Fahrenheit 9/11
Ryan
I was once a fan of Michael Moore but I feel that he's lost his edge since
Bowling for Columbine.
Making George W Mirkin look stupid isn't exactly hard but Moore managed to
make the film last and arse-numbing 122 minutes. Some of his points were
common knowledge, many were transferred from his book 'Dude Where's My
Country' and others were stretched beyond belief such as the mother whose
son died during the war engulfing the final 30 minutes.
Maybe my political stance has changed since I finished university. Maybe
Moore concentrates too much on vendettas or maybe I was pissed off by the
large amount of sweaty, pretentious, tax-dodging students dressed in
Levellers t-shirts crammed into the cinema.
Anyone else seen this film and would like to share their thoughts?
regards
Ryan
OscarG
> I saw this two weeks ago and was a little disappointed. Don't get me wrong,
> I was once a fan of Michael Moore but I feel that he's lost his edge since
> Bowling for Columbine.
I saw it on Friday night in a swanky licensed picture house in Liverpool. I
spoilt it for some people on our row cos I had to nip out for a slash
every ten minutes because I was locked into a Guinness drinking battle
with my bird.
> Making George W Mirkin look stupid isn't exactly hard but Moore managed to
> make the film last and arse-numbing 122 minutes. Some of his points were
> common knowledge, many were transferred from his book 'Dude Where's My
> Country' and others were stretched beyond belief such as the mother whose
> son died during the war engulfing the final 30 minutes.
I thought it would have made more sense to have the joint financial
interest presented toward the end of the docu-movie as that seemed like a
far more credible angle to take/explore.
The collage of snippets with Bush playing golf and whatever was overused,
along with the general jib of a poorly arranged movie.
> Maybe my political stance has changed since I finished university. Maybe
> Moore concentrates too much on vendettas or maybe I was pissed off by the
> large amount of sweaty, pretentious, tax-dodging students dressed in
> Levellers t-shirts crammed into the cinema.
I don't have any interest in politics and Fahrenheit merely served to
remind me why. I'm not sure what the people were wearing at Liverpool's
swanky new FACT centre, if they were wearing clothes at all, I was stoned
beyond belief.
> Anyone else seen this film and would like to share their thoughts?
We had a choice of this movie and that Wonderland one with King Dong.
Luckily that's still on next week.
--
OscarG
PAVELB1
Maybe you recognize propaganda no matter what it's slant.
Ryan
"OscarG" <Oscar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2lvkbcF...@uni-berlin.de...
> We had a choice of this movie and that Wonderland one with King Dong.
> Luckily that's still on next week.
I saw that a while back and thoroughly enjoyed it. People said afterwards
that it was too violent but I can't remember anything too gruesome.
Kullrad
> I saw it on Friday night in a swanky licensed picture house in
> Liverpool. I spoilt it for some people on our row cos I had to nip out
> for a slash every ten minutes because I was locked into a Guinness
> drinking battle with my bird.
You really are living the dream, aren't you Osc.
Who won BTW?
--
Kullrad (14)
UKSF Best New Poster 2003
"I'm going to tear you a new problematic psychosexual conditionhole"
Steve H
<oaqaqici82q...@blueyonder.co.uk> dribbled :
>
> Anyone else seen this film and would like to share their thoughts?
>
No. But i saw Spider-man 2 on friday night. It was great.
--
Steve
After this, we will see command admirable supermen it placed the
gang of worms to the sword into the very decisive road.
Roo
>
> I saw it on Friday night in a swanky licensed picture house in
> Liverpool.
FACT is kewl...
BlueRoo
--
You are located above the moon, or incapacitated as parrot?
www.efc-online.net
www.vanburenbrothers.co.uk
Ryan
news:Xns952ABE905F...@130.133.1.4...
> No. But i saw Spider-man 2 on friday night. It was great.
Seen that too. I had hype hopes of this one. Bigger budget and all that.
In the first one you could see the part where the special effects company
ran out of money. Alas, the same thing happened with this one albeit later
in the film. The J Jameson character was funny though:
Miss Brant: Sir, your wife called. She said she lost your chequebook.
J. Jonah Jameson: Excellent! Thanks for the good news.
Victoria Barrett
thru' my public library.
I am not giving one farthing of my parents hard-earned money to
support that man, and I'm sure he would decline since he's, by his own
admission, anti-capitalist. Napster times.
P.S.: It's been one of my points of ill-gotten pride that US
Conservative pundits are the implaccably hated targets of a Michael
Moore, and Al Franken (first Rush Limbaugh, then Bill O'Reilly, I'm
sure George W. Bush next), but that Conservative pundits mainly talk
about their "philosophy" in their own books, and don't attack those
who attack them, or attack the Liberal pundits in general.
Unfortunately, although I've never heard of the authors concerned, a
book called "Michael Moore is a Big Fat White Man" (a play on Moore's
earlier anti-American book) has recently come out, and is doing brisk
trade. We are not amused.
Victoria Barrett
>No. But i saw Spider-man 2 on friday night. It was great.
I'll be missing that entirely, even if it's free in the public library
one day.
If anything, this Spiderman sequel is even more "Spidery" than the
first. *shiver*
Ryan
news:68flf0t71mvhar5of...@4ax.com...
> I am not giving one farthing of my parents hard-earned money to
> support that man, and I'm sure he would decline since he's, by his own
> admission, anti-capitalist. Napster times.
Michael Moore is; a socialist fighting for the rights of the little people,
constantly attempting to influence events. The extent to which ideas
influence events can be disputed; sometimes events influence ideas. Only
rarely do thinkers have the joy of seeing their words directly translated
into action. Yet ideas permeate the cultural air shaping out attitudes on
what is right and what is wrong. When 'men of action' abandon the abstract
world of thinkers they deceive themselves. When despots hear voices they are
often receiving echoes of some cloistered academic ringing down through the
ages.
Although ideologies are often associated with political parties, even to the
extent of bestowing names on them, there is no consistent one-to-one
identification. Members of communist parties can adopt conservative values,
conservative parties can support liberalism, and so on in a intricate square
dance of changing partners. Indeed, ideologies are not the exclusive
property of parties; they inspire political movements and pressure groups
fired with ambitions to change the way we live.
A common basis for distinguishing ideologies is in terms of left-right
dichotomy. The distinction originated in the seating arrangements of the
French Estates General in the late 1700s, when the nobility (oppose change)
sat on the King's right and those favouring change on his left. Modern usage
tends to parallel the distinction between collectivism and individualism.
It's difficult to overestimate the impact of the western ideological
tradition. With debate revolving around the central concepts of rationalism,
freedom, equality and sovereignty, its power has lain in a capacity to
grapple with the unique problems of modernity. Some writers envisage an age
when ideological debates will cease but the potential for disagreement over
the best way to organize life is probably limitless and fuels political
action at all levels.
And that, ladies and gentlefolk is why I don't like to talk politics in my
social circles.
I'll get my coat.
Chopsy
<oaqaqici82q...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Victoria Barrett" <vbar...@the-beach.net> wrote in message
>news:68flf0t71mvhar5of...@4ax.com...
>
>> I am not giving one farthing of my parents hard-earned money to
>> support that man, and I'm sure he would decline since he's, by his own
>> admission, anti-capitalist. Napster times.
>
>Michael Moore is; a socialist fighting for the rights of the little people,
>constantly attempting to influence events.
(snip interesting Ryan's interesting analysis).
He's also the main US proponent of a school of thought that reads that
the Republican side of things has got gradually on top by saying
whatever the hell they like, and whatever they think, whilst the
liberals have been too polite to use the same tactics. Fair enough.
I refrained from commenting on VB's previous post, but I'll just
observe that I don't even live in the US and I can see plenty of
instances of Republicans using personal attacks to further their own
agendas. Does Max Cleland ring a bell?
C
--
"Wigan is not a team it is a dump wit"
getrid to email me
OscarG
> OscarG <Oscar...@hotmail.com> tickled their tummies and meowed
>> I saw it on Friday night in a swanky licensed picture house in
>> Liverpool. I spoilt it for some people on our row cos I had to nip out
>> for a slash every ten minutes because I was locked into a Guinness
>> drinking battle with my bird.
>
> You really are living the dream, aren't you Osc.
If the reds win the league this season I shall have cock implants to aid
the celebrations.
> Who won BTW?
I just edged it after the 90' was up on the refs watch. Not a bad
performance given the barracking I received throughout the match, "are you
having a whitey? You look like you're having a whitey. <glug glug> Do you
want to go outside and sit on the stairs? <glug> You don't look so good."
--
OscarG
Ryan
5. He refused to field any questions relating to the new Thunderbirds film
insisting on talking about his new cgi Captain Scarlett show instead. I
sense that he was excluded from the film's production, or he's a grumpy
fucker.
OscarG
> OscarG wrote:
>> I saw it on Friday night in a swanky licensed picture house in
>> Liverpool.
>
> FACT is kewl...
Sure is. I fell asleep for a bit in there and felt safe and warm. It says a
lot that, you know.
--
OscarG
Steve H
<oaqaqici82q...@blueyonder.co.uk> dribbled :
> Just heard Thunderbirds creator Gerry Anderson being intervewed on
He was excluded. TBH, he's probably better off being able to claim no
involvement. The film looks shite.
Victoria Barrett
<ms...@getrid.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>I refrained from commenting on VB's previous post, but I'll just
>observe that I don't even live in the US and I can see plenty of
>instances of Republicans using personal attacks to further their own
>agendas. Does Max Cleland ring a bell?
When Max Cleland receives a Palme d'Or from the Special Jury at
Cannes, or is in the running for the "nouvelles" subset of the Prix
Goncourt, let me know.
Victoria Barrett
<oaqaqici82q...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>And that, ladies and gentlefolk is why I don't like to talk politics in my
>social circles.
Actually, when you wrote that Book suggestion thread on RSS, then,
even though you got a whole swath of books as recommendations from me
and others, and didn't really reply, I knew you were going to follow
up with your own list at the end, not an one of which included ours.
