Thursday, 2 July 2009
Speak the truth
What do we get from the usual anti-Welsh language bletherers that litter our public life? `It’s too expensive, it’s not fair, etc. etc.’ But sensible people in Wales are voting with their voices. Through bi-lingual education we are equipping our young people with unique skills that will not only help them find work in their own land but will enrich their lives for ever. If in England they were to concentrate on educating their youngsters they wouldn’t have to worry so much about immigration but it is cheaper for selfish employers to import ready-trained workers from elsewhere and allow hundreds of thousands of young families to rot in sink estates and slums rather than fund quality education. The empire builders were proud of how they had made English the world language of business, often at the point of a bayonet, usually through economic pressure, but the English worker and even the English capitalist is paying for that arrogance now. In Wales, despite our lack of independence, we try to give our young people an education that will help them through life with pride and dignity. In England, it seems, the lazy way out is to just blame the foreigner and vote BNP. Cheap economics followed by cheap politics followed by cheap outcomes. Just like the outmoded and backward politics of the anti-Welsh language crowd: cheap, cheap, cheap. With that attitude no-one wins especially not the young people of Wales but it is an attitude that hasn’t done the young people of England much good either.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Socialist Electoral and Class Struggle Alliance in Wales now
Cynghrair Gweithwyr Cymru/Workers Alliance Wales
What are the lessons of the recent Euro elections? Here in Wales, hundreds of thousands of workers boycotted the poll allowing the Tories to come out on top in a national election in Wales. It was a very bad day for Wales. It was the first time Labour have failed to come top in Wales since 1918 and we even saw a candidate for the hard right UK Independence Party elected. New Labour has effectively disenfranchised huge swathes of the working class who can no longer bring themselves to vote contrary to their interests for the sake of some nostalgic loyalty. But their votes did not go to Plaid Cymru and there was no other well enough known alternative in place to switch to. They simply stayed at home whilst right wingers made hay.
Clearly Plaid Cymru is not socialist enough. Whilst its cultural and soft-left approach is effective in the West, only a socialist programme in the teeth of this recession will be sufficient to give voice to the now voiceless South Wales working class and its communities. In addition, Plaid’s attempt to spearhead a parliamentary coup against the Labour government when the Tories are riding high in the polls will not have impressed. That said, Workers Alliance Wales would not be interested in perpetuating the anti-nationalist sentiment of the Labour machinery anxious to defend its own sectional, bureaucratic interests by dividing the Welsh people. We would support a referendum on a Welsh Parliament and also campaign for a yes vote in such a referendum. We would support all things that advanced the Welsh culture. We would, however, remain socialists first and prioritise work in the labour and trade union movement.
There is then a large swathe of disenfranchised workers in the South who can no longer vote New Labour and who, for whatever reason, do not see Plaid Cymru as a natural alternative. This is the constituency that Workers Alliance Wales is interested in. We want to give this most important section of society a voice. As was said WAW is not sectarian, it would not stand candidates against Plaid in the West or any constituency in the South where it has a good chance of winning. It would also not stand against a number of left labour MPs or candidates. Our target would be New Labour and corrupt Labour MPs and candidates who are likely to lose to Lib Dems and Tories and whose election in any case would bolster the right of the Labour Party and do nothing for the people. An alliance would do nothing to oppose the People’s Voice MP Dai Jones from getting re-elected. On the contrary it would positively support that outcome and would hope that People’s Voice would join and help to establish Workers Alliance Wales. Politically any alliance should consider Respect in England a sister party and possibly the Scottish Socialist Party in Scotland similarly. Workers Alliance Wales would be a broad alliance of radical socialist forces from a number of different backgrounds and traditions. It should look to establish a party structure whereby affiliated organisations are delegated through their own internal mechanism to 40 per cent of the executive whilst the other 60 per cent are elected at annual conference having been delegated to attend by local constituency branches. Branches will eventually select parliamentary and other election candidates.
Should any of our candidates be elected they should be instructed not to join any government or any other party’s whip. They should propose and vote for that which is in the interests of the working class and oppose that which is not but they would never vote with class enemy parties to bring down a Labour Government to the benefit of the right. The positions they take will be the product of thoroughgoing internal alliance discussion either held in public or subsequently made public and they will be employed by the alliance at rates democratically decided. Any salary they receive from the state should be paid into alliance election fighting funds. The Alliance should view the election of candidates not as an end in itself but as a means to an end. Its main objective should be the encouragement and building of the working class movement as a whole and its branches should be like local working class and community parliaments.
An alliance programme must be radical socialist. It should include the following basics but should be adaptable and put intelligently in accordance with the prevailing political possibilities and priorities:
Nationalisation of the job-cutting and supplier squeezing multi-nationals under workers control;
Nationalisation of the banks into one state bank each for Wales, England and Scotland;
Bring the monopoly service providers who are using their position to skin consumers into public ownership;
Cheap credit for small businesses and farmers;
Local tax collection;
Not economic growth but economic consolidation is the order of the day
Share the work: unemployment is ruining both the employed and the unemployed financially not to mention the tax payer but is seriously undermining our class as a class;
Share the work: halve the working week for female and male equality in the home and the workplace;
Share the work: productivity gains to be directed towards cutting hours not jobs;
Share the work: release our energies for use in the community so that police, social workers and the rest of state paraphernalia are no longer required in our abandoned communities to look after our children and old people or to keep a watchful eye on us and so that industry can be released from crippling tax burdens so that its surplus can be socially distributed to make life better;
Share the wealth: homes, heating and quality food for all. There are already plenty of these available they must be properly distributed;
Share the wealth: supermarkets profits to be distributed to the towns and districts they allegedly serve to pay for local services instead of being paid out to distant shareholders or into the Swiss bank accounts of over-paid executives.
