A piece in Zerohedge, May 25, is titled, “Finnish Nuclear Plant Throttles Output After Electricity Prices “Become Too Cheap”

“The Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor in Eurajoki, southwest Finland, started regular electricity production in mid-April, about 14 years behind schedule.

Since then prices for power in Finland have continued to plunge as the efficiency of the plant flooded the grid with ‘new’ energy.

So much in fact that early on Wednesday of last week, early on Wednesday of last week, the market price for electricity dropped below zero cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and for hours after that the price was only 0.3 cents per kWh at its highest, according to the country’s grid operator, Fingrid.

That was unacceptable and prompted the plant’s owner, Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) to significantly cut back its output…

“Electricity production must also be profitable for nuclear power plants, and when the price is particularly low, there may be situations where output is limited,” TVO communications manager, Johanna Aho, said.

According to Aho, cutting back on nuclear power production due to excessively low electricity prices is very rare, but not unheard of.

Janne Kauppi, an energy markets advisor at Finnish Energy, agreed with that sentiment. 

“There haven’t been many situations where nuclear power output has been regulated specifically because of low prices,” Kauppi explained. When prices go negative on the electricity market, basically anyone who can adjust their production will do it, so that they don’t have to pay for their own production,”

The Finnish example is a testament to how nuclear can play a part in solving the current energy crisis, with consumers still paying sky-high fees for energy in many European countries.

However, the hypocrisy is of course that when power prices were extremely high in 2022, hurting consumers – it was all Russia’s fault; but now that prices are plummeting, operators can’t have that and withdraw supply to hurt consumers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/finnish-nuclear-plant-throttles-output-after-electricity-prices-become-too-cheap?ao_status=selected

 All the articles published in the 1910s are now online. They cover the pre-WW1 period of “Labour unrest”, the antics of the early Labour Party as Liberal stooges, the Suffragette agitation for “Votes for Ladies”, and of course our opposition to the First World Slaughter and our initial reaction to the Bolshevik seizure of power and rule.

Tooth ache? Pay private fees or do it yourself.

Many will know that, while most people have to pay something for NHS dental treatment, it is still free to a certain section of the community: children and pregnant women and new mothers.

But, as George Monbiot pointed out in his column in the Guardian on 2 March: ‘Every child in the UK is entitled to free treatment by a non-existent dentist. Some people on benefits, pregnant women and those who have recently given birth also have free and full access to an imaginary service. Your rights are guaranteed, up to the point at which you seek to exercise them.’

(www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/02/rotten-state-broken-nhs-dentistry)

Dental practices, being profit-seeking businesses, consider that what they are paid for treating NHS patients is not enough – they claim that in some cases it doesn’t even cover their costs – and so are increasingly reluctant to offer it and have not been using up all their NHS funding. In February it was reported that ‘Around £400million allocated for dental care went unspent this year because of a shortage of dentists willing to do NHS work’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11778269/Shortage-dentists-NHS-left-400million-unspent.html

What this ultimately means, is that any patient requiring urgent treatment is forced to make a choice between suffering or paying privately for the treatment there and then.

The system does appear to offer an alternative. Since 2006 the necessity to ‘register’ with a particular dentist has been abolished. What this means is that a patient whose regular dentist is unable, or unwilling, to provide NHS-funded treatment can shop around for another dentist prepared to treat them under the NHS.

The reason this only ‘appears’ to be an alternative is because it is another of Monbiot’s right to a non-existent service. You won’t find another dentist prepared to treat you as they won’t find it profitable.

So, when you look at those same low-income families and elderly people who can’t afford to ‘go private’, you see that really this is not much of an alternative at all.

In any event, going to another dentist obviously can involve increased travel costs if the dentist is out of the area. While merely inconvenient for some it could mean the difference between having the treatment and not for others such as the very low-waged who do not have access to personal transport or the rurally housed elderly who rely on poor public transport coverage. When you add the psychological factor of forcing people to see a dentist they are unfamiliar with which, as we know can have a particular impact on older members of our community, you can see why so many people elect to wait for their own dentist to be able to do the work or forgo the treatment altogether.

There is another option – DIY dentistry – which, apparently, some have been taking. As Monbiot noted: ‘The result, in one of the richest nations on Earth, is that people are extracting their own teeth, making their own fillings, improvising dentures and sticking them to their gums with superglue, and overdosing on painkillers.’