I put it to you that you were going to do that all along, but were
merely sniffing to see what direction the wind was blowing.
Fortunately, I read gale warnings like others read tea leaves.
>I'll get my coat.
Is that wise with broken bones? At least get your
soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend to help you out, the cow.
Ryan
> I knew you were going to follow
> up with your own list at the end, not an one of which included ours.
That's a fiery temper you have there. Who's eaten your fruitcake?
FYI, the Ghengis Khan suggestion is on my reserved list as is The Rule of
Four but Blue Blood is far too new to be seen in Doncaster's finest
libraries. Just because I didn't acknowledge doesn't mean I don't care my
pretty.
> I put it to you that you were going to do that all along, but were
> merely sniffing to see what direction the wind was blowing.
True. Know you're enema.
> Is that wise with broken bones? At least get your
> soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend to help you out, the cow.
Duly noted.
Chopsy
Or an Oscar. I remember Michael Moore got one of those as well.
Man, he must be a terrible film-maker. No wonder the Right hate him.
Guppings
"Ryan" <oaqaqici82q...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KPKdnfY0E_b...@giganews.com...
>
> Anyone else seen this film
Nope
and would like to share their thoughts?
>
I make a point of never wasting my money to watch any film that I know will
be *slanted* towards someone's own biased views or change the course of
*history*.
Victoria Barrett
wrote:
>I make a point of never wasting my money to watch any film that I know will
>be *slanted* towards someone's own biased views or change the course of
>*history*.
Shame. The Matrix was really very good.
Victoria Barrett
<oaqaqici82q...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>True. Know you're enema.
I had an enema once, but he left at the crack of dawn.
Osbourne Ruddock
ms...@getrid.tiscali.co.uk says...<snip>
>
> Or an Oscar. I remember Michael Moore got one of those as well.
> Man, he must be a terrible film-maker. No wonder the Right hate him.
>
Well, if I'd known we were all going to receive a Liverpool loving, lady
attentive soul boy as a free gift Id've made a doco myself, sheesh.
--
Cheers, Os
qe were best than u guys, assume that... during the all game!!!
Ryan
you're enema.
>
> I had an enema once, but he left at the crack of dawn.
shame you didn't get up until mid-morning
Victoria Barrett
<ms...@getrid.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Or an Oscar. I remember Michael Moore got one of those as well.
>Man, he must be a terrible film-maker.
That's what I said when Anne Applebaum's searing account of Soviet
"Gulag"s was given a Pulitzer! Someone on RSS had replied that she had
exaggerated her claims, and surely to goodness exile in Siberia was
not as bad as she made it sound.
Exaggeration, oversimplification, obsfucation, hyperbole are the manna
of successful people the world over.
> No wonder the Right hate him.
Ah yes Chopsy, but then truth hurts, especially when it's a damned
lie.
Victoria Barrett
As someone said about the late Duke of Windsor, he never touched
alcohol until half past 6 in the evening. Trouble is, he never woke up
before 6.
I'm afraid my sexual proclivities function from the same excessive
insomnia.
Guppings
Have you been *whoooooooooooooshed* Ryan?
Ryan
news:cdf376$t5s$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Have you been *whoooooooooooooshed* Ryan?
won't be the first time and certainly won't be the last
Sir Benjamin Nunn
>
> Michael Moore is; a socialist fighting for the rights of the little
people,
Oh dear. The $$$ marketing worked then?
BTN
Ryan
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2m1ho0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Oh dear. The $$$ marketing worked then?
Yes and no.
I was stupid enough to buy his last book but my cinema pass got me in to see
the film for free.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
His next 'film' is about mental health in North America. He'll be walking a
tightrope and it will probably snap this time.
Strawberry
following...
> Michael Moore is; a socialist fighting for the rights of the little people,
> constantly attempting to influence events.
>
fuck you are deluded. The twat is just out to make as much fucking money
as those he is poking his political stick at. Personally I agree with
Barrett, don't give the arse your money and do people really need a
bunch of news-clips being given the Homer Simpson edit to form an
opinion on whether you agree or disagree with DoobYa.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Strawberry" <snm_uk(CUT)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b65b6429...@News.Individual.NET...
IAWTWP. He's an arrogant hypocritical millionaire, claiming to represent the
working classes and rallying against the establishment, when really he is
part of the elite liberal establishment, and the downtrodden masses of
mid-America, the real voices that are never heard, are actually way more
likely to vote for Bush anyway.
BTN
Serious Tiger
wrote:
>IAWTWP. He's an arrogant hypocritical millionaire, claiming to represent the
>working classes and rallying against the establishment, when really he is
>part of the elite liberal establishment, and the downtrodden masses of
>mid-America, the real voices that are never heard, are actually way more
>likely to vote for Bush anyway.
>
Mainly true. OTOH he - whatever his motives, on which point I agree with you -
has given publicity to a lot of truths which the American public would rather
not face. Which is a good thing.
~ST~
--
"His head was alarming large, and growing daily."
Nunn Out.
Ryan
> What a load of shit... if you believe his own propaganda about himself
> fuck you are deluded.
Point taken.
When I initially started to study politics I was a lefty. I was influenced
by my surroundings. I went to the UKs largest Catholic school whose cathment
area brought many children from mining villages and many of their parents
had been on picket-lines. I rebelled against my capitalist up-bringing and
was influenced by the socialist views of my teachers but mainly the
economics and politics tutors. Although never vocal, my political alliance
was to the left. Now I'm working, my views are changing. Working in a
deregulated industry highlighted the need for market-forces to prevail in
order to prevent the inefficiencies of it's operations. 'Good of the people'
my arse. Royal Mail and Transco make super-normal profits yet are the two
most inefficient companies I have had the privellage to work for.
>do people really need a
> bunch of news-clips being given the Homer Simpson edit to form an
> opinion on whether you agree or disagree with DoobYa.
To appeal to the lowest common denominator, yes you do.
The Sun claimed a personal victory in the 1997 General Elections, claiming
that their change of political stance swayed the public. It is in the
interests of those with wealth and power to lead others to share their own
views by creating a dominant ideology. The majority of political coercing is
through the mass media. Most prefer to sway views through fear (the 'Asylum
Seekers are coming, run for your lives' view of the tabloids) but people
like Michael Moore and Mark Thomas prefer to exert influence by making
politicians look stupid thus appealing to those with no interest in politics
but like to see people of authority ridiculed.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Serious Tiger" <You...@deletespamfilter.serioustiger.com> wrote in message
news:s7hnf0hoscui3g21n...@4ax.com...
> >IAWTWP. He's an arrogant hypocritical millionaire, claiming to represent
the
> >working classes and rallying against the establishment, when really he is
> >part of the elite liberal establishment, and the downtrodden masses of
> >mid-America, the real voices that are never heard, are actually way more
> >likely to vote for Bush anyway.
> >
>
> Mainly true. OTOH he - whatever his motives, on which point I agree with
you -
> has given publicity to a lot of truths which the American public would
rather
> not face. Which is a good thing.
Well you say 'truths'...
Thing is, he's just as bad as the vast majority of Americans - including the
religious neo-cons he supposedly hates - in that he vigourously and
zealously pursues whatever he believes as a matter of unquestionable and
absolute 'fact' or 'truth'. Moore's head is buried as firmly in the sand as
the people he's trying to differentially-brainwash, and if he convinces some
of them, it will simply be a case of out of one sandpit and into another.
Like the 'alcoholics' who then become just as addicted to their AA programme
as they were to alcohol. Or 'criminals' who become born-again Christians.
These reformed people never learn, they just substitute one set of blinkered
extremeties for another. Cunts.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> When I initially started to study politics I was a lefty. I was influenced
> by my surroundings. I went to the UKs largest Catholic school whose
cathment
> area brought many children from mining villages and many of their parents
> had been on picket-lines. I rebelled against my capitalist up-bringing and
> was influenced by the socialist views of my teachers but mainly the
> economics and politics tutors.
If your teachers were influencing you, how did this constitute a rebellion?
I went to an extremely left-wing school where every day felt like a battle
against authority and against the received wisdom, and more than anything
else, this made me the right-wing libertarian I am today.
BTN
Guppings
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2m1vn8F...@uni-berlin.de...
You might enjoy pulling this to bits Ben?
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~morven/libertarian.html#contents
Strawberry
following...
> To appeal to the lowest common denominator, yes you do.
> The Sun claimed a personal victory in the 1997 General Elections, claiming
> that their change of political stance swayed the public. It is in the
> interests of those with wealth and power to lead others to share their own
> views by creating a dominant ideology.
>
change was coming after 15 years and IMO switched their political
spot's. The 1997 Labour victory was on the cards with or without the
S*n's help although it probably did help sway some of the proletariat.
And surely it is more in the interest of those in power to convince the
public that they share the publics views and are not trying to foist
theirs on others or what some call spin.
Ryan
> If your teachers were influencing you, how did this constitute a
rebellion?
The rebellion was against my parents and their social circles. Probably the
hormones and the need for acceptance within my peer group.
Today I take a more pragmatic view to politics but I can tell that I am
being pulled rather than pushed to the right. Although nowadays it's
disguised as neo-liberalism after the title 'Third Way' sounded too similar
to 'Third Reich.'
Guppings
> When I initially started to study politics I was a lefty.
I would imagine most *young* people start out on that wing?
I certainly did. I wont bore you with too much detail but in *time*, I
concluded that socialism doesn't work. In fact, it invariably hurts the
poorest who were the ones its suppose to help.
Ryan
> I certainly did. I wont bore you with too much detail but in *time*, I
> concluded that socialism doesn't work. In fact, it invariably hurts the
> poorest who were the ones its suppose to help.
ditto, although I read 'The Communist Manifesto' then a biography on Karl
Marx. After discovering that he was, by his own admission, far more right
wing than the people he criticised, I realised that I should develop my own
political ideologies rather than have them given to me.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> > When I initially started to study politics I was a lefty.