Repeal all anti-union laws;
Family committees to determine the true rate of inflation;
Workers control of hiring and firing and immigration;
Fair and humane treatment for asylum seekers and an amnesty for illegal immigrants who are here already;
Participation in any serious anti-fascist and community self-defence initiatives;
An end to the parasitic and imperialist relationship of Britain to the developing world;
An end to global migration based on economic disparities which is turning workers into rootless tramps;
Sovereignty for Wales and a federal Britain with any areas of pooled sovereignty administered by instantly recallable delegates from the constituent nations selected as each nation sees fit;
No to the neo-liberal EU, social dumping and the race to the bottom: for a socialist united states of Europe;
A serious, urgent and comprehensive programme of carbon reduction to save the environment for human habitation in alliance with our global friends.
What are the lessons of the recent Euro elections? Here in Wales, hundreds of thousands of workers boycotted the poll allowing the Tories to come out on top in a national election in Wales. It was a very bad day for Wales. It was the first time Labour have failed to come top in Wales since 1918 and we even saw a candidate for the hard right UK Independence Party elected. New Labour has effectively disenfranchised huge swathes of the working class who can no longer bring themselves to vote contrary to their interests for the sake of some nostalgic loyalty. But their votes did not go to Plaid Cymru and there was no other well enough known alternative in place to switch to. They simply stayed at home whilst right wingers made hay.
Clearly Plaid Cymru is not socialist enough. Whilst its cultural and soft-left approach is effective in the West, only a socialist programme in the teeth of this recession will be sufficient to give voice to the now voiceless South Wales working class and its communities. In addition, Plaid’s attempt to spearhead a parliamentary coup against the Labour government when the Tories are riding high in the polls will not have impressed. That said, Workers Alliance Wales would not be interested in perpetuating the anti-nationalist sentiment of the Labour machinery anxious to defend its own sectional, bureaucratic interests by dividing the Welsh people. We would support a referendum on a Welsh Parliament and also campaign for a yes vote in such a referendum. We would support all things that advanced the Welsh culture. We would, however, remain socialists first and prioritise work in the labour and trade union movement.
There is then a large swathe of disenfranchised workers in the South who can no longer vote New Labour and who, for whatever reason, do not see Plaid Cymru as a natural alternative. This is the constituency that Workers Alliance Wales is interested in. We want to give this most important section of society a voice. As was said WAW is not sectarian, it would not stand candidates against Plaid in the West or any constituency in the South where it has a good chance of winning. It would also not stand against a number of left labour MPs or candidates. Our target would be New Labour and corrupt Labour MPs and candidates who are likely to lose to Lib Dems and Tories and whose election in any case would bolster the right of the Labour Party and do nothing for the people. An alliance would do nothing to oppose the People’s Voice MP Dai Jones from getting re-elected. On the contrary it would positively support that outcome and would hope that People’s Voice would join and help to establish Workers Alliance Wales. Politically any alliance should consider Respect in England a sister party and possibly the Scottish Socialist Party in Scotland similarly. Workers Alliance Wales would be a broad alliance of radical socialist forces from a number of different backgrounds and traditions. It should look to establish a party structure whereby affiliated organisations are delegated through their own internal mechanism to 40 per cent of the executive whilst the other 60 per cent are elected at annual conference having been delegated to attend by local constituency branches. Branches will eventually select parliamentary and other election candidates.
Should any of our candidates be elected they should be instructed not to join any government or any other party’s whip. They should propose and vote for that which is in the interests of the working class and oppose that which is not but they would never vote with class enemy parties to bring down a Labour Government to the benefit of the right. The positions they take will be the product of thoroughgoing internal alliance discussion either held in public or subsequently made public and they will be employed by the alliance at rates democratically decided. Any salary they receive from the state should be paid into alliance election fighting funds. The Alliance should view the election of candidates not as an end in itself but as a means to an end. Its main objective should be the encouragement and building of the working class movement as a whole and its branches should be like local working class and community parliaments.
An alliance programme must be radical socialist. It should include the following basics but should be adaptable and put intelligently in accordance with the prevailing political possibilities and priorities:
Nationalisation of the job-cutting and supplier squeezing multi-nationals under workers control;
Nationalisation of the banks into one state bank each for Wales, England and Scotland;
Bring the monopoly service providers who are using their position to skin consumers into public ownership;
Cheap credit for small businesses and farmers;
Local tax collection;
Not economic growth but economic consolidation is the order of the day
Share the work: unemployment is ruining both the employed and the unemployed financially not to mention the tax payer but is seriously undermining our class as a class;
Share the work: halve the working week for female and male equality in the home and the workplace;
Share the work: productivity gains to be directed towards cutting hours not jobs;
Share the work: release our energies for use in the community so that police, social workers and the rest of state paraphernalia are no longer required in our abandoned communities to look after our children and old people or to keep a watchful eye on us and so that industry can be released from crippling tax burdens so that its surplus can be socially distributed to make life better;
Share the wealth: homes, heating and quality food for all. There are already plenty of these available they must be properly distributed;
Share the wealth: supermarkets profits to be distributed to the towns and districts they allegedly serve to pay for local services instead of being paid out to distant shareholders or into the Swiss bank accounts of over-paid executives.
Repeal all anti-union laws;
Family committees to determine the true rate of inflation;
Workers control of hiring and firing and immigration;
Fair and humane treatment for asylum seekers and an amnesty for illegal immigrants who are here already;
Participation in any serious anti-fascist and community self-defence initiatives;
An end to the parasitic and imperialist relationship of Britain to the developing world;
An end to global migration based on economic disparities which is turning workers into rootless tramps;
Sovereignty for Wales and a federal Britain with any areas of pooled sovereignty administered by instantly recallable delegates from the constituent nations selected as each nation sees fit;
No to the neo-liberal EU, social dumping and the race to the bottom: for a socialist united states of Europe;
A serious, urgent and comprehensive programme of carbon reduction to save the environment for human habitation in alliance with our global friends.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Marxism and `The End of History’
Francis Fukuyama’s famous tract `The End of History and the Last Man’ published shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union was a direct intellectual challenge to Marxism. It was designed to complement the West’s physical victory in the four-and-a-half decade long Cold War.