Patients continue to be forced into a situation where, when they need treatment which is vital to their health and well-being, that they either pay extortionate private fees, are forced to seek out another dentist at their own cost or if none of the above are possible for them because of their financial situation, simply wait, with their condition worsening.

In socialism dental treatment would be provided freely to anyone who needed it. Unshackled from the financial pressures of the capitalist system, freed from the necessity of eking out an inadequate funding budget, the health services would be able to treat everyone in a timely fashion to the best possible standard.

It is yet another abominable facet of capitalism that anyone should be forced to make such dire choices when it comes to this or any other area of their health. The NHS was originally intended to implement the admirable principle: ‘Treatment free at the point of need’. Where our dental treatment is concerned, this principle has long had a thread tied around it and the door handle, and the door slammed shut.

After unavoidable interruptions including a pandemic, Lancaster branch is once again organising a socialist residential weekend, from Friday 23 to Sunday 25 June, at the Yealand Quaker Centre in rural Cumbria. This is a sociable get-together for members and non-members in a nice hostel with dorm rooms and self-catering facilities, where we muck in together on the cooking and chores. The last time we did this was in 2019 and it was a pretty enjoyable experience all round (see the report in the August 2019 Socialist Standard – bit.ly/3H9OzkY). The branch will bear the hire cost but is happy to accept pay-what-you-can contributions. You’ll also have to fund your own travel arrangements. Spaces are limited tto max 16 so if you’d like to take part please let us know at spgb.lancaster@worldsocialism.org.   Currently, here are about 10-12 people coming (not all SPGB), and there are a few spare places, so let us know if you want to come. 

 The greatest problem awaiting solution in the world to-day is the existence in every commercial country of extreme poverty side by side with extreme wealth. In every land where, in the natural development of society, the capitalist method of producing and distributing wealth has been introduced, this problem presses itself upon us. Not only so but the greater the grip which capitalism has on industry the more intense is the poverty of the many and the more marked are the riches of the few.

In observing the conditions of this problem, the fact is quickly forced under our notice that it is the producer of wealth who is poor, the non-producer who is rich. How comes it that the men and women who till the soil, who dig the mine, who manipulate the machine, who build the factory and the home, and, in a word, who create the whole of the wealth, receive only sufficient to maintain themselves and their families on the border line of bare physical efficiency, while those who do not aid in production – the employing class – obtain more than is enough to supply their every necessity, comfort, and luxury?

To find a solution to this problem is the task to which the Socialist applies himself. He sees clearly that only by studying the economics of wealth-production and distribution can he understand the anomalies of present-day society. He sees, further, that having gained a knowledge of the economic causes of social inequality, he must apply this knowledge through political action – through the building up of a Socialist organisation for the capture of Parliament and the conquest of the powers of government.

To every sober observer of social facts it is patent that the life condition of the workers is one of penury and of misery. The only saleable commodity they possess  – their power of working – they are compelled to take to the labour market and sell for a bare subsistence wage. The food they eat, the clothing they wear, the houses in which they live are of the shoddiest kind, and these together with the mockery of an education which their children receive, primarily determine the purchasing price of their labour-power. By organising in their various trades they may force their wage a little above this normal value, but taken on the average they are bound to sell their activity – physical, mental and moral – for the bare cost of their subsistence.

In return for this wage they create, by the conversion of raw material into manufactured products or by other means, a value far in excess of the value paid them as wages. The difference between these two values is taken by the employing class, and constitutes the source of profit, interest, and rent. These three forms of exploitation are the result of the unpaid labour of the working-class.

So long as this lasts – and it will last as long as the capitalist system of society – it will not be possible for the workers by any Trades Union organisation to more than slightly modify their condition, and their power in this direction is becoming every day more limited by the combinations among employers to defeat the aims of the working class.

Then, too, the magnitude of industrial operations, ever tending to increase by the inherent tendency under free competition of the large producer to crush out his smaller trade rivals – the joint stock company takes the place of the large individual, capitalist, the trust the place of the joint stock company. The worker is thus brought face to face with an ever greater foe.

