ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sounds like the equivalent of the English proverb ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’, ie who pays me or gives me bread, his tune I play or song I sing. But who is the payer or bread giver in this case? Surely not the small farmers?
More on the absurdity of “the Border” (and of all borders) from this article from March last year:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-03-19/city-northern-ireland-brexit-big-headache
Some people are playing with fire just to further their political ambitions.
The physical-force Irish Republicans’ contribution to the Brexit debate and its implications if the Border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland has to be re-erected:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46934277
Whatever they say, this is bound to affect the thinking of UK MPs on the matter, and presumably was designed to. Should make no-deal even less likely.
I wouldn’t have thought it was their official diplomatic position, although Russia would benefit from the UK leaving the EU as this would remove the state most in favour of sanctions against them.
The rant itself could have appeared in the Communist Party’s paper, the Morning Stair. Perhaps it did or will.
From an article in today’s i paper headlined “The bird that rules the world. Our insatiable appetite for cheap chicken means they account for 23 billion out of the 30 billion from animals.”. It concludes:
… despite growing interest in vegetarianism and veganism, surveys find little evidence that many people in the rich world are turning into herbivores. People may like flirting with plant-based diets. But what they really love is chicken.
I suppose someone should say something about Brexit. Everyone else is. I heard Tony Blair the other morning explaining on the radio the dilemma the UK capitalist class faces. He pointed out that for the past 40 or so years their governments (even under Thatcher) had pursued the policy of being part of an EU single market (i.e. a market with common regulations and not just a tariff-free trading area) and that they were now completely integrated into it in terms of export markets and supply chains. They could withdraw but this would cause disruption and would be giving up something they have already got. A referendum had voted in favour of withdrawal but this could be interpreted in various ways, including just withdrawing from the EU’s political decision-making and enforcing institutions. He said that this (now called Norway Plus) would limit the economic damage but would leave the UK in the position of a rule-taker, as the extreme Brexiteers pointed out, as it would have no say in drawing up the common single market regulations. Hence, he concluded, it would be better if the UK stayed in completely.
This is politically impossible, at least not without another referendum. It is true that if the UK withdraws from the single market this would be the first time in the history of capitalism that a capitalist state has voluntarily surrendered the favourable access to a market that it already has. The extreme brexiteers are in effect arguing that two birds in the bush are worth more than one bird in the hand.
If there is no second referendum and no deal is ruled out, the only deal that would make sense from the point of view of the majority of the UK capitalist class would be Norway Plus as that would at least ensure the status quo of frictionless access and would avoid having to turn the clock back by unravelling the single market integration that has happened so far. The trouble is that this is likely to split their main party, the Tories, down the middle, as the Tories like to remind themselves happened to them in the mid-1840s when Sir Robert Peel embraced Free Trade and repealed the Corn Laws.
From the point of view of pure democratic theory, there is nothing wrong with holding a second referendum. One referendum result can be overturned by another referendum. You could even argue that a change that is the equivalent of a change in an organisation’s constitution should require a second vote to confirm the first (as an alternative to requiring for instance a two-thirds majority as in many organisations).
Of course in this particular case — which is about the trading arrangements of the UK capitalist class — the issue is not one that interests socialists. It would be an even greater festival of xenophobia than the first. And those favouring it might not get the result they expect. I have been surprised that interviews that I have heard on the radio with workers from Blyth and Sunderland show that people in these places which voted by a large majority for Brexit haven’t changed their minds (or at least are not saying they have). Another reason, incidentally, why the UK capitalist class might settle for Norway Plus as less risky politically. But of course they don’t act directly. They leave that to their political representatives, the MPs, who have their own agendas (like staying in or obtaining office), so there’s no guarantee they’ll get this.
Another example of how it is not possible for a rational energy policy to be adopted under capitalism:
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-01-17/nuclear-power-hitachi-says-no-thanks-its-not-worth-the-risk/
Nuclear power is one way of generating electricity without emitting CO2 and so not contributing to global warming and would no doubt have to be resorted to even in a socialist society to deal with this problem. However, under capitalism it costs so much to build a nuclear power station and getting it running and so long to get a return (profit) on the capital invested that private capitalist enterprises are unwilling to undertake it, in fact even unable to raise the capital, while governments which could raise the capital take a similar short-term view and don’t put up the money (which would ultimately have to come from taxes that would fall on the profits of other capitalist enterprises).
The same thing happens with other large-scale, renewable, energy projects like tidal power, as with a recent project in Swansea:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/live-updates-swansea-tidal-lagoon-14827245
And then there’s this coming out in June:
Fully Automated Luxury Communism
I would imagine that this is more likely way socialism could come about than through a fear of some ecological catastrophe produced by capitalism, but who knows?
I have not read his new book but he did sent me a copy of one of the chapters in 2013 after I sent him a link to Robbo’s article in Common Voice. I’d be surprised if he didn’t mention at least calculation in kind (rather than labour-time accounting). Just checked with what he sent me and he does, though only in relation to Otto Neurath’s version (central planning) not what was in Robbo’s article (calculation in kind plus self-regulating stock control).
He favours some form of labour-time accounting, though in terms of actual labour rather than in terms of an attempt to mirror the “socially necessary labour” brought about by the market under capitalism. At least this is what he replied when I asked him “was I right in concluding that, when it comes to measuring labour in a socialist/communist society, it would have to be in terms of actual labour rather than in terms of some estimated ‘socially necessary’ labour?”:
You are right. The actual labour of the individual in a system of collective production is social labour from the start, it does not need any mediation to prove its socially necessary character. The social necessity of the actual labour is pre-determined due to the collective character of production.