>
> I would imagine most *young* people start out on that wing?
You're probably correct. I just can't see /why/?
Obviously, I'm different - as usual - in that I can't remember a time when I
took a leftish view towards things, and this is yet another area of common
ground that most people share with which I am completely unable to identify.
BTN
Ryan
"Steve H" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns952ABE905F...@130.133.1.4...
> No. But i saw Spider-man 2 on friday night. It was great.
Snipped from Tony Blair's speech on crime:
'It was John Stuart Mill who articulated the modern concept that with
freedom comes responsibility.'
I thought it was Peter Parker's uncle Ben. Looks like Stan Lee's been
writing the White Papers again.
Strawberry
the following...
> You're probably correct. I just can't see /why/?
>
> Obviously, I'm different - as usual - in that I can't remember a time when I
> took a leftish view towards things, and this is yet another area of common
> ground that most people share with which I am completely unable to identify.
>
sit in the dark circa 1972, watching my mum trying to cook food on a
coal fire because some selfish cunt leftwing miners where holding the
country to ransom by striking.
Guppings
Obviously, I cant give you reasons for your
opinions but I can *speak* for my era.
I was *brought* up to share my *sweets*, never pick on the weak, always
respect the elderly.
Well, 2 out of 3 went years ago. The weak still need a certain amount of
help but not to the extent that they become totally dependant on the state.
Ryan
> sit in the dark circa 1972, watching my mum trying to cook food on a
> coal fire because some selfish cunt leftwing miners where holding the
> country to ransom by striking.
the winter of discount tents
Sir Benjamin Nunn
>
> You might enjoy pulling this to bits Ben?
>
> http://www.compulink.co.uk/~morven/libertarian.html#contents
Indeed. It's not that bad, just somewhat naive, given that all the points
made are something that every Libertarian who's given their beliefs a
moments thought has already wrestled with, and resolved to their own
satisfaction, otherwise they wouldn't really be Libertarian.
Still, there are even more naive student types claiming to be 'anarchists',
so at least this makes a vague change.
The amusing bit is when the writer - having apparantly based their entire
article on the official Libertarian Party of the United States, completely
ignoring all international sources, any libertarian philosophy that fails to
explicitly label itself as such, and the important acknowledgement within
libertarian philosophy itself that freedom is a paradox - uses the following
argument: 'Libertarianism is USA-centric'.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
>
> I was *brought* up to share my *sweets*, never pick on the weak, always
> respect the elderly.
>
> Well, 2 out of 3 went years ago. The weak still need a certain amount of
> help but not to the extent that they become totally dependant on the
state.
This is what lefties singularly fail to grasp - that the dictatorial
presence of The State utterly dehumanises the spirit of good will.
I share my sweets. I give money to charity, and I do so because *I choose*
to help others. This is not the same as the state involuntarily taking my
money and giving it to people. Cunts.
And why does state intervention apply solely to economics? Why not find me a
partner if they like interfering so much? Or even out the cocksizes? It's
massively hypocritical that they'll take money from the rich and unhappy,
and give it to the poor and contented.
BTN
Sid
> world of thinkers they deceive themselves. When despots hear voices they are
> often receiving echoes of some cloistered academic ringing down through the
> ages.
I usually don't make political comments on newsgroups and I'll
try and keep this as unpolitical as possible. I agree with most
of what you said in another post. I thought (still do?) of myself
as a socialist (in most issues). The recent political quiz thing
revealed as much as well. However, I am slowly moving towards the
centre in my thoughts. Anyway, that's just some preamble. My
actual comment:
Although I am sympathetic towards and mostly agree with the views
presented in both Bowling and F-9/11(haven't seen this yet,
basing it on what I've read about it), I have no respect for
Michael Moore the man. I think he is dishonest in the way he
presents his views (or at the very least, he comes across as
manipulative and only presenting "facts" which are
convenient). This is completely unacceptable for what is
supposed to be a documentary. I also think that he is a fair bit
hypocritical.
Having said that, I'll probably still see the movie.
Sid
--
s i d at n e r t e dot n e t
http://www.nerte.net
Sir Benjamin Nunn
>
> > If your teachers were influencing you, how did this constitute a
> rebellion?
>
> The rebellion was against my parents and their social circles. Probably
the
> hormones and the need for acceptance within my peer group.
Ah, yes, the old need for acceptance. Real rebellious, that...
You would almost definitely have been far *more* of a rebel against the
authority of your school and the conformity of your peers if you had been
more like your parents in some ways, but I guess you probably realise that
now...
> Today I take a more pragmatic view to politics but I can tell that I am
> being pulled rather than pushed to the right. Although nowadays it's
> disguised as neo-liberalism after the title 'Third Way' sounded too
similar
> to 'Third Reich.'
It's a horrible position to be in, because 'right-wing' is so often used
a) as an insult
and
b) to describe people who I have almost nothing in common with politically.
Cunts.
BTN
Victoria Barrett
Much better than "Hoovervilles". I always got visions of miners' wives
hoovering their cardbard dwellings.
Victoria Barrett
<ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
>This is what lefties singularly fail to grasp - that the dictatorial
>presence of The State utterly dehumanises the spirit of good will.
>
>I share my sweets. I give money to charity, and I do so because *I choose*
>to help others. This is not the same as the state involuntarily taking my
>money and giving it to people. Cunts.
>
>And why does state intervention apply solely to economics? Why not find me a
>partner if they like interfering so much? Or even out the cocksizes? It's
>massively hypocritical that they'll take money from the rich and unhappy,
>and give it to the poor and contented.
Ahh, another great big bollocking political thread which is so at odds
with Youksef's usual esprit de cunts.
Mind you, this thread is much more philosophically poised than others
we've had where some Neo-Conservative twat just wades in to tell
people how wrong they are and how Dubya is the next Messiah. But
enough of my postings.
Just to mention one anecdote regarding what Ben said about the State
serving as ultimate Benefactor which often has a delitirious effect on
the personal generous impulses of a society.
I once had a German bf online, who I used to share my charity work
anecdotes with.
I remember telling him that I heard a band of youthful black kids
serenading my neighbourhood, and when I got down to find out why, they
said they were raising funds to improve their musical instruments, so
they could take a musical trip to Africa. Scott Joplin in Soweto, if
you will.
So of course I gave them a tenner, took their published literature,
heard some more Alexander's Ragtime Band, wished them every luck, and
left.
Some time later, the chap tells me when he was in Hamburg Town Centre
one day, he gave some Euros to a homeless chappie on the street
corner, something he had never done before because, and I quote, "We
in Germany believe that these types of people are taken care of the
State, and personal charity therefore isn't important." Well he put it
much more gruntingly Germanically than that, but you get the idea.
He did say it was my example that made him think about things more
than he had before.
But to think I am not a patch on my mother, who is rarely without a
weekend of volunteer work at her Church or chairing some Home for
Distressed Ex-Models, and you'll see I've still a long way to go yet
to convert others.
Mind you, I believe in a safety net provided by the State because you
just can't leave human needs to the capricious kindness of others, but
that's another tiresome post entirely.
Guppings
>
> I share my sweets. I give money to charity, and I do so because *I choose*
> to help others.
Ah but were you brought up as a child to share Ben?
Giving money to charity as an adult, that's a different *issue* all
together.
Joe Horowitz
>
> "Sir Benjamin Nunn" <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2m24qnF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > I share my sweets. I give money to charity, and I do so because *I
choose*
> > to help others.
>
> Ah but were you brought up as a child to share Ben?
Ben shares everything he owns with his Brother.
Joe
--
I've lost my .sig
The Dude
> I saw this two weeks ago and was a little disappointed. Don't get me wrong,
> I was once a fan of Michael Moore but I feel that he's lost his edge since
> Bowling for Columbine.
>
> Anyone else seen this film and would like to share their thoughts?
Is Meg Ryan in it??
Does she get her jugs oot??
Is Jennifer Connelly in it??
Does she get her jugs oot??
Is Monica Bellucci in it??
Does she get her jugs oot??
--
Ryan
news:cdhcfl$gn5$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Is Meg Ryan in it??
> Does she get her jugs oot??
No she keeps her top on but she does ensure that Michael Moore climaxes
before the film does.
There's a bit of Bush and a few tits (Ben Affleck at the start) scattered
around the film.
The Dude
What does Ben Affleck say in the film??
Is Angelina Jolie in it??
Does she get her jugs oot??
(I can tell you the name of a film in whwich Angelina Jolie DOES get her
jugs oot lots ;-)
Have you seen "Mystic River"???
--
Nils
> I saw this two weeks ago and was a little disappointed.
Fuckin Bush lover.
Strawberry
following...
> Have you seen "Mystic River"???
> --
>
Strawberry
following...
> > I saw this two weeks ago and was a little disappointed.
>
> Fuckin Bush lover.
>
>
>
>
Dat
<sidESSS...@MMMMMMAPSSSSEnerte.net> wrote:
>Although I am sympathetic towards and mostly agree with the views
>presented in both Bowling and F-9/11(haven't seen this yet,
>basing it on what I've read about it), I have no respect for
>Michael Moore the man. I think he is dishonest in the way he
>presents his views (or at the very least, he comes across as
>manipulative and only presenting "facts" which are
>convenient). This is completely unacceptable for what is
>supposed to be a documentary. I also think that he is a fair bit
>hypocritical.
Came across a mention of this in this week's local street rag:-
http://tinyurl.com/5groo
--
Dat
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <jh007...@blueNOSPAMyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zBVKc.56300$v7....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > to help others.
> >
> > Ah but were you brought up as a child to share Ben?
>
> Ben shares everything he owns with his Brother.
Cunt.
You too, Cunt-features.
BTN
The Dude
There's no jugs in it.
--
Doc Gonz0
Moore should have offered him child porn instead of cash...
--
The Doctor
Aprilia RSV Mille R, West Ham United FC.
There is no such thing as paranoia.
Change the username to reply via email. No, I don't care what you change it to.