Surfing on a heady atmosphere of triumphalism, Fukuyama taunted Marxists by declaring liberal democratic capitalism to be the pinnacle of historical development. It was the only game in town and nothing could challenge it. Gone were the dreams of a transition through socialism to communism as promised by the scientific socialist Karl Marx. History, in the sense of a distinct social process had come to an end and liberal democratic capitalism was the victor. Who now would give Fukuyama’s thesis a second glance as the world economy disintegrates whilst Marx’s seminal works fly off the bookstore shelves?
Fukuyama’s was a challenge to one of Marx’s greatest achievements: his solution to `the riddle of history’. Dubbed historical materialism, this elegant solution eschewed the increasingly turgid dichotomised debate that came before it.
Marx started from the empirically verifiable real activity and conditions of human existence examining the way in which humankind produces its means of subsistence which is a thoroughly materialist approach. He did not start from a collection of dead, unconnected facts or from human consciousness as a driver of human history. `Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life,’ he argued. In producing their means of subsistence, human beings enter into social relations. History proper begins when those relations become class relations and unfolds by way of a reciprocal conflict between these social relations, or modes of production, and the ever more efficient means of production.
Previously history was believed to have no developmental logic at all, it merely proceeded randomly. For this school there was nothing going on apart from what appeared to be going on and all historians need do was reconstruct what had been lost in the mists of time and praise history’s `great men’. At best this school rose to the notion of history as some kind of metaphysical process endlessly and mechanically repeating itself over the eons. Alternatively, there was a far more sophisticated idealist approach. For this school, history was heading towards some sort of god-given destiny or pre-determined absolute ideal. At least these thinkers acknowledged the existence of a process or system out-with the intentions of the agents that comprised it.
But it was Marx who answered the call for a scientific theory of history. He rejected the mutually exclusive, dichotomised, contradictory approaches of crude materialism and sophisticated idealism and sought a theory that could encompass and reveal history’s true inner dynamic and logic. Men, agreed Marx, make history, and then qualified it by adding, but not under conditions of their own choosing. Marx rejected the contradictory approaches of randomness and predetermination in favour of an approach to contradictions. History for Marx was a dynamic and evolving structure containing the logic of its own end
At society’s base is the class struggle between two historically conditioned classes, a minority ruling class and a working class, corresponding to a particular mode of production and appropriate to the prevailing means of production. As we have seen, for Marx social being determines social consciousness. It is an individual’s relationship to the means of production that determines your outlook on life and, indeed, all of society’s institutions, ideas, discourses etc are super structural to the political-economic base.
Schematically speaking, primitive society gave way to the social relations of ancient slavery which facilitated a huge growth of the means of production at humanity’s disposal but these means eventually outgrew that mode. Great slave-based empires fell into ruin including the greatest of them all, Rome, to be replaced by feudal empires in Europe and Asia. These in turn were replaced by capitalist nation states with their own imperial abmtions which now too are facing the end. Capitalism is the last antagonistic form the economic conditions having entirely outgrown the possibility of continued private ownership and control of the productive capacity by a minority ruling class. It must give way to socialism and finally a classless society.
The study of the centuries of human existence prior to the process of class formation, or pre-history, whilst obviously of more than passing interest and relevance, is little more than a natural history of the species. History proper, as an emergent and discrete social process with its own logic and therefore a distinct subject for study, begins with the production of the first surplus and the ensuing efforts of an emerging ruling class to establish its dominion over that surplus and over society. History will end when classes have finally disappeared and there is nothing driving humanity’s development and progress outside of its own conscious activity. When there is no hidden social process to study.
Fukuyama makes liberal democracy and its achievement the purpose of history but any ruling class could and has picked out their time and rule and claimed it to be the aim and end of history. Fukuyama fails to point out in any serious way that democracy, the pinnacle of liberal capitalist rule, by definition, means that society is divided by conflicting interests. So much so the ruling class requires police forces and armies to keep these contradictory interests in check along with endless legislation. These partial interests are of course determined, in the final analysis, by whatever an individual’s relationship is to the means of production. History as a process is, then, ongoing. Despite the formal political equality of every individual in a democracy the economic divisions of society remain. The class struggle between the wage slaves and the capitalists goes on as the current economic catastrophe is proving.
There has always been a mode and a means of production since human society first emerged but they haven’t always been in contradiction. Only for perhaps the last six thousand years out of the two hundred thousand or so of human existence has that been the situation. In the future mode and means will be in harmony again. This new unity of opposites will be that of humanity with nature consciously re-established: communism. That will be the end of a social evolutionary process separate from our consciousness of it. That will be the end of history.
Surfing on a heady atmosphere of triumphalism, Fukuyama taunted Marxists by declaring liberal democratic capitalism to be the pinnacle of historical development. It was the only game in town and nothing could challenge it. Gone were the dreams of a transition through socialism to communism as promised by the scientific socialist Karl Marx. History, in the sense of a distinct social process had come to an end and liberal democratic capitalism was the victor. Who now would give Fukuyama’s thesis a second glance as the world economy disintegrates whilst Marx’s seminal works fly off the bookstore shelves?
Fukuyama’s was a challenge to one of Marx’s greatest achievements: his solution to `the riddle of history’. Dubbed historical materialism, this elegant solution eschewed the increasingly turgid dichotomised debate that came before it.