The Socialist can calmly view this struggle, knowing that ultimately the victory is with him. In the meantime, however, he has to show the workers that while their organisation in trades will  prove an invaluable aid in the transformation of society by facilitating industrial reorganisation, yet at present they can best help to emancipate themselves from the thraldom of wage-slavery by recognising that in their class struggle with their exploiters they can be most certain of success in the political sphere of action.

Such political action will, however, be quite futile unless carried on by a class-conscious party with definite aims. Such a party must recognise that in the class-war they are waging there must be no truce. They must adopt as their basis of action the Socialist position, for in no other way can their ills be redressed.

To neither of the two historic parties can we look with any hope. The Liberal Party, like the Conservative Party, is interested in maintaining the present class society, and cannot, therefore, be expected to help in its transformation from capitalism to Socialism.

The National Democratic League and the Labour Representation Committee are also to be avoided. The former has a programme of purely political measures, each of which is found in the constitutions of France and the United States of America without the working-class being in any way benefited. The latter organisation has no programme whatsoever, and its members possess no principles in common save the name “Labour.” As soon as any question of constructive legislation is brought before it its component elements will break part, being unable to agree among themselves. Unity is only possible among those who possess common principles. Unity can not, therefore, be secured for any length of time by the members of the Labour Representation Committee, but even if it could, the body is not based upon Socialist principles and should not receive the adhesion of working men.

We, as Socialists, venture to assert that the party which is ultimately to secure the support of the rank and file of the working-class must be a Socialist party. Such a party must be ever prepared to further the realisation of a Socialist Society. It must proclaim the fact that this realisation can be achieved by the members of the working-class using their political power to return to Parliament and other public bodies only those who are members of The Socialist Party.

In the past two bodies of men have put forward the claim to be Socialist parties, viz., the Independent Labour Party and Social Democratic Federation. We who have for many years taken a share in the work of the latter organisation and who have watched the progress of the former from its initiation, have been forced to the conclusion that through neither of them can the Social Revolution at which we aim be achieved, and that from neither of them can the working-class secure redress from the ills they suffer.

The Independent Labour Party, founded for the ostensible reason of forming a half-way house to Socialism, was fated to meet with the reward of every party founded upon a compromise. With a membership of those who were sympathetic with Socialism, but who were not Socialists, they were bound to drift nearer and nearer to the Liberal Party. Having neither the courage to proclaim themselves Socialists nor to disavow Socialism, they are to-day coquetting with that working-class wing of the Liberal Party – the Labour Representation Committee. When the question of Socialism was raised on the committee, their chief representative declared that was neither the time nor the place for such discussion. With a party of this kind, which, in the words of their president, “is independent to support, independent to oppose” the two historic political parties, the working-class should have nothing to do.

The Social Democratic Federation formed to further the cause of Socialism in Great Britain, has, during the last few years, been steadily following the compromising policy adopted from the first by the Independent Labour Party. So much is this the case that to-day, for all purposes of effective Socialist propaganda they have ceased to exist, and are surely developing into a mere reform party, seeking to obtain the provision of Free Maintenance for school children.

Those Socialists who, within its ranks, sought to withstand this policy, have found the task to be an impossible one, and have consequently seceded and formed themselves into the Socialist Party of Great Britain – a party determined to use its every effort in the furtherance of Socialist ideas and Socialist principles.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is convinced that by laying down a clearly defined body of principles in accord with essential economic truths, and by consistently advocating them, swerving neither to the right nor to the left, but marching uncompromisingly on toward their goal, they will ultimately gain the confidence and the support of the working-class of this country. once this is secured it is a small step to the organisation of a Socialist Parliamentary party. When this is accomplished all is gained.

The first duty of The Socialist Party is the teaching of its principles and the organisation of a political party on a Socialist basis. The party becoming strong will capture parliamentary and other governmental powers. When these powers – legislative, administrative, and judicial, are wrested from their present class holders, they way is clear for the building up of the industries of the country upon the principle of collective production and collective distribution, and for the establishment of the Socialist Republic.

Men and women of the working-class, it is to you we appeal! To-day we are a small party, strong only in the truth of our principles, the sincerity of our motives, and the determination and enthusiasm of our members. To-morrow we shall be strong in our numbers, for the economic development of capitalist society fights for us, and as, through the merging of free competition in monopoly and the simplification of industry, the personal capitalist gives place to the impersonal trust as your employer, you will be forced to see that the welfare of the people can best be guaranteed by the holding of all material wealth in common.

