on Invasion Day. 

Despite a temperature of 44.7 degrees, people’s spirits were high.

They marched down the Main Street of the city and returned to Tarntanyangga (the central city square) where there was shaded area and water fountains for many children to cool off in.

The march was led by organiser Natasha Wanganeen’s daughter Tjarrah under the banner Always Was, Always Will Be - Aboriginal Land.

A feature of the rally and march was the large number of young Indigenous people. As Natasha Wanganeen later posted on Facebook, “The Next Gen Is Here!! & They Are Proud & Loud!! & Ready to Go!!” 

There were no mainstream politicians at the rally but that did not seem to worry anyone.

SA Unions provided a sausage sizzle stall and given the very hot day, the sausages were really sizzling!

The main banner focusing on the fact the city of Adelaide and surrounds is on Aboriginal Land is a timely reminder to the SA Government that all its corporate events like Liv Golf take place on Aboriginal Land