Guppings
"Demosthenes" <demos...@theonering.net> wrote in message
>
> You mustn't watch much, then.
>
Now, if you had said, don't *pay* to watch much, you would've been spot on
Dem.
Guppings
>
Thankfully, that's not a *sport* I've had to play Dem. Oh you mean
pedantic, yes, I was but tbh, as I'm sure you've surmised, I go to the
cinema as regularly as a total eclipse of the sun.
Dat
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:34:06 +1000, Dat <dat...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Came across a mention of this in this week's local street rag:-
>>http://tinyurl.com/5groo
>
>Moore should have offered him child porn instead of cash...
Scotland Yard won't get fooled again.
--
Dat
half_pint
> On the Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:50:27 +0100, Sir Benjamin Nunn uttered forth
> the following...
> > You're probably correct. I just can't see /why/?
> >
> > Obviously, I'm different - as usual - in that I can't remember a time
when I
> > took a leftish view towards things, and this is yet another area of
common
> > ground that most people share with which I am completely unable to
identify.
> >
> sit in the dark circa 1972, watching my mum trying to cook food on a
> coal fire because some selfish cunt leftwing miners where holding the
> country to ransom by striking.
Of course they were not left-wing miners, they were in reality capitalist
right wing miners, there was nothing socialist about what they were doing,
they were doing what rightwingers believe, grab as much as you can for
yourself and fuck everyone else.
half_pint
> > >
> > > > Point taken.
> > > > When I initially started to study politics I was a lefty.
> > >
> > > I would imagine most *young* people start out on that wing?
> >
> >
> > You're probably correct. I just can't see /why/?
> >
> > Obviously, I'm different - as usual - in that I can't remember a time
when
> I
> > took a leftish view towards things, and this is yet another area of
common
> > ground that most people share with which I am completely unable to
> identify.
> >
>
> opinions but I can *speak* for my era.
>
> I was *brought* up to share my *sweets*, never pick on the weak, always
> respect the elderly.
>
> Well, 2 out of 3 went years ago. The weak still need a certain amount of
> help but not to the extent that they become totally dependant on the
state.
>
Presumeable you think state 'hand-outs' (their rights under national
insurance)
are too much?
I suspect you have never had to leave on social security for any length of
time then? (Seems quite likely if you had sweets to share?).
I presume the elderly pensioners living in poverty, (whom you respect)
should get off their fat arses and find a job?
You make Bush look clever.
I suppose you also think the best way to help the poor is to give more
money to the rich.
>
Guppings
"half_pint" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2EDNc.1068$ld7...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
> Presumeable you think state 'hand-outs' (their rights under national
> insurance)
> are too much?
Presumably you think people shouldn't be encouraged to get work?
> I suspect you have never had to leave on social security for any length of
> time then? (Seems quite likely if you had sweets to share?).
You make assertions which are way off the mark. I'm certainly not going to
give details of my circumstances.
> I presume the elderly pensioners living in poverty, (whom you respect)
> should get off their fat arses and find a job?
You thick prick, why dont you actually take the trouble to read a post
properly? I said I was brought up to respet the elderly regardless. Some
of the most ignorant self centred cunts i've come across are indeed the
*elderly*. Respect? Only if *one* has earned it.
> I suppose you also think the best way to help the poor is to give more
> money to the rich.
Rich? Why are they *rich*? It's the *rich* who create employment isn't it?
I'll guess that you would tax the rich at 90%? Redistribute amongst the
*poor* eh? Yes good idea, then they'd all fuck off & take their wealth &
jobs with them.
Cunt
Strawberry
following...
> > country to ransom by striking.
>
> Of course they were not left-wing miners, they were in reality capitalist
> right wing miners, there was nothing socialist about what they were doing,
> they were doing what rightwingers believe, grab as much as you can for
> yourself and fuck everyone else.
>
Who the fuck are you? So it's true then the Labour party and it's
members are all secretly capitalists? Fuck off back down the dole queue
or go back to selling Socialist Worker and the Big Issue you ignorant
scab on society.
ka...@ntlworld.com
Britain 2004
Introduction
'It is possible to interpret dialectically the course of a country's
development, including its revolutionary development, only by
proceeding from the action, reaction and interaction of all the
material and superstructural factors, national and worldwide alike,
and not through superficial juxtapositions, nor through formal
analogies.'
Leon Trotsky, Writings on Britain, Volume One, p.15
For years now the tide has been against us on every front. We have had
to swim against the stream, to defend the basic ideas of Marxism
against a veritable barrage of bourgeois propaganda claiming that the
class struggle was over, that Marxism was dead, that capitalism
represented 'the end of history'. At the same time we have also had to
defend the Marxist approach to the mass organisations and the
traditions of the working class, in the face of countless opportunist
and ultra left deviations. This has been difficult. Every other group
has been blown completely off course, or at least still further off
course, by the way events have unfolded in the last twenty years or
so. Come hell or high water we have defended the basic ideas and
experience of Marxism on this as on every other question.
In relation to the national question, the class approach to war, the
nature of imperialism, we have stood firmly in defence of the ideas of
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. This was not a case of rigidly
defending a dogma, but we refused to be seduced by the surface of
events, ephemeral moods and temporary phenomena. We examined the ideas
of Marxism over and again, and found them to be not outdated but in
reality the only means of understanding and explaining the often
confusing and contradictory events taking place. Above all the method
of Marxism, dialectical materialism, has been both our anchor and our
compass in the stormy waters of recent years.
The laws of dialectics can be derived from natural phenomena from the
evolution of the universe to the interaction of subatomic particles.
The same laws of change through the accumulation of contradictions can
be applied to human society and the class struggle. Not only can they
be applied here, but the use of this method is the only way in which
the processes at work in society can be understood, explained and
acted upon.
Taking an example from nature, the explosion of a volcano is a highly
dialectical event, the result of an accumulation of explosive material
until a point is reached - different in the case of each individual
volcano, determined by a multiplicity of factors - where quantity is
transformed into quality. In spite of all the complexities involved
these explosions follow certain laws which are held in common by all
such events.
'A strong correlation has been found between the magnitude of
eruptions and the length of the previous period of repose. Almost all
very large, historic eruptions have come from volcanoes that have been
dormant for centuries.'
Jacques-Marie Bardintzeff and Alexander R. McBirney, Volcanology
(second edition)
This thoroughly dialectical conclusion can equally be applied to
society and the class struggle. The longer explosive material in the
shape of anger and frustration is built up but suppressed or held in
check, by dictatorial methods or by the Labour and trade union
leaders, the greater the explosion of the workers' movement can be in
the long run. Often there can be smaller outbursts in advance. In some
countries where limited general strikes are not uncommon, the leaders
of the workers' movement use this tactic to 'let off steam' in the
hope of preventing a major explosion.
For many years now the leaders of the British workers' movement have
been able to hold the line without resorting to such extreme tactics.
Nevertheless there has been an immense accumulation of stress and
strain here in the last two decades, with very little release of
pressure. As a result almighty explosions are being prepared for the
future. Recent events like the strikes of firefighters and postal
workers, and the mass demonstrations against the imperialist war in
Iraq, are just a precursor of explosions to come.
Of course it is very easy to say that there will be big movements of
the working class some time in the future. In fairness most of those
groups claiming to be Marxists would surely agree. What is it that
makes us different from them?
There are many differences, but in the end they can all be traced back
to method. The application of the Marxist method to society, to
unfolding events, enables us to develop a perspective, to understand
better how and why workers move into struggle.
The scientists who attempt to predict the course of development of a
volcano must know as much as possible about the geology and geography
of the area concerned. They must also know how and why volcanoes
explode. Here a knowledge of the history of their particular volcano
and of other volcanoes is vital. In a similar vein Marxists also need
to understand the history of the movement if we are to understand
where the changes in the outlook of the working class will be
expressed and what the consequences will be.
It is impossible to build a revolutionary party anywhere without
understanding the role, history and traditions of the working class
and its organisations. It is a characteristic of a sectarian
organisation that they believe that history begins and ends with them.
Just as they ignore the history of the movement, so history and the
movement will return the favour and ignore them.
In the past it was thought by some that the difference between
ourselves and other groups was that we were in the Labour Party. While
this may appear to be a convenient shorthand, the truth is that far
more than this separates us. It would be more useful to say that our
attitude towards the Labour Party in Britain is an expression of our
understanding of the history and tradition of the movement. Moreover,
expressed in this approach, in turn, is an understanding of Marxist
theory, of dialectical materialism, and our ability to apply those
ideas to the world around us and modern society. It is precisely a
combination of theory and experience, a knowledge of the history of
the movement, and the application to its development of Marxist ideas
which has enabled us to understand the following law. When the masses
move into action they turn inevitably at some point to their
traditional organisations, beginning with the trade unions and also at
a certain stage the Labour Party.
On the basis of events in society workers transform their old
organisations time and again. There is a dialectical interaction
between events and changes in the outlook of the working class leading
to divisions and radicalisation inside these organisations. In the
future, on the basis of mighty events, this process of radicalisation
will shake the traditional organisations of the working class from top
to bottom. But when? And how do we build our organisation in advance
in readiness for these events?
An understanding of how, why and where the working class moves
provides us with a pointer to when.
Of course it is not possible to predict the exact timing of these
events, any more than one can predict the activity of a volcano with
absolute certainty - there are far too many variables involved. Modern
geologists can make more accurate predictions than ever before. In
human society there are many more imponderable and unknown variables
involved making pinpoint predictions impossible. What we can, and
must, do is see the process taking place in society, in politics, in
the economy, in international relations; the stages through which
events are passing, the likely course they will take, and the
consequences.
This is the science of perspectives - not fortune telling - but seeing
the connections between often apparently unconnected events, their
meaning, their impact on all classes in society, and on the class
struggle, in order to be able to intervene and build. The advantage
Marxism has over all other trends in the labour movement, Leon Trotsky
explained, is the 'superiority of foresight over astonishment.'