We ask you, therefore, to study the principles upon which our party is based, to find out for yourselves what Socialism is and how Socialism and Socialism alone can abolish class society and establish in its stead a society based upon social equality. When you have done this we know that you will come with us and, by enrolling yourself a member of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, help to speed the time when we shall herald in for ourselves and for our children, a brighter, a happier and a nobler society than any the world has yet witnessed.

Socialist Standard September 1904

 Today at 19 30 (18 30ut):

 The UK will have one of the highest inflation rates of any major developed economy this year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported on Wednesday.

According to the forecast, British inflation, which only recently fell to single digits for the first time since last summer, will be higher in 2023 than nearly any G20 member except Argentina and Türkiye.

Although headline inflation in the UK declined to 8.7% in April from 10.1% in March amid cooling energy prices, food inflation has been stubbornly high. Grocery price growth reached 19.1% in April, which is the highest rate in more than 45 years, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The OECD predicted that even as Britain is expected to narrowly avoid a recession in 2023, higher interest rates are likely to dent economic growth and incomes in the coming months.

“The high interest burden on public debt and the recent drop in average debt maturity leave the public finances exposed to movements in bond yields,” the OECD said in its Economic Outlook.

The Paris-based organisation expects the UK’s economy to grow by 0.3% this year and by 1% in 2024. It noted, however, that the forecast includes “significant risks.”

Renewed increases in wholesale energy prices will “further squeeze real incomes given the United Kingdom’s high dependence on natural gas. Faster-than-expected resolution of uncertainty regarding future trade relationships is an upside risk,” the forecast warned.

Responding to the OECD data, UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt admitted that inflation was still “too high,” adding that “we must stick relentlessly to our plan to halve it this year. That is the only long-term way to grow the economy and ease the cost-of-living pressures on families.”

The inflation rate in Britain should average 6.9% by the end of the year, the report concluded.

 Rich people had sort of a bad year in 2022.

The international population of the ultra-wealthy—defined as those worth $30 million or more—shrunk by nearly 4 percent in 2022 Barron’s reported citing an annual report released by Knight Frank. The number of people with that amount of wealth fell by almost 23,000 to 579,625, a figure that included 2,629 billionaires. However, the decline was small considering that 2021 saw a 9 percent increase in the ultra-wealthy population.

The region with the biggest drop in this most fortunate population was Europe, which saw its ultra-wealthy population decrease 8.5 percent. France, Germany, Spain, and other countries experienced double-digit declines. Knight Frank reportedly attributed this to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has led to tumult in financial markets globally.

The report noted that not every region experienced such a decline. Individuals with at least $30 million increased nearly 17 percent in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates due to economic and real estate growth. Although China’s turbulent economy caused a drop in Asia’s overall ultra-wealthy population, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore saw their numbers increase 7 percent to 9 percent.

The U.S. only experienced a 1 percent drop in its own $30 million-plus population. But the world will likely see the population grow dramatically in the future, with Knight Frank’s forecast expecting the global ultra-wealthy population to grow by 28.5 percent through 2027.

Knight Frank also detailed how much an individual’s worth would have to be in 25 countries in order to be considered in that nation’s 1 percent. There was a wide spectrum across the globe: In the United States, a person would need $5.1 million to meet the threshold, while in the Philippines you would need just $57,000. 



As for an even more exclusive financial tier, billionaires appear to be having a pretty good 2023. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index found that the 500 richest people internationally have collectively gained more than $600 billion just this year. Being in the 10-figure club has its perks, it seems.

https://news.yahoo.com/world-ultra-wealthy-population-shrunk-195738251.html

 The English Collective of Prostitutes, a ‘trades Union’ for sex workers, is opposed to possible forthcoming legislation because of its potential effects upon a section of society who are already experiencing discrimination in one form or another.

The ECP highlight the difficulties in the housing market faced by many, especially women.

With the increase in interest rates, made by the Bank of England, private tenants face being caught between a rock and a hard place if their landlords mortgage payments are increased. With high inflation already impacting the living standards of many, any increase in the cost of rents is likely to negatively impact in a very serious manner.

The solution to the problem of unaffordable rents, homelessness and sexual coercion is a straightforward one – the abolition of capitalism. With its replacement by a money-free society, where goods and services are produced for use not profit, landlords, along with the exploitative capitalist class, will disappear into history.