Marx started from the empirically verifiable real activity and conditions of human existence examining the way in which humankind produces its means of subsistence which is a thoroughly materialist approach. He did not start from a collection of dead, unconnected facts or from human consciousness as a driver of human history. `Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life,’ he argued. In producing their means of subsistence, human beings enter into social relations. History proper begins when those relations become class relations and unfolds by way of a reciprocal conflict between these social relations, or modes of production, and the ever more efficient means of production.
Previously history was believed to have no developmental logic at all, it merely proceeded randomly. For this school there was nothing going on apart from what appeared to be going on and all historians need do was reconstruct what had been lost in the mists of time and praise history’s `great men’. At best this school rose to the notion of history as some kind of metaphysical process endlessly and mechanically repeating itself over the eons. Alternatively, there was a far more sophisticated idealist approach. For this school, history was heading towards some sort of god-given destiny or pre-determined absolute ideal. At least these thinkers acknowledged the existence of a process or system out-with the intentions of the agents that comprised it.
But it was Marx who answered the call for a scientific theory of history. He rejected the mutually exclusive, dichotomised, contradictory approaches of crude materialism and sophisticated idealism and sought a theory that could encompass and reveal history’s true inner dynamic and logic. Men, agreed Marx, make history, and then qualified it by adding, but not under conditions of their own choosing. Marx rejected the contradictory approaches of randomness and predetermination in favour of an approach to contradictions. History for Marx was a dynamic and evolving structure containing the logic of its own end
At society’s base is the class struggle between two historically conditioned classes, a minority ruling class and a working class, corresponding to a particular mode of production and appropriate to the prevailing means of production. As we have seen, for Marx social being determines social consciousness. It is an individual’s relationship to the means of production that determines your outlook on life and, indeed, all of society’s institutions, ideas, discourses etc are super structural to the political-economic base.
Schematically speaking, primitive society gave way to the social relations of ancient slavery which facilitated a huge growth of the means of production at humanity’s disposal but these means eventually outgrew that mode. Great slave-based empires fell into ruin including the greatest of them all, Rome, to be replaced by feudal empires in Europe and Asia. These in turn were replaced by capitalist nation states with their own imperial abmtions which now too are facing the end. Capitalism is the last antagonistic form the economic conditions having entirely outgrown the possibility of continued private ownership and control of the productive capacity by a minority ruling class. It must give way to socialism and finally a classless society.
The study of the centuries of human existence prior to the process of class formation, or pre-history, whilst obviously of more than passing interest and relevance, is little more than a natural history of the species. History proper, as an emergent and discrete social process with its own logic and therefore a distinct subject for study, begins with the production of the first surplus and the ensuing efforts of an emerging ruling class to establish its dominion over that surplus and over society. History will end when classes have finally disappeared and there is nothing driving humanity’s development and progress outside of its own conscious activity. When there is no hidden social process to study.
Fukuyama makes liberal democracy and its achievement the purpose of history but any ruling class could and has picked out their time and rule and claimed it to be the aim and end of history. Fukuyama fails to point out in any serious way that democracy, the pinnacle of liberal capitalist rule, by definition, means that society is divided by conflicting interests. So much so the ruling class requires police forces and armies to keep these contradictory interests in check along with endless legislation. These partial interests are of course determined, in the final analysis, by whatever an individual’s relationship is to the means of production. History as a process is, then, ongoing. Despite the formal political equality of every individual in a democracy the economic divisions of society remain. The class struggle between the wage slaves and the capitalists goes on as the current economic catastrophe is proving.
There has always been a mode and a means of production since human society first emerged but they haven’t always been in contradiction. Only for perhaps the last six thousand years out of the two hundred thousand or so of human existence has that been the situation. In the future mode and means will be in harmony again. This new unity of opposites will be that of humanity with nature consciously re-established: communism. That will be the end of a social evolutionary process separate from our consciousness of it. That will be the end of history.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Anti-EU Platform for NO2EU
There is no doubt that Britain’s withdrawal from the EU would immediately put the question of power at the top of the agenda in every European state. Who will control the resources and decide the fate of the nation: the imperialist capitalist class or the working class? That it is being called for by both right and left demonstrates not just that the objective conditions for intensive class struggle are with us but that both sides want it. The working class cannot live in the old way and the ruling class cannot rule in the old way.
The decision of the RMT to bank roll a slate of candidates for the forthcoming Euro elections under the banner of NO2EU is, therefore, very much to be welcomed. It is always better to go out to meet the enemy when ever possible rather than wait to be winkled out of our fox holes to be picked off one by one. The name NO2EU is certainly emphatic and that too is to be welcomed as faint heart never won fair maiden as they say. However, after the name things get a little blurred and at times it looks like the RMT have got on the wrong platform which is not good for a railway union.
The platform itself represents a gradual retreat from the name. Here it is:
* Reject the Lisbon Treaty
* No to EU directives that privatise our public services
* Defend and develop British manufacturing
* Repeal ECJ anti-trade union rulings and no to social dumping
* No to racism and fascism
* No to EU militarisation
* Restore democracy to EU member states
* Replace unequal EU trade deals with fair trade that benefits developing nations
* Scrap EU economic rules designed to stop member states from implementing reflationary policies
* Keep Britain out of the Eurozone.
There is no prospect and no plan to put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum in Britain so the very first demand is going to strike people as somewhat irrelevant. The recent spate of wildcat strikes were aimed not at something that has yet to happen but something that is already here. Posted workers and gang masters are a product of Maastricht, the founding treaty of the EU that Margaret Thatcher so eagerly signed despite being a hard line Euro sceptic. So, if the platform is going to live up to the name is should start as it means to go on:
* For immediate withdrawal from the anti-working class EU; so that we can
* Repeal all anti-socialist and anti-trade union legislation; and
* Restore national and local democracy;
The next demand is another retreat from the name:
* No to EU directives that privatise our public services;
Well if you are saying no to the EU then it goes without saying that you are opposed to EU directives unless you are not really opposed to the EU just bits of it. A simple
* Defend public services from cuts and privatisation;
will do.