Over the last 18 months we explained that events in Britain were
passing a fundamental turning point. The accumulated anger of the
British proletariat has begun to burst through the surface. The
sleeping giant of the British working class has begun to stir. Even
though we are still at a very early stage in this process, already
there have been important consequences inside the trade unions, where
a transformation has begun to take place, with the election of a whole
series of new left leaders. The significance of these elections is
that they illustrate the changing mood of the rank and file of the
unions and of society as a whole.
There can be no doubt now that 2003 marks a turning point in the
Labour Party just as we explained previously 2002 marked a turning
point in the trade unions. Of course, we are only at the beginning of
this process. However whilst we do not exaggerate developments, it
would be tragic if having explained a perspective in relation to the
mass organisations for so long we failed to recognise the process
which has now begun, and failed to draw all the necessary conclusions
for building our tendency.
Before developing these points in more detail it is always necessary
to review our previous perspectives. Not simply to correct this or
that detail, which may have become outdated, superseded or proven
incorrect by the march of events, but to look at the general trends we
described, the broad processes at work in society. Did we analyse
these correctly? Are events moving in the direction we thought likely?
Answering these questions is an important starting point in preparing
ourselves, orienting the tendency to meet the tasks ahead.
This document should therefore be read in conjunction with The New
Situation in Britain and Britain in 2003, as well as other previous
documents. In relation to many detailed points these perspectives have
been largely borne out. In relation to the general process at work in
the economy, in politics, and in the movement of the working class,
they bear out how vital Marxist theory is for workers and youth who
want to struggle to change society. Sudden and sharp changes are
inherent in the present situation. By understanding the process,
sometimes hidden beneath the surface of society, we should not be
blown off course by new developments, but meet them fully prepared.
We make no apologies for repeating once again that Trotsky's Writings
on Britain, particularly his writings on the general strike, on the
trade unions, and Where Is Britain Going? remain required reading for
every comrade. These are living, vibrant ideas with enormous relevance
to British workers today, full of lessons which every thinking worker
should study and absorb. This is a vital element in preparing our
forces for the events that lie in front of us.
At the same time, this document must be read in conjunction with the
new World Perspectives document. It is not possible to understand
events in Britain in isolation from the rest of the world. The word
globalisation has been rammed down our throats in the media for the
last decade. Marxists have long understood that we live in the epoch
of the world market, world relations and world politics. This fact
dominates all our lives. For this reason we also live in the epoch of
world revolution. The struggle of the working class of Britain is
inseparably tied to the struggles of the workers internationally - far
more than in any other epoch.
It is therefore impossible for us to understand the current situation
in Britain or any country outside of the context of world events.
World Background
The world situation continues to be dominated by the imperialist
invasion and occupation of Iraq. Contained within this one act of
imperialist aggression is almost everything we need to know about the
current state of international relations. The mask of the democratic
west has been let slip, and beneath it we see the ugly, rapacious face
of US imperialism and its attempt to achieve world hegemony. We see
too the divisions between the US and the EU, as well as within the EU,
where the capitalist class of each nation has its own interests in the
Middle East as everywhere.
All those institutions carefully constructed in the period following
the second world war to maintain the capitalist system - the UN, NATO,
the G7, the WTO and the IMF - have been exposed, and face serious if
not terminal crisis.
The UN quickly moved to present the occupation of Iraq as legal, in
spite of all their earlier bluster. The US now wants to use the UN as
a bank and a source of civil servants to assist their troubled
occupation of Iraq. All this is a long way from the UN's former image
as a worldwide guardian, and policeman of international relations.
Where it stands in the way of the interests of US imperialism the UN
is simply pushed to one side.
This last development above all demonstrates that we have entered a
new period in world relations. This is not simply the normal cyclical
crisis of capitalism, it is not just a matter of booms and slumps, but
reflects a profound crisis which has at its core the inability of the
social and economic system of capitalism to take society forward, to
play any progressive role on a world scale.
The development of new blocs internationally, illustrated by the
response of different European nations to the war in Iraq, has even
caused some to question the continued significance of the term 'the
west'. Certainly the continued rise of China in the world economy -
and, by sending a rocket into space, militarily - confirms that the
centre of the world is no longer the Mediterranean. The centre of
gravity has shifted across the Atlantic and on to the Pacific.
Economic and diplomatic relations with China will play an increasingly
important role in world affairs in the next period. However, in the
sense that 'the west' generally referred to the interests of the rich
advanced capitalist countries, this remains valid. New blocs of
nations are emerging, but all of them with the intention of defending
their system and the interests of each of the national capitalist
classes involved.
While US imperialism now dominates world events, developments in
Europe still play an important role. The economic, military, social
and political crises unfolding within the EU are important factors in
world perspectives. In the next period the movement of the European
working class will enter as a major element into the equation of world
revolution.
The failure of the EU to ratify a new constitution is another example
of the divisions demonstrated over Iraq, and of further economic and
political divisions which will emerge as the EU attempts to absorb new
member states. They illustrate once more the utopian and reactionary
fantasy of a united Europe on the basis of capitalism. The arrogant
dismissal of the terms of the Growth and Stability pact by both France
and Germany demonstrate the real purpose of the EU, to create a
larger, more open market for exploitation by the main powers, and a
bloc for competing with the rest of the world.
The crisis in international relations is by no means a secondary
matter, but is perhaps the most graphic expression of the general
crisis of capitalism. The development of the productive forces, the
prerequisite for the development of society, is held in restraint by
both the private ownership of the means of production and the division
of the world into competing nation states.
The previous period of relative stability on a world scale - as a
result of the stand off between US imperialism and Stalinist Russia -
has been superseded by a new period of profound instability, in which
the US as the sole superpower is attempting to act as the world's
policeman, as British imperialism did in the past. However, at that
time, a century or two ago, capitalism was on the ascendant. US
imperialism will find this role far more difficult in this new epoch
of crisis, and capitalist decline.
The enfeeblement of capitalism is graphically demonstrated by the
yawning chasm of inequality. The gap between rich and poor on a world
scale grows ever wider. According to the United Nations close to a
billion people around the world now live in slums. There are more than
550 million slum-dwellers in Asia alone, 187 million in Africa, 128
million in Latin America and another 54 million in the world's richest
30 countries. In their report on urban squalor, the UN points the
finger at corrupt and incompetent governments, but draws the
conclusion, albeit couched in florid academic language, that the root
cause is capitalism.
The greatest underlying cause for the growth in slums they explain is
'laissez-faire globalisation'. The tearing down of trade barriers, the
privatisation and deregulation of national economies, the structural
adjustment programmes of the IMF and the lowering of trade barriers
imposed by the WTO, have all served to benefit the rich and the rich
countries at the expense of the poor and the poor nations. This
constitutes plunder, rape and pillage on an unprecedented scale.
Almost half the world's population live, or more accurately survive,
on just $2 a day and tens of millions of children die from easily
preventable illnesses and curable diseases. This, remember, is the
best the capitalist system can offer. It has reached its limits, it
cannot feed, clothe and house the majority of the world's population,
it has become an immense barrier to human progress and must be swept
away.
In order to survive and compete the capitalists in the rich countries
must intensify the exploitation of workers at home, and the workers,
markets and raw materials of the poorer nations. However, in so doing
they not only create 'their own gravediggers' - as Marx put it - in
the shape of the working class in their own countries, but also
provide a spark to light all the flammable material accumulated in the
countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The policies of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO - designed to
benefit the rich capitalist powers at the expense of the rest - are
directly linked to the development of insurrectionary and
revolutionary movements of the working class and the poor masses, for
example in Latin America. Where these institutions attempt to lay down
the law to the US, such as the WTO ruling that US steel tariffs are
illegal, the big powers simply ignore them.
Each and every action adopted by the imperialist powers
internationally serves not to create any new stability, but sooner or
later exacerbates the crisis, adds new elements of instability, and in
turn has a destabilising effect back home.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq is just such a case in point.
Driven by the need to secure the oil production of the Middle East
(Saudi Arabia as well as Iraq), and to stamp their authority on the
masses of the poor countries, US imperialism, with its valet British
imperialism in tow, proceeded to invade Iraq. The invasion itself was
accomplished with comparative ease, but at what cost? Far from
acquiring the mantle of the conquering hero, Bush has failed to win
over the US voters and could yet lose the forthcoming election. The
outcome of that poll is impossible to predict at this stage. The
redrawing of electoral boundaries will no doubt help Bush. However all
kinds of events, in the economy, in Iraq or elsewhere could yet
interfere with his plans.
Occupying Iraq is proving considerably more difficult than invading,
with British and US troops now facing around 50,000 Iraqi insurgents
who want these foreign invaders out of their country. Despite the
quick victory of formal hostilities, the US has discovered that it has
bitten off more than it can chew. Two US soldiers have been dying in
guerrilla fighting each day. This can have a big effect on the morale
of the troops and on public opinion in the US if it continues for any
time. That is most likely given the devastation of Iraq's economy and
infrastructure.
Naturally the Iraqi people, no matter how pleased they may be to see
the back of Saddam, have not welcomed the forces of occupation with
open arms. This was the delusion of Bush and Blair before the war.
However the US and UK troops are not seen as liberators but as an
unwelcome army of occupation. The French revolutionary Robespierre
once explained that people do not usually welcome missionaries who
carry bayonets. What the imperialists had hoped would be seen as some
kind of repetition of the Normandy landings of 1944 is rapidly turning
into the turmoil which followed the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam
in 1964.
The widespread opposition of the Iraqi people towards their invaders
is compounded both by the arrogance and stupidity of the invading
forces, and by their continued failure and inability to restore vital
public services and infrastructure. Many towns remain without
electricity and water. More than half the population is unemployed.
Continued guerrilla conflict means that the forces of occupation will
need to be strengthened. Blair has already committed more troops. He
visited the British forces at Christmas and delivered them a present,
the announcement that they are stuck there until 2006. Bush, whilst
trying to force some assistance out of the UN, will need to do
likewise, and the cost of the occupation will continue to escalate.