‘The government is considering creating a new law to explicitly outlaw so-called “sex for rent” and has issued a “call for evidence”.

The deadline for submissions is 30 June 2023.’

‘The ECP opposes legislation to outlaw “sex for rent” because: 

If a landlord harasses, threatens or coerces any tenant into sex, this is an offence and should be prosecuted under existing criminal laws. It will do nothing to address the housing crisis or help tenants deal with exploitative and abusive landlords It will curtail women’s housing options, pushing women further into housing precarity and homelessness.

Many of us in the ECP were in the situation of providing sex in exchange for low or no rent before, during and after we were also sex workers. For us, the crucial issue is consent. If women want to respond to an advert and enter into this arrangement, that’s up to them. If the landlord is coercive, exploitative, threatening or violent, and therefore committing a criminal offence, he should be prosecuted.

There is a massive housing crisis in the UK exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis, rising poverty, low wages, lack of social housing and property being used for speculation and profiteering rather than to accommodate people

Over 6.5 million people living in substandard housing. Tenants lack the rights they need to stand up to abusive landlords. Women’s homelessness is particularly hidden. Women make up 60% of people in temporary accommodation, and number have almost doubled over the last decade. Migrant and trans women and people of colour, along with mothers and people with disabilities in particular find rents unaffordable and face severe discrimination in the housing market. Almost one in three single mothers (321,000) are in arrears or constantly struggling to keep a roof over their heads.  25% of UK trans people have been homeless at some point.

The new Renters Bill may help but clauses on anti-social behaviour are likely to be used in a discriminatory way. 

Women Against Rape which opposes new “sex for rent” laws comments:

“The government should address the poverty and homelessness that make it harder for women (sex workers or not) to have the power to refuse any unwanted sex? It claims to be protecting women from abusive landlords ring hollow when the rape and other violence women actually report is more often than not dismissed and deprioritised.” 

Any legislation outlawing “sex for rent” will be an occasion for increased surveillance against sex workers. Sex workers face high levels of homelessness and are discriminated against in the housing market. Most sex workers are mothers which compounds that discrimination One young mother living in communal housing – the only rent she could afford – was questioned by police who falsely claimed the housing was unsafe and threatened to take her child if she didn’t move.

https://prostitutescollective.net/action-alert-oppose-legislation-to-outlaw-sex-for-rent/

 It’s reported that, ‘Rishi Sunak is considering plans for supermarkets to introduce price caps on basic products such as bread and milk   (Emphasis by SOYMB)

There are worries about the continued impact of high food prices (!!!) on households as the cost-of-living crisis drags on.’

The BBC was told by the Health Secretary, Steve Barclay, ‘My understanding is the Government is working constructively with supermarkets as to how we address the very real concerns around food inflation and the cost of living.’

 Don’t worry yourself about it Steve. It’s part and parcel of living in a capitalist society. Bit like what the Mayor of London said, terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city. You got to take the rough with the smooth. I mean, phew, can you imagine what the alternative would be like? You can? No such thing as food inflation and an unaffordable cost of living?

If you’re having trouble envisaging that Steve, go check out the World  Socialist Movement and really learn about the many concerns that capitalism engenders; and why it needs to be replaced tout suite.

Lest you think that Steve, and his ilk, are uncaring, he/they ‘cares’ about businesses. 

Quote: ‘And doing so in a way that is also very mindful to the impact on suppliers.‘Because I think we’ve got to be sighted on the fact that many suppliers – often very small businesses, family-run businesses – are themselves under significant pressure from increased costs. My understanding is this is about having constructive discussions with supermarkets about how we work together – not about any element of compulsion. But it’s also being very sighted on the impact on suppliers and making sure we protect suppliers who themselves face considerable pressures.’ Unquote.

Capitalists care too. Industry figures claimed the introduction of price caps would make little difference to food inflation.

Food inflation ‘was found to be at 19.1 per cent last month, which was only just down from 19.2 per cent in March and close to the highest rate for more than 45 years.’

According to the Sunday Telegraph,  the Prime Minister is now mulling proposals for retailers to introduce voluntary price caps on some essential staples in order to tackle ‘resilient’ food inflation. Such a move would copy action taken in France where stores have struck an agreement with ministers to offer a selection of items at the lowest possible price

Andrew Opie, director of food  and sustainability at the British Retail Consortium, said: ‘This will not make a jot of difference to prices.