The next demand,
* Defend and develop British manufacturing
Manages to be both too vague and too particular. Too vague in that it doesn’t say how we can defend British manufacturing in the current economic collapse and too particular in that it only talks about manufacturing when every sector is his.
* Nationalise the job cutting monopolies, restore manufacturing and share the work;
is both broader and deeper.
The next three demands can be reduced to one:
* No more social dumping: trade union control and deployment of labour;
The no to fascism and racism is superfluous and sound apologetic rather than sincere as is no to EU militarization.
The restore democracy demand we’ve already dealt with and the fair trade demand should come near the end. That leaves
* Scrap EU economic rules designed to stop member states from implementing reflationary policies
* Keep Britain out of the Eurozone.
Both of these are problematic. The last is not needed as again it is a retreat from the name and if you are against the EU then obviously the Euro is a no, no. Reflationary policies are those currently being implemented by the Bank of England to protect the financial institutions, we need socialist policies. So here we need to say what we propose to do with our new found national freedom. This is where we differentiate ourselves conclusively from the kooks and psychos of the far right in UKIP and the BNP:
* For a workers’ government in Britain and a United Socialist States of Europe;
We then come in with the fair trade point:
* End imperialist plunder of the developing world: fair trade, fair aid and fair play.
And sum up with a little something for the environment to show that we are in no way little Englanders or a bunch of ostriches:
* Full participation in an equitable and effective global carbon cutting regime.
In summary:
* For immediate withdrawal from the anti-working class EU;
* Repeal all anti-socialist and anti-trade union legislation;
* Restore national and local democracy;
* Defend public services from cuts and privatisation;
* Nationalise the job cutting monopolies, restore manufacturing and share the work;
* Nationalise the banks: initiate a debt amnesty for small businesses and individuals, repudiate the toxic debts;
* No more social dumping: trade union control and deployment of labour;
* For a workers’ government in Britain and a United Socialist States of Europe;
* End imperialist plunder of the developing world: fair trade, fair aid and fair play;
* Full participation in an equitable and effective global carbon cutting regime.
However, even if none of the changes I have proposed are adopted or even thought about I would still support getting the left anti-EU message out there even with the original faltering platform because it will smash open the debate on Europe in a most dramatic way and that has to be done by the left because if it is done by the right the battle will already have been lost. I do, however, think the left should try to get it right first time.
This is posted in the spirit of discussion.
The decision of the RMT to bank roll a slate of candidates for the forthcoming Euro elections under the banner of NO2EU is, therefore, very much to be welcomed. It is always better to go out to meet the enemy when ever possible rather than wait to be winkled out of our fox holes to be picked off one by one. The name NO2EU is certainly emphatic and that too is to be welcomed as faint heart never won fair maiden as they say. However, after the name things get a little blurred and at times it looks like the RMT have got on the wrong platform which is not good for a railway union.
The platform itself represents a gradual retreat from the name. Here it is:
* Reject the Lisbon Treaty
* No to EU directives that privatise our public services
* Defend and develop British manufacturing
* Repeal ECJ anti-trade union rulings and no to social dumping
* No to racism and fascism
* No to EU militarisation
* Restore democracy to EU member states
* Replace unequal EU trade deals with fair trade that benefits developing nations
* Scrap EU economic rules designed to stop member states from implementing reflationary policies
* Keep Britain out of the Eurozone.
There is no prospect and no plan to put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum in Britain so the very first demand is going to strike people as somewhat irrelevant. The recent spate of wildcat strikes were aimed not at something that has yet to happen but something that is already here. Posted workers and gang masters are a product of Maastricht, the founding treaty of the EU that Margaret Thatcher so eagerly signed despite being a hard line Euro sceptic. So, if the platform is going to live up to the name is should start as it means to go on:
* For immediate withdrawal from the anti-working class EU; so that we can
* Repeal all anti-socialist and anti-trade union legislation; and
* Restore national and local democracy;
The next demand is another retreat from the name:
* No to EU directives that privatise our public services;
Well if you are saying no to the EU then it goes without saying that you are opposed to EU directives unless you are not really opposed to the EU just bits of it. A simple
* Defend public services from cuts and privatisation;
will do.
The next demand,
* Defend and develop British manufacturing
Manages to be both too vague and too particular. Too vague in that it doesn’t say how we can defend British manufacturing in the current economic collapse and too particular in that it only talks about manufacturing when every sector is his.
* Nationalise the job cutting monopolies, restore manufacturing and share the work;
is both broader and deeper.
The next three demands can be reduced to one:
* No more social dumping: trade union control and deployment of labour;
The no to fascism and racism is superfluous and sound apologetic rather than sincere as is no to EU militarization.
The restore democracy demand we’ve already dealt with and the fair trade demand should come near the end. That leaves
* Scrap EU economic rules designed to stop member states from implementing reflationary policies
* Keep Britain out of the Eurozone.
Both of these are problematic. The last is not needed as again it is a retreat from the name and if you are against the EU then obviously the Euro is a no, no. Reflationary policies are those currently being implemented by the Bank of England to protect the financial institutions, we need socialist policies. So here we need to say what we propose to do with our new found national freedom. This is where we differentiate ourselves conclusively from the kooks and psychos of the far right in UKIP and the BNP:
* For a workers’ government in Britain and a United Socialist States of Europe;
We then come in with the fair trade point:
* End imperialist plunder of the developing world: fair trade, fair aid and fair play.