I think that on this issue, and the one ZJW raised, he is being “Marxologist”, i.e. expressing (and presumably agreeing with) what Marx himself wrote.
Interesting. I always buy his books when I find them in second-hand bookshops even if I’ve got them myself and leave them at our Head Office for resale. But he’s only good when writing about the past but about anything after 1900. I think the reason he’s been labelled, rightly or wrongly, a “Stalinist” is not so much that he was a member of the CPGB but for his unwavering support for the USSR which I’d assumed was for its anti-fascist stance, i.e its stance against anti-Semitic Germany, a position taken by quite a number of Jewish people of his generation.
A reminder of who are the minority section of the capitalist class that support Brexit and who financed the Leave campaign:
http://www.cityam.com/271478/top-brexit-donors-odey-and-hargreaves-say-britain-not-leave
Mind you, that’s not necessarily what they really think but could be preparing the ground for making a financial killing from what happens.
Bruton has a point about Northern Ireland. At the general election 10 DUP, 7 Sinn Fein and 1 Independent Unionist were elected. In the referendum 56% voted Remain. But because SF refuse to take up their seats, only the views of the pro-Brexit DUP count and are seen as representing the views on Brexit of the majority in Northern Ireland. It also gives them bargaining power with the government that depends on their support. The voice of the lone NI MP who supports Remain, the Independent Unionist Lady Hermon is hardly heard at all even though it is her who represents the majority view on the issue.
If, because of the DUP taking advantage of its anomalous position, there is a no-deal Brexit, then a hard border will be erected between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It would have to be, by the EU to prevent goods that did not meet the specifications for its single market entering it by the back door as well as to collect tariffs. It would turn the clock back over 50 years to before the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement of 1965,
The trouble with turning the clock back is that it goes against economic reality, which always has consequences, usually a downturn in economic activity. In Northern Ireland it could have obvious political consequences, not just a revival of the troubles but even a referendum vote to join the rest of Ireland.
It wasn’t just the anarchists who were there So were the many varieties of Bolshevik-Leninists, but they were split three ways: for Brexit, against Brexit, and against both.
FOR BREXIT was the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist):
“If we truly want to fight against austerity, privatisation, the loss of our jobs, homes, hospitals and everything else that we value, we must not allow the referendum result to be overturned.”
AGAINST BREXIT was “Socialist Fight, Liaison Committee for the Fourth International”:
“But socialists should demand Brexit be cancelled to defend free movement against reactionary attack from little England chauvinists, including those who claim to be on the left and support so-called ‘Lexit’.”
AGAINST BOTH was the Revolutionary Communist Group:
“neither Brexit nor Remain offer any solution for the working class … The British ruling class is deeply split over Brexit – whether to side with the EU imperialist bloc of fortress Europe, or to go it alone with an illusory dream of an independent British imperialism, ultimately siding with the US … The debate over Brexit is an expression of the crisis of British capitalism. For working class people the only option is to reject both choices …
What about the SWP and SPEW which both campaigned for Brexit? The SWP had their conference last weekend and debated the issue. As reported in the latest (9 January) issue of their paper:
“Sabby from north London argued that a ‘low level of class struggle’ meant that the debate had been pulled to he right. He said socialists should not support leaving the EU. Others strongly disagreed. ‘If you really think the EU gives a space for progressive politics, think again,’ argued Alex Callincos from the central committee …. People debated how socialists should respond to calls for a ‘People’s Vote’ — effectively a second referendum. This would split the working class and the SWP is opposed to it … If it was a clear choice between Remain and May’s Brexit, a possible option would be ‘active abstention’ — a campaign to reject both options … Several people said it is possible to win people to opposing the EU.”
So, still basically Brexiteers. SPEW seems to have shifted its position from the days of No2EU and its leftwing nationalism. They too are opposed to a second referendum, and support calls for a general election (and voting Labour in it). In their leaflet, however, there is support for staying in a customs union:
“And, as he [Corbyn] has said, he will need to seek a customs union which would enable the continued flow of necessary goods – for people’s needs and jobs.”
Class War banner at the assembly point for today’s pro-Labour march in central London calling for a general election:
Actually, the words of that tweet are not bad. If they had come from us it would be an appeal for the class struggle. But it didn’t come from us but from the leader of the band of professional politicians known as the Labour Party. In this context it means something different.
It’s a text that takes into account that Labour voters were and are divided between Leavers and Remainers and is an appeal to both of them to forget their differences and vote Labour.
It also reflects Labour’s fence-sitting on the issue for fear of antagonising one side or the other.
From their point of view of getting their bums on the seats on the other side of the dispatch box, Labour’s strategy makes some sense. It’s their only chance of getting a general election before 2022. May’s withdrawal bill is essentially only a technical document which Labour could easily support as they wouldn’t be able to negotiate anything much different. The real negotiations about the UK capitalist class’s future trading arrangements will take place during the 21-month “transition period” when they will stay exactly as they are now (in customs union and in single market). But if Labour votes through May’s bill then the Conservatives will be in power during this period and will probably negotiate something that might be a bit different from what a Labour government might. In any event, the Labour politicians wouldn’t get a chance at coming into office until 2022. No wonder they are engaged in parliamentary manoeuvring to force an early general election.
Still, the fact that Corbyn is using such language gives our position some credibility and us some standing in the debate.