Iraq's oil production is sabotaged and remains below pre-war levels.
Economically the drain on US resources is immense as demonstrated by
the accumulation of enormous deficits which threaten to undermine any
new recovery. Politically the divisions within Europe and between the
EU and the US have reached new levels. Far from solving anything for
imperialism the adventure in Iraq has added new elements of
instability to military, diplomatic, political and economic affairs.
US imperialism has indeed become the most powerful force in history.
Yet while it struts arrogantly across the world it continues to pack
ever more dynamite into its own foundations.
On a world scale, more than at any other time in history, this will be
the epoch of imperialist war, civil war, revolution, counter
revolution, and world revolution. The international situation is
dominated by profound instability in every sphere, diplomacy,
international relations, politics and economy. At the core of this
instability is the inability of capitalism to develop the productive
forces in the way they did previously. This does not mean 'reducing
everything to economics'. This would be a terrible distortion of
Marxism. Instead it means recognising that the crises in every field
trace their roots back to the inability of the social and economic
system to take society forward.
At the heart of the present crisis is a classical crisis of
overproduction, not in terms of the needs of the population, but in
terms of the profits of the capitalist class. This is not simply the
normal cyclical crisis - capitalism always experiences booms and
slumps which are inherent to the system - but an organic crisis, where
the entire future of capitalist society is in question. The partial
and temporary overcoming of the contradiction between the expansion of
the productive forces on the one hand and their private ownership
alongside the division of the world into competing nation states,
through the development of world trade, is reaching its limits. Thus
we see the reassertion of the contradictions of capitalism, but now on
a grander scale given the development of the world in the last fifty
years. This has a profound impact on all classes in society, on all
aspects of life, and will have the most dramatic consequences.
World economy
Reports of significant growth in the US economy over recent months
have prompted new claims that a recovery is about to take place in the
world economy. On the one hand this demonstrates the extent to which
the American economy dominates the world market. On the other it must
be stated that most of these reports are at least partly the result of
wishful thinking. At some stage there must be some sort of recovery.
There can be no such thing as a final crisis of capitalism, they can
always get out of even the deepest slumps at the expense of the
working class at home and abroad.
If there is to be a real recovery there will have to be a new growth
in profits and in productive investment which is the real motor force
of any boom. So far the evidence is inconclusive. Total US profits as
measured in the National Accounts rose only 4% in the first quarter of
2003.
Business investment grew by 11 percent last year. Yet a great deal of
this activity was concentrated on acquisitions and mergers, for
example in the tobacco and banking sectors. Despite headline growth of
8.2 percent (this is an annualised figure, the significance of which
we will return to shortly) in the third quarter, unemployment
continued to rise, with 41,000 jobs being destroyed in the same
period.
The current position is summed up by Donald Marron, tipped to become
the next Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. Marron is quoted in
The Sunday Times (02/11/03) as saying that there is $2 trillion in
money market funds earning low rates of interest, but investors are
not yet convinced to invest elsewhere, because they are not yet
convinced of a recovery, 'It is an astonishing position for a country
based on capitalism. People are scared of the market. There are
investors out there who missed out on the recent rally and are waiting
it out for confirmation that this is real. There is a very big
audience right now for what is going to happen next.'
The sickliness of the world economy is shown by the global tendency
towards deflation. In the first two quarters of 2003, the nominal GDP
growth of the G7 nations was only 2% (on an annualised basis). In
reality this growth is only sustained by US consumer spending, which
has been increasing at an annual rate of 3%. The economies of the main
EU countries are either in or on the brink of a recession.
The economies of Asia are dependent on the US market. Exports now
represent 64% of Asia's GDP, as opposed to 55% in the 1990s. The
capitalists of Taiwan, South Korea and China are buying dollars to try
to keep the US currency overvalued and thus boost their exports at the
expense of the USA. The Chinese Yuan is pegged to the dollar, so even
as the dollar has fallen against the Euro and the pound, this has not
affected the cost of trade between China and the US. China needs to
keep their exports artificially cheap in order to maintain their
export-led growth. But this causes severe contradictions with the
capitalists of the USA, who wish to keep imports down and increase
their share of world trade. As a result there has been a sharp rise in
tension, not only between the USA and Europe, but also between Asia
and America.
The whole world is now dependent on the economy of one country - the
USA. In the past this was not the case. Strong economies like Japan
and West Germany acted as engines of growth for the world economy
alongside the USA and could take the strain if America faltered. But
that is no longer possible. Japan has been in recession for a decade
and shows no signs of recovering its former drive. The German economy
is in no better shape, with 4.4 million unemployed. Only the growth of
consumer demand in the USA provides the rest of the world with markets
for its exports.
This highlights a fundamental problem. At present, US imports are 50%
greater than US exports. America is sucking in imports from other
countries, thereby keeping them afloat. As a consequence the US
current account deficit is increasing alarmingly. If it continues to
increase at the present rate it is estimated that it will reach about
$800 billion, or 7% of US GDP by the end of 2004. This would be an
intolerable situation, where the huge amount paid in interest would
drain away the wealth of America.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffet issued a stark warning in The
Sunday Times (02/11/03), 'Our country has been behaving like an
extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order
to consume four percent more than we produce - that's the trade
deficit - we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm
and increasing the mortgage on what we still own. We have entered the
world of negative compounding - goodbye pleasure, hello pain.'
In the next period there will inevitably be a 'correction' through a
devaluation of the dollar. In fact this has already begun, but can go
much further yet with serious consequences for the world economy.
A year ago even the blind optimists of Wall Street were disturbed by
the prospect of war in Iraq. However once 'victory' was declared a new
spending spree saw the US market rise by 25 percent.
What was the cause of this renewed 'confidence'? Was it the prospect
of a real recovery in the economy? In truth it was more of a
confidence trick on the part of the US central bank - the Fed - and
the US government. Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed, announced
yet more interest rate cuts and pumped billions of dollars into the
banking system. Consumers were told to buy now and pay later,
furthermore, you can borrow as much as you like at historically low
levels of interest.
Meanwhile Bush - like his predecessor in the role of cowboy President,
Reagan - dished out tax cuts by direct payment of cheques to
households, as well as launching new military spending and issuing
massive new contracts.
As a result of these measures the stock market recovered and consumer
spending was maintained. Economists began to believe that a real
recovery was underway and predicted growth of around 3 or 4 percent
for the second half of 2003 compared with just 1.5 percent in the
first half. Was this prediction justified? In the second quarter the
economy grew by 2.4 percent, double the rate in the first quarter.
However, these ever hopeful economic gurus overlooked the increase in
defence expenditure which grew by 44 percent during this period,
entirely accounting for the difference in the rate of growth.
The third quarter headline figure of 8.2 percent growth in GDP sounds
impressive, yet this too could be a little deceptive. This is an
annualised figure, i.e. if the economy had grown at the same rate all
year the growth for the whole year would have been 8.2 percent. This
means that the economy actually grew by less than three percent in the
third quarter. The British economy grew by 0.7 percent in the same
period but if this figure was annualised it would be just below three
percent.
Military spending may have had a short term beneficial effect on the
economy, but this cannot last long, indeed it is preparing not a new
recovery but a new crisis. The enormous budget deficit being run up in
the US alongside the burgeoning trade deficit, does not bode well for
the continuation of the consumer spending which props up the economy
at present or industrial investment without which there can be no real
recovery.
The capitalists will not invest in replacing equipment or employing
workers unless profits improve. At the height of the nineties boom the
margin of profit on each unit sold by US companies was an average of
13.5 percent. By September 2001 that had fallen to 7.5 percent. Goods
and services could not be sold, and prices could not be raised
therefore, the only way out was to cut costs. From the time Bush
became President to the present some 3 million Americans have lost
their jobs. The capitalists also stopped investing.
The world market does not allow for an increase in production or in
prices, indeed there is deflation with falling prices in Japan but
also in Europe and in the US itself. Only services and banking have
been able to raise prices. Yet despite all the economic gurus'
delusions manufacturing remains both decisive and decimated.
Latest figures released in the US claim a sharp rise in profits, up by
as much as 30 percent in the last twelve months, and a rise of 18.2
percent in private sector investment. The fragility of the situation
however is demonstrated by the Federal Reserve's decision to maintain
interest rates at the historically low level of one percent. They are
clearly nervous of the impact rate rises would have on both consumer
spending and on investment. At present exports are rising thanks in
part to the fall in the value of the dollar against the Euro and the
pound, making US goods cheaper abroad.
The role of China, which continues to flood the world market with
cheap textiles, toys and electronic equipment driving down prices
everywhere, is a major factor here. The US now has a bigger trade
deficit with China than with any other country, importing in excess of
$100 billion worth of goods more than it exports. Astonishingly the
shelves of Wal-Mart are so bulging with Chinese goods that they
account for ten percent of this burgeoning deficit on their own.
China's economy has been growing much faster than the rest of the
world. According to a new report by Goldman Sachs the Chinese economy
will overtake France this year and Britain in 2005 (in terms of
overall size). This does not mean GDP per person however. The movement
in the direction of capitalism is creating enormous inequalities in
China. The political repercussions of this development will cut across
the accountants straight-line predictions that China will overtake the
US in overall size in 2040.
China already overtook Britain to become the world's fifth biggest
exporter in 2002. In the context of the world economy China has to
some extent played the role that the West once thought that Russia
would play. However China is not only a huge market sucking in imports
from Europe and the rest of Asia, it is also a major competitor for
world markets, as their enormous trade surplus with the US
demonstrates.
The Chinese currency has been pegged to the dollar for the last ten
years. The US demands that they revalue, that the value of the dollar
be allowed to fall, to make American goods cheaper in China and
Chinese goods more expensive in the US. However Beijing cannot
accommodate them because it is terrified of the social and political
effects of unemployment that would follow. There are increasingly
bellicose demands in the US for swingeing tariffs to be imposed on
Chinese goods.