And sum up with a little something for the environment to show that we are in no way little Englanders or a bunch of ostriches:
* Full participation in an equitable and effective global carbon cutting regime.
In summary:
* For immediate withdrawal from the anti-working class EU;
* Repeal all anti-socialist and anti-trade union legislation;
* Restore national and local democracy;
* Defend public services from cuts and privatisation;
* Nationalise the job cutting monopolies, restore manufacturing and share the work;
* Nationalise the banks: initiate a debt amnesty for small businesses and individuals, repudiate the toxic debts;
* No more social dumping: trade union control and deployment of labour;
* For a workers’ government in Britain and a United Socialist States of Europe;
* End imperialist plunder of the developing world: fair trade, fair aid and fair play;
* Full participation in an equitable and effective global carbon cutting regime.
However, even if none of the changes I have proposed are adopted or even thought about I would still support getting the left anti-EU message out there even with the original faltering platform because it will smash open the debate on Europe in a most dramatic way and that has to be done by the left because if it is done by the right the battle will already have been lost. I do, however, think the left should try to get it right first time.
This is posted in the spirit of discussion.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Why Marxism is true
Part Two: Historical Materialism
Historical materialism is the name given to Marx’s theory of history. As with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, when it arrived it was breathtakingly simple and elegant. Great solutions are that way being contained within the problem they are attempting to solve. Formulating the problem correctly is to virtually solve it. This tends to make even the more unenlightened wonder why they hadn’t thought of it themselves.
Prior to Marx, history was believed either to have no developmental logic at all, it merely proceeded mechanically or in metaphysical circles and could be taken at face value, or was heading towards some sort of god-given destiny or pre-determined absolute ideal. Marx answered the call for a scientific theory of history. He rejected these two contradictory approaches for an approach to contradictions. He sought a theory that could encompass and reveal history’s true inner dynamic.
Marx started from the empirically verifiable real activity and conditions of human existence examining the way in which humankind produces its means of subsistence which is the materialist side of the equation. He did not start from a collection of dead, unconnected facts or from human consciousness. `Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life,’ he argued. In producing their means of subsistence, human beings enter into social relations. History proper begins when those relations become class relations and unfolds by way of a reciprocal conflict between these social relations, or modes of production, and the ever expanding means of production.
Schematically speaking, primitive society gave way to the social relations of ancient slavery which gave a huge boost to the growth of the means of production at humanity’s disposal but these means eventually outgrew that mode. Great slave-based empires fell into ruin including the greatest of them all, Rome, to be replaced by great feudal empires in Europe and Asia. These were replaced by capitalism and its own great empires which now, in their turn, are facing their end. Capitalism is the last antagonistic form; the economic conditions having entirely outgrown the possibility of continued private ownership and control of the productive capacity by a minority ruling class. It must give way to socialism and finally a classless society.
At society’s base is the class struggle between two historically conditioned classes, a ruling class and a working class, corresponding to a particular mode of production and appropriate to the prevailing means of production. Slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and peasants, capitalists and proletariat, and all of society’s institutions, ideas, discourses etc are superstructural to this political-economic base.
Here nothing remains of the tedious notion of history as just a series of events to be simply reconstructed or of the equally tedious but opposite notion of human beings working their way towards a pre-determined perfection or pre-existing consciousness. Marx shows that consciousness itself evolves as a result of practical activity reflecting interests but in an ideological way because the logic is external and unknown to its participants.
There has always been a mode and a means of production but they haven’t always been in contradiction and in the future they will be in harmony again but on a whole new level. The new unity of opposites will be that of humanity with nature re-established on a conscious level.
The study of the hundreds of centuries of human existence prior to the process of class formation, or pre-history, whilst obviously of more than passing interest and relevance, is little more than a natural history of the species. History proper, as a discrete social process with its own logic and therefore a fit subject for study in its own right, begins with the production of surplus and the ensuing efforts of the first emerging ruling class to establish its rights to this surplus. It will end as an ongoing subject of scientific study when classes have finally disappeared and there is nothing driving humanity’s development outside of its own conscious activity. When there is nothing taking place that is not the result of conscious activity, or when results are consciously sought and attained, then there is no process outside of and separate from that purposeful activity that can be studied. That is the real end of history.
So much for history in general. What is attracting people now is Marx’s incredibly insightful analysis of capitalism.
Part Three: Capitalism (to follow)
Historical materialism is the name given to Marx’s theory of history. As with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, when it arrived it was breathtakingly simple and elegant. Great solutions are that way being contained within the problem they are attempting to solve. Formulating the problem correctly is to virtually solve it. This tends to make even the more unenlightened wonder why they hadn’t thought of it themselves.
Prior to Marx, history was believed either to have no developmental logic at all, it merely proceeded mechanically or in metaphysical circles and could be taken at face value, or was heading towards some sort of god-given destiny or pre-determined absolute ideal. Marx answered the call for a scientific theory of history. He rejected these two contradictory approaches for an approach to contradictions. He sought a theory that could encompass and reveal history’s true inner dynamic.
Marx started from the empirically verifiable real activity and conditions of human existence examining the way in which humankind produces its means of subsistence which is the materialist side of the equation. He did not start from a collection of dead, unconnected facts or from human consciousness. `Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life,’ he argued. In producing their means of subsistence, human beings enter into social relations. History proper begins when those relations become class relations and unfolds by way of a reciprocal conflict between these social relations, or modes of production, and the ever expanding means of production.
Schematically speaking, primitive society gave way to the social relations of ancient slavery which gave a huge boost to the growth of the means of production at humanity’s disposal but these means eventually outgrew that mode. Great slave-based empires fell into ruin including the greatest of them all, Rome, to be replaced by great feudal empires in Europe and Asia. These were replaced by capitalism and its own great empires which now, in their turn, are facing their end. Capitalism is the last antagonistic form; the economic conditions having entirely outgrown the possibility of continued private ownership and control of the productive capacity by a minority ruling class. It must give way to socialism and finally a classless society.