‘High food prices are a direct result of the soaring cost of energy, transport, and labour, as well as higher prices paid to food manufacturers and farmers.

‘Yet despite this, the fiercely competitive grocery market in the UK has helped to keep British food among the most affordable of all the large European economies. Supermarkets have always run on very slim margins, especially when compared with other parts of the food supply chain, but profits have fallen significantly in the last year. Even so, retailers continue to invest heavily in lower prices for the future, expanding their affordable food ranges, locking the price of many essentials, and raising pay for staff. As commodity prices drop, many of the costs keeping inflation high are now arising from the muddle of new regulation coming from Government. Rather than recreating 1970s-style price controls, the Government should focus on cutting red tape so that resources can be directed to keeping prices as low as possible.’ (And profits high).

Julian Jessop of the Institute of Economic Affairs warned that price caps on basic food items might backfire. ‘Caps on food prices are at best a pointless gimmick and, at worst, harmful to the very people they are supposed to help,’ he said. Despite hype about ‘greedflation’ driving up food costs, UK supermarkets work on tiny profit margins. While they might be willing to regard some basic foods as ‘loss leaders’ for positive publicity, they may also compensate for price controls by reducing quantity or quality, and by raising prices for ‘uncapped’ goods.It is not even certain that the prices of capped goods would end up lower than if there were no cap. Supermarkets may simply price to the cap, and not cut prices further even if falling costs allowed it.’

Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: ‘It is extraordinary.’ He compared Mr Sunak to ‘a sort of latter-day Edward Heath with price controls’ in reference to the former Conservative PM’s actions in the early 1970s.Fact check: (The Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson introduced the National Board for Prices and Incomes in 1965.)

A Downing Street source told the Sunday Telegraph that plans for French-style price caps in the UK were were at a ‘drawing board’ stage. ‘The pressures are such that we are working with retailers on anything that can be done at their end to bring down prices for consumers,’ they said.

France is currently pursuing an ‘anti-inflation quarter’ and ministers negotiated a deal with most large food retailers at the beginning of March.Supermarket chain Carrefour was among those to subsequently promise a selection of 200 products would remain at fixed prices for three months until 15 June. (What happens then?)

With Mr Sunak reportedly considering a similar agreement with stores in the UK, a Treasury source said: ‘Food inflation is much more resilient and difficult to get rid of than we anticipated.’

On Friday, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt backed further interest rate hikes to calm inflation even if they increase the risk of pushing the UK into recession.

Asked if he was comfortable with the Bank of England acting to bring down inflation even if it could precipitate a recession, Mr Hunt told Sky News: ‘Yes, because in the end inflation is a source of instability.

‘If we want to have prosperity, to grow the economy, to reduce the risk of recession, we have to support the Bank of England in the difficult decisions that they take.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12133017/PM-drawing-plans-supermarkets-introduce-price-caps-staples-bread-milk.html

The Guardian asked, “UK inflation: which goods and services have risen most in price?” Using information compiled by the Office for National Statistics it’s article charted the increase in food and other commodities compared with a year ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/24/uk-inflation-which-goods-and-services-have-risen-most-in-price

An analysis of the ability to provide sufficient food for the world, and the reasons behind mass starvation, provided this relevant conclusion: 

“How is this possible? If agricultural output is already more than sufficient to meet the need of the world’s people why do so many go hungry? It’s because the bulk of food produced today is produced to be sold on a market and so access to it is dependent on purchasing power. If you lack the means to buy food then you are denied it in a market economy. This essentially explains why people go hungry today. They are unable to express enough ‘market demand’ to meet their needs. It’s as simple as that.

If you don’t earn much money you face a serious problem. If the price of food goes up your problem gets even worse. That is why rising food prices translate into more and more people becoming hungry. They might choose to allocate a rising portion of their small budgets to food purchases and a shrinking portion on other things, but there will come a point when this will simply no longer be feasible. Something will have to give. When that happens this often results in an explosion of food riots and violence on the streets that can, and has, toppled governments.”

Robin Cox

Socialist Standard February 2023

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/03/are-we-heading-for-mass-starvation-2023.html