Here we see the clear outlines of future trade and currency wars. What
really worries the strategists of Capital is not a slump, but the
threat of protectionism. The capitalist system will always get out of
even the deepest slump. What really concerns them is the unravelling
of the delicate web of world trade spun in the years following the
second world war. This played a vital role in helping to partially
overcome, for a period, the inherent contradiction caused by the
division of the world into competing nation states. However that
contradiction never went away and now reasserts itself as the world
economy breaks down into rival trading blocs and the WTO, just like
the UN, faces a severe crisis.
This constitutes a profound crisis for world capitalism. Yet within
this crisis there is still a cycle of booms and slumps. There can be
no permanent slump any more than never ending expansion. The position
of the US economy is of vital importance to the world economy as a
whole. While a new recession in the US would be devastating for the
rest of the world, a new recovery will see the US attempting to export
its crisis to its competitors.
The management of the US economy merits a D on its term's report. D
for deflation, for the devaluation of the dollar, and the trade and
current account deficits. Not to mention D for personal and corporate
debt. There is not enough evidence yet to confirm that a real recovery
is underway in the US economy, but there is ample evidence that if
this is the case it will prove to be a weak and unstable affair,
leading to renewed attacks on the working class and a continued
aggressive stance on the world stage.
Clinton was partly right when he said 'it's the economy stupid'. A new
slide into recession would quickly cut the ground from under Bush.
However, it is not just the economy. Each new US casualty in Iraq, and
the death toll is mounting daily, serves to undermine Bush's support.
In these circumstances there is already the beginning of a change in
mood in the US and Bush could face defeat on this question alone.
It is not true to say that it is of no importance who sits in the
White House or in Number Ten. Marxism has never denied the role of the
individual in history. At certain moments this can be decisive. In
general, the particular personalities involved have an impact if not
on the general course of events, at least on their coloration and
tempo.
Nevertheless US imperialism would face the same international
situation, the same need to dominate the world market, to seek out raw
materials and to carve out spheres of influence, no matter who is
President. Therefore the aggressive stance of US imperialism on the
world stage must continue. The removal of Bush might change this or
that feature but it cannot solve anything. The needs of US capitalism
at home and abroad requires an aggressive policy, towards the American
working class and the masses internationally. By their actions they
are creating their own gravediggers, preparing a new more unstable
situation around the world, and within the belly of the beast itself.
Britain
The war in Iraq has had a profound impact on events in Britain. It
would be impossible to examine the present state of British politics
without starting by mentioning the magnificent anti-war protests of
2003. A demonstration of two million people on the streets of London
last February was without precedent. By the end of the year history
was being made again with over 200,000 demonstrating against George
Bush's visit.
While Blair and Bush prattled on about the people's right to
demonstrate in a democracy, the raised voices of the people were
studiously ignored by the leader of the 'free' world and his sidekick
while they enjoyed the pomp and ceremony of a state visit.
Events in society - and not just economic developments, but political,
social and international events - must inevitably find an expression
inside the Labour Party at a certain stage. In the last few months we
have witnessed the decision of several key union leaders to form a new
Labour Representation Committee, to organise reclaiming Labour from
the Blairite hijackers. This was followed in December by the creation
of a new 'moderate' left within the Parliamentary Labour Party. The
New Wave, as the 15 'mainstream' MPs call themselves, demand an end to
"neo-colonial adventures", curbs on the Government's plans to impose
market forces on public services, and closer links between Labour and
the trade unions.
The formation of this trend, following Blair's narrow victory on
foundation hospitals - the government's 161 majority was cut to just
17 in the vote in the Commons - a policy democratically defeated at
Labour's conference just a couple of months before, is another nail in
Blair's coffin. This may not represent a massive shift to the left
amongst Labour MPs nor yet a challenge to Blair's leadership. It did
lead directly on to the rebellion against student top-up fees. Anyone
who dismisses this development is blind to the process taking place
within society and within the workers' organisations, including -
albeit at an early stage - inside the Labour Party.
The emergence of new left groupings inside Labour is a taste of things
to come. This process reflects on the one hand the fear of a number of
MPs that they might lose their seats at the next election if
disillusionment continues to rise and, inversely, turnout falls. It is
also a reflection of the changes taking place in the outlook of the
working class and society as a whole.
The war in Iraq led to the first splits in Blair's cabinet with the
resignation of Cook and Short. There were other surprise repercussions
too. Often unexpected events like the death of Dr. Kelly can play a
key role in politics. Despite all their best efforts at spin, Blair
has been seriously damaged by the widespread belief that Britain was
led to war on the basis of lies and deceit and that a cover up extends
to the very top of the government. New Labour was meant to be all
about image and presentation. Blair was the holier than thou figure of
the pious vicar. Now he and his entourage have been exposed as liars.
As a consequence, public confidence, expressed in poll after poll, has
plummeted.
According to an ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll 67 percent of people
believed the government lied to them about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. A YouGov/Daily Telegraph poll found only 22 percent
viewed the government as 'honest and trustworthy' down from 56 percent
in 2001. A Time/CNN poll found that only 6 percent believed the
government is a more reliable and honest source of information than
the BBC.
While we suggested a year ago that Blair could lose the next election
- though that was not the most likely scenario - no-one else shared
that view. Now it is a commonplace. The main threat to Labour's third
term comes not from the Tories in themselves but from widespread
disillusionment which would inevitably see the turnout at the next
election fall once again. At least that would be the case if Blair
were still Labour leader at that time. That is not guaranteed.
Blair's complete exoneration by Lord Hutton came as no surprise to
anyone, but the extent by which every government figure was found to
be guilt-free, whilst all criticism was heaped upon Dr.Kelly and above
all the BBC has only served to confirm the general suspicion that
Hutton was a whitewash. The end result has been the opposite of what
was intended, and Blair is now even more widely perceived to be a
liar. And this is only the beginning of Blair's trials and
tribulations in 2004.
All this as a result of imperialist war, i.e. foreign policy, which is
only an extension of the capitalist policy being pursued at home. Just
as Blair and co are desperate to prove themselves worthy of the bosses
in the city of London by carrying out their wishes to the letter, so
in the international arena they are keen to prostrate themselves
before US imperialism. In other words, as a result of politics and
international relations, Blair is in deep trouble. Marxists must study
these questions, and not just economic or industrial developments, if
we are to understand the processes unfolding in society. In advance of
an economic crisis which still looms and in advance of a further
conflict with the unions - which likewise cannot be avoided - in
reality Blair is already doomed.
He staked his premiership on the introduction of GBP3000 top-up fees
for university students. The promised backbench revolt spread almost
to the frontbench with 136 MPs threatening to vote against at one
stage. If more than 82 Labour MPs had rebelled this would have been
Blair's first parliamentary defeat. This could even have forced his
resignation. After much backtracking and many 'promises' being made to
Labour backbenchers, Blair secured what the press described as a
humiliating victory, winning by a majority of just five votes. Blair's
control over the Parliamentary Labour Party is clearly breaking.
British economy
According to the survey quoted earlier in relation to China, Britain
is on course to overtake Germany as the biggest economy in Europe.
This is yet another warning against basing oneself on bald statistics.
Whilst it is important to study such economic articles, their claims
should not simply be taken as fact. Often they are tendentious,
defending a particular policy. They are frequently based on not a
little wishful thinking. Worst of all they are invariably the product
of an empirical method. In this case a straight line extrapolation of
the British economy continuing to grow at the same rate indefinitely.
Such forecasts do not allow for housing crashes, recessions or
political events which can also have a major impact on the economy.
Statistics are important but their meaning must be understood if they
are to teach us anything. For example, according to many economists
the British economy is enjoying its longest period of uninterrupted
growth since 1870. However, hidden behind this fact is the reality of
a mountain of credit and overvalued houses which has propped up
consumer spending, and which in turn has seen a massive growth in the
service sector of the economy. This is both unsound and unsustainable.
Manufacturing's contribution to the economy is now little more than 18
percent while services contribute 70 percent. Manufacturing employment
has fallen below 3.5 million for the first time.
Nevertheless manufacturing industry remains decisive for the economy,
despite the shortsighted approach of British capital. It represents 62
percent of all returns on exports. It is not possible for the economy
to survive on the basis of services alone. This was the delusion of
Thatcher and co, which has been continued under Blair and Brown.
Surplus value is created in industry. Capitalism is above all the
production of commodities. Services are parasitic by nature. They
consume surplus value. There has to be manufacturing to create the
wealth to spend on services.
The International Monetary Fund has cut its assessment of UK growth
and expressed serious concerns about Britain's inflation-prone housing
market. These geniuses believe that the Bank of England should raise
interest rates further in order to rein in house price inflation! The
consequence of such a policy will be, at some stage, to devastate
consumer spending which has been keeping the economy afloat for a
period of years, because that spending is entirely reliant on credit.
In 2004, the IMF anticipates that Brown will miss his growth target by
a wide margin. The chancellor said in the Budget last year that the UK
would grow by 3%-3.5% in 2004, but the IMF has now cut its previous
forecast of 2.5% to 2.3%. However, having recently changed the way GDP
is measured, adopting the 'chainlinking' method which updates the
weight given to different sectors of the economy - i.e. if
manufacturing declines and services grow the weight given to services
in the GDP figure increases - voila, hey presto, the economy is 'back
on course'. It seems that creative accounting - or cooking the books -
is not the sole prerogative of Enron or Parmalat, but is a policy to
be applied by governments too. Incidentally, in the past the official
statistics prepared by the British government were amongst the most
accurate in the world, now they are reduced to fiddling the figures
not only to cover up unemployment, but even in relation to the
fundamentals of the economy.
With growth in reality falling short of government projections, and
expenditure rising, to maintain even their meagre spending plans would
require a rise in taxation or borrowing. Otherwise those spending
plans will need to be severely cut. In all likelihood we will see the
worst of all worlds for the working class with cuts in spending and
increases in borrowing and taxes, all of which we will have to pay
for.