At society’s base is the class struggle between two historically conditioned classes, a ruling class and a working class, corresponding to a particular mode of production and appropriate to the prevailing means of production. Slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and peasants, capitalists and proletariat, and all of society’s institutions, ideas, discourses etc are superstructural to this political-economic base.
Here nothing remains of the tedious notion of history as just a series of events to be simply reconstructed or of the equally tedious but opposite notion of human beings working their way towards a pre-determined perfection or pre-existing consciousness. Marx shows that consciousness itself evolves as a result of practical activity reflecting interests but in an ideological way because the logic is external and unknown to its participants.
There has always been a mode and a means of production but they haven’t always been in contradiction and in the future they will be in harmony again but on a whole new level. The new unity of opposites will be that of humanity with nature re-established on a conscious level.
The study of the hundreds of centuries of human existence prior to the process of class formation, or pre-history, whilst obviously of more than passing interest and relevance, is little more than a natural history of the species. History proper, as a discrete social process with its own logic and therefore a fit subject for study in its own right, begins with the production of surplus and the ensuing efforts of the first emerging ruling class to establish its rights to this surplus. It will end as an ongoing subject of scientific study when classes have finally disappeared and there is nothing driving humanity’s development outside of its own conscious activity. When there is nothing taking place that is not the result of conscious activity, or when results are consciously sought and attained, then there is no process outside of and separate from that purposeful activity that can be studied. That is the real end of history.
So much for history in general. What is attracting people now is Marx’s incredibly insightful analysis of capitalism.
Part Three: Capitalism (to follow)
Why Marxism is true
Part One: Introduction
The current global economic crisis which threatens to engulf us all like some natural disaster has sparked a revival of interest in the ideas of the great 19th Century political economist and scientific socialist, Karl Marx. His two most famous works, `The Communist Manifesto’, written jointly with life-long collaborator Friedrich Engels, and the three or four-volumed, depending on your point-of-view, `Das Kapital’ are, apparently, flying off the bookstore shelves at an unprecedented rate of knots. The urge it seems is to rationally understand what on earth is going on.
That people are looking for a scientific explanation for the crisis is surely to be welcomed but there is also a philistine or eclectic tendency amongst some to see Marx as just one possible contributor among many. A tendency to view him as just another theorist competing with many other theorists from whose work one can select the bits one likes and discard the bits one doesn’t. That would be a mistake because Marxism is not just a unified, holistic theory it is a fact.
Darwin
It is a pleasant co-incidence that the global economic crisis and the renewed interest it has sparked in Marxism are happening at the same time as the 200th anniversary of the birth of the celebrated natural scientist and expounder of natural evolution, Charles Darwin. The anniversary has sparked a spirited defence of his work by a host of renowned modern day scientists against a growing army of fundamentalists, biblical literalists, creationists of all religions and the pseudo scientific intelligent design narrative.
This happy co-incidence has helped strengthen an atmosphere generally sympathetic to enlightened values. One stand-out contribution amongst the many to have appeared this year intent on defending Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is Jerry A Coyne’s ` Why Evolution is True’. In his book Coyne presents a spirited defence of the general scientific method of reason applied to empirical research where practical results act as the yardstick of truth. He develops a contemporary demonstration of the truth of Darwin’s theory and how it has been proved again and again. Evolution by natural selection, he rightly argues, is a proven fact.
The theory, he says, makes testable predictions leading to the discovery of genes and DNA and makes retrodictive sense of facts and data that without its illuminating effect would otherwise not. It becomes ever more rounded, deep, rich and complete as we observe and recreate its principles on a daily basis.
Given the overwhelming success of Darwin’s theory why, asks Coyne, are there still those who attack it? We don’t we have to defend other scientific theories such as the germ theory of disease in this way he muses. He does not answer the question but, after a devastating defence of the theory and a withering assault on its religious opponents, he counsels that to recognise the full import of the theory does not lead to despairing nihilism or rob your life of purpose and meaning. It won’t make you immoral, he insists, and is in fact, as Darwin said, is really quite ennobling. It doesn’t even necessarily make of you an atheist even while it destroys the basis of literalism and particularity in religion.
Marxism
Marx’s main interest was not the natural evolution of the human species but its social and historical evolution from that point on. Incredibly, his scientific insights into society were made prior to Darwin’s explanation of human kind’s biological origins. Even before Darwin had solved the riddle of human evolution, Marx had already solved the more difficult riddle of history. He had explained and revealed the drivers for historical evolution.
Needless to say Marx immediately embraced Darwin’s theory as soon as it was made public recognising a scientific theory brilliant in its own right but that complemented and reinforced his own. He even sent Darwin a copy of Volume One his own great work `Das Kapital’ for which he received a thank you letter though sadly there is no evidence that the naturalist ever actually read it.
There are, in actual fact, three different elements to Marxism each a piece of brilliance in its own right. They are historical materialism, the analysis of capitalism and dialectical materialism.
Part Two: Historical Materialism (to follow)
The current global economic crisis which threatens to engulf us all like some natural disaster has sparked a revival of interest in the ideas of the great 19th Century political economist and scientific socialist, Karl Marx. His two most famous works, `The Communist Manifesto’, written jointly with life-long collaborator Friedrich Engels, and the three or four-volumed, depending on your point-of-view, `Das Kapital’ are, apparently, flying off the bookstore shelves at an unprecedented rate of knots. The urge it seems is to rationally understand what on earth is going on.
That people are looking for a scientific explanation for the crisis is surely to be welcomed but there is also a philistine or eclectic tendency amongst some to see Marx as just one possible contributor among many. A tendency to view him as just another theorist competing with many other theorists from whose work one can select the bits one likes and discard the bits one doesn’t. That would be a mistake because Marxism is not just a unified, holistic theory it is a fact.
Darwin
It is a pleasant co-incidence that the global economic crisis and the renewed interest it has sparked in Marxism are happening at the same time as the 200th anniversary of the birth of the celebrated natural scientist and expounder of natural evolution, Charles Darwin. The anniversary has sparked a spirited defence of his work by a host of renowned modern day scientists against a growing army of fundamentalists, biblical literalists, creationists of all religions and the pseudo scientific intelligent design narrative.
This happy co-incidence has helped strengthen an atmosphere generally sympathetic to enlightened values. One stand-out contribution amongst the many to have appeared this year intent on defending Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is Jerry A Coyne’s ` Why Evolution is True’. In his book Coyne presents a spirited defence of the general scientific method of reason applied to empirical research where practical results act as the yardstick of truth. He develops a contemporary demonstration of the truth of Darwin’s theory and how it has been proved again and again. Evolution by natural selection, he rightly argues, is a proven fact.
The theory, he says, makes testable predictions leading to the discovery of genes and DNA and makes retrodictive sense of facts and data that without its illuminating effect would otherwise not. It becomes ever more rounded, deep, rich and complete as we observe and recreate its principles on a daily basis.
Given the overwhelming success of Darwin’s theory why, asks Coyne, are there still those who attack it? We don’t we have to defend other scientific theories such as the germ theory of disease in this way he muses. He does not answer the question but, after a devastating defence of the theory and a withering assault on its religious opponents, he counsels that to recognise the full import of the theory does not lead to despairing nihilism or rob your life of purpose and meaning. It won’t make you immoral, he insists, and is in fact, as Darwin said, is really quite ennobling. It doesn’t even necessarily make of you an atheist even while it destroys the basis of literalism and particularity in religion.
Marxism
Marx’s main interest was not the natural evolution of the human species but its social and historical evolution from that point on. Incredibly, his scientific insights into society were made prior to Darwin’s explanation of human kind’s biological origins. Even before Darwin had solved the riddle of human evolution, Marx had already solved the more difficult riddle of history. He had explained and revealed the drivers for historical evolution.
Needless to say Marx immediately embraced Darwin’s theory as soon as it was made public recognising a scientific theory brilliant in its own right but that complemented and reinforced his own. He even sent Darwin a copy of Volume One his own great work `Das Kapital’ for which he received a thank you letter though sadly there is no evidence that the naturalist ever actually read it.
There are, in actual fact, three different elements to Marxism each a piece of brilliance in its own right. They are historical materialism, the analysis of capitalism and dialectical materialism.
Part Two: Historical Materialism (to follow)
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Britain's Long Term Decline Confirmed
The current slump is both quickening and confirming Britain's century-long slide from global top dog to Third World also ran and the policy of bailing out the financial institutions for the sake of the financial institutions will add to the
bone-crunching impact of such a sharp descent. The banks are doing to Britain
what the victorious allies did to Germany after the First World War. Instead of
crippling war reparations, however, we are paying over the nation's wealth to cover Eton and Harrow's finest `masters of the universe' by racking up a truly staggering public debt. This in the hope that our one and only `industry', if saved, might one day make a few bob again. This madness will be followed by tax hikes, money printing, mass unemployment, deflation then hyperinflation, public sector and welfare
provision meltdown, destruction of the NHS, extreme austerity measures, endemic and
widespread violent gang crime, a police state, pockets of starvation, a growing fascist menace and permanent civil war. How much more sensible would it have been to have nationalised the bankrupt banks, guaranteed deposits then wiped out all individual (mortgages, credit cards, personal loans) and small and medium enterprise debts to these institutions thereby bailing out the people? That would have ended the credit crunch overnight. Instead we have mass repossessions and small business
bankruptcies driving us ever further into permanent depression whilst the trading, energy and manufacturing monopolies (most of which are also technically bankrupt)
squash their competitors underfoot, shed jobs by the hundreds of thousands and put the squeeze on their remaining small suppliers and workers. At the same time, the neo-liberal EU, Gordon and Mandy and the Cameroons tell us that to take these giants into public control would be `protectionist' and that we should get on our inter-continental bikes while they elect a new population. Sacre bleu!
bone-crunching impact of such a sharp descent. The banks are doing to Britain
what the victorious allies did to Germany after the First World War. Instead of
crippling war reparations, however, we are paying over the nation's wealth to cover Eton and Harrow's finest `masters of the universe' by racking up a truly staggering public debt. This in the hope that our one and only `industry', if saved, might one day make a few bob again. This madness will be followed by tax hikes, money printing, mass unemployment, deflation then hyperinflation, public sector and welfare
provision meltdown, destruction of the NHS, extreme austerity measures, endemic and
widespread violent gang crime, a police state, pockets of starvation, a growing fascist menace and permanent civil war. How much more sensible would it have been to have nationalised the bankrupt banks, guaranteed deposits then wiped out all individual (mortgages, credit cards, personal loans) and small and medium enterprise debts to these institutions thereby bailing out the people? That would have ended the credit crunch overnight. Instead we have mass repossessions and small business
bankruptcies driving us ever further into permanent depression whilst the trading, energy and manufacturing monopolies (most of which are also technically bankrupt)
squash their competitors underfoot, shed jobs by the hundreds of thousands and put the squeeze on their remaining small suppliers and workers. At the same time, the neo-liberal EU, Gordon and Mandy and the Cameroons tell us that to take these giants into public control would be `protectionist' and that we should get on our inter-continental bikes while they elect a new population. Sacre bleu!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)