In his last budget Brown announced an increase in public borrowing to
GBP37 billion in 2003-04, and GBP31 billion in 2004-05. The so-called
golden rule 'that over the economic cycle the government only borrows
to invest, and not for current spending' is now under threat.
According to some economists, the Treasury needs to raise an extra
GBP10 billion in taxes to plug the gap. They may increase VAT, but
will undoubtedly try to postpone any major tax rises until after the
next election.
Recession in Europe and the enormous deficit in the US with no
significant recovery in the long running saga of Japan means there is
no saviour for British capital on the world market.
Industrial investment hits record low
A record slump in manufacturing investment has exposed the CBI's
claims of seeing the now mythical 'green shoots of recovery'. Like
Bill Murray in the film Groundhog Day, no matter how hard they try to
see the shadow of the groundhog proclaiming the arrival of spring,
they will wake tomorrow to find the same frosty conditions as today.
Brown's spending plans, announced in the last budget, are dependent on
his unrealistic economic forecasts - which in turn were based on an
upturn in the world economy which has stubbornly failed to materialise
so far. Like the IMF, the CBI has cut its growth projections and
official figures showed that manufacturing firms cut investment by
10.1% in the second quarter of last year - which was the sharpest
reduction
since records began in 1994. While the headlines of the economic pages
heralded strong growth in the third quarter of 2003 in the US economy,
buried on the inside pages were the figures showing a still greater
fall in British manufacturing investment in the same period, a 15.1
percent fall to use the annualised figure now in fashion.
"These figures are another nail in the coffin of the chancellor's
growth forecasts," said Steve Radley, chief economist at the
Engineering Employers' Federation (EEF).
Official figures show that export orders and output were still
deteriorating in August. Firms producing goods for the consumer
market - such as food and drink and pharmaceuticals - were more
successful than those making capital goods, which have suffered from
the continued decline in investment.
Even without a rise in interest rates most economists expect consumers
to rein in their spending in 2004 as falls in real income growth bite.
The Treasury claims that industry will then take over as the engine of
economic growth. This is wishful thinking. The sharp decline in
business investment proves this. Total business investment fell by
1.1% in the second quarter and by 3.5% on the same period last year,
according to the Office for National Statistics. Figures just released
for the third quarter show a five percent fall in investment over the
previous twelve months.
The CBI said rising business costs, uncertainty about the economic
outlook and the need to top up pension contributions had all
contributed to businesses' decisions to leave investment plans on
hold. The failure of Britain's capitalists to invest in new machinery,
updating, research and skills mean that while there is no sign of the
international recovery they all claim to be waiting for, when it does
come - and there will inevitably be some recovery in the world market
eventually - British industry will be in no position to take advantage
of it.
In other words the long term decline of British manufacturing would
not be magically turned around by any new recovery in the
international market, the rate of that decline might be slowed, but
relative to her rivals, British industry would continue its historic
descent. In the words of the CBI's chief economic adviser, "I do think
that does pose a serious risk of leaving us at a disadvantage in terms
of benefiting from a pick-up in global activity when it comes,"
There is no evidence of the much trumpeted rebalancing away from
consumption and into production. Retail sales fell far, far less in
July than they rose in June. John Lewis were among the retailers who
warned that consumer spending was beginning to fall rapidly in October
and November, but then Christmas shopping and the unusually early
start to the sales masked this decline. More disturbing still,
according to economists, people are compensating for slower real
income growth by borrowing still more.
Despite the newspaper headlines about a recovery in manufacturing the
figures prove otherwise. Output, according to the CBI, is still
falling, and companies are cutting prices in order to stay in
business. All that is happening at present is that order books are
declining less rapidly than previously.
Decisively, there is no sign of a recovery in investment. Above all it
has been British capitalism's failure to invest in the productive
sectors of the economy, their concentration on speculation, asset
stripping and services over years which has resulted in the terminal
decline of British industry. The high value of the pound relative to
the dollar - which has fallen in value by six percent relative to
sterling in the last twelve months - contributes to manufacturing's
difficulties making British goods more expensive abroad.
Not to be outdone by the CBI, the Engineers' Employers' Federation
predicted a new upturn in their 2003 report too. Or, at least, that is
what it said in the headlines. However, further on we read that it is
too early to speak of a full-scale recovery and, unlike in previous
recessions, manufacturing investment was still being scaled back after
a 40% cut in the past five years.
It also indicated that the engineering sector, which has been shedding
jobs at the rate of 10,000 a month, would continue to lay off staff.
It was expecting 68,500 job cuts in 2003, compared with 104,000 in
2002. This is hardly a convincing description of a recovery.
Steve Radley, EEF chief economist, said: "We face the best growth in
engineering and manufacturing for four years but we cannot be that
confident about recovery in the world economy yet." His forecasts
suggest engineering will grow by 1.7% in 2004 and 2.7% in 2005.
After a 0.1% shrinkage in 2003, manufacturing as a whole is expected
to expand by 1.5% this year and 1.8% in 2005. This follows the slump
which began in 2001 and reached its trough in 2002 when engineering
shrank by 9%. In other words even growth along the over optimistic
lines they predict will not begin to repair the damage done in the
previous period.
"The most critical factor affecting confidence over the coming months
will be the state of the European economy," Mr Radley said. "It's
absolutely critical that we see a resumption of growth."
In 1983 and 1993, Radley pointed out, the shifts out of recession had
swiftly prompted a recovery in investment but, while fewer companies
are planning cuts for the first time in two and a half years, less
than a fifth are anticipating increases and 30% are still cutting
back. "One of the biggest constraints on investment is uncertainty and
concerns about the strength of the global recovery," Radley added.
Manufacturing in general and engineering in particular has been
hammered so much over the last couple of years that what is being
touted as an improvement is simply a decline in the rate of
destruction. The best that can be said about investment spending is
that fewer companies are planning cutbacks.
A recovery would require investment. The capitalists will not invest
however, unless they can see a market where they could sell their
goods. There is no evidence of an improvement in the home market for
those goods, and exports depend upon a recovery in the world market.
The chorus of manufacturers calling for interest rates to be cut
further to help them export was ignored by the Bank of England,
because of the unprecedented levels of indebtedness and the continued
gravity defying housing market.
A recovery is inevitable at some stage of course. There can be no
final crisis of capitalism. However the recovery now trumpeted in the
media offers little respite to the working class. If despite interest
rate rises there is some investment in British manufacturing it will
no doubt follow the example of Corus who have announced plans to
invest millions on the basis of cutting thousands of jobs. Their plan
is to invest on the basis of cutting costs by GBP680 million. That
means cutting the workforce to 49,000 in total in order to increase
pre-tax earnings by GBP210 million a year.
The British economy is so reliant on the world market that any new
crisis in the US would have a deep impact here. At the same time the
consumer debt spiral and the continuing house price rises constitute
the build-up of a colossal amount of magma ready to erupt and sink any
new recovery even as it were to get underway.
The Two Towers - House Prices and Credit
House prices are still rising across Britain, although there has been
a certain slowdown in London and the south east. Figures released by
the Land Registry in November 2003 showed that house prices have risen
by 10.62 percent in the last twelve months in England and Wales. The
average house price according to their figures now stands at
GBP161,665. Wales, the east Midlands, and the north saw prices rise by
over 20 percent. In Greater London the average house price topped a
quarter of a million pounds at the end of 2003, and stands at
GBP262,044.
Martin Ellis, a mortgage bank chief economist, said the housing market
had bounced back strongly after what he called a "lull" between
February and May 2003, when the run-up to war in Iraq dented
confidence.
That confidence actually translated as historically low interest
rates. Until now that is. Cheap borrowing costs have helped stave off
a sharp slowdown in the housing market despite weak growth in real
incomes and surging household debt.
The housing bubble has not burst yet, but burst it will. In January
2003 we wrote, 'But there is still one bubble left in UK capitalism -
the property market. While UK industry stagnates and the financial
sector cuts its throat, house prices go on rising at a 30% rate. This
cannot last. And while it does, in the words of the deputy governor of
the Bank of England, Mervyn King, it is causing 'major imbalances' in
the economy.
Sir Eddie George, the governor of the Bank of England, has confirmed
that the fear of stoking the boom was one reason why they had held
back from lowering borrowing costs. "The risk of cutting interest
rates now is if it would exacerbate larger risks further down the
road... of a larger shock later on," he said.'
Mervyn King took over as governor, and The Bank of England proceeded
to cut interest rates again. This had the temporary effect of
forestalling a fall in house prices, and the number of new mortgages,
but it only postpones the inevitable, as they themselves explained.
They are like heroin addicts who despite knowing the dangers of the
next fix nevertheless cannot help themselves.
Nationally, the average home is now worth 4.75 times the average
income - close to the peak of 5 times in the housing bubble of the
late-1980s. In London the figure is much higher.
"Looking at the fundamentals, it is hard to feel relaxed about the
ongoing boom in property prices and the ever-increasing house
price-to-income ratio," said Alan Castle, of Lehman Brothers. "The
longer the boom continues, the more chance there is of an unpleasant
correction."
Now interest rates are on the rise again. We warned in September that
mounting consumer debt was raising the spectre of inflation - despite
the almost permanent sales in the shops demonstrating a greater
tendency towards deflation - and that the first signs of increased
economic activity, in this case an expansion of the service sector,
and a fall in unemployment, would lead to interest rate rises to try
to rein in borrowing.
'Indeed, claims that there is a recovery in industry would only
encourage those that argue for an increase in interest rates. Such a
policy would undermine any investment - if there was any to undermine
- while pulling the rug from under house prices and credit, in other
words consumer spending.'
More interest rate rises are on the cards in 2004. This is the
prescription of the IMF and co. It will prove a bitter pill to
swallow. They should have read the manufacturers' advice more
carefully. Further rises can serve to keep the value of the pound high
making it more difficult to export, undermining any intention to
increase investment in manufacturing. Steve Radley of the Engineers'
Employers' Federation again warned 'Manufacturers will hope that this
is not the beginning of a trend of increases which could force the
patient into relapse.'
So desperate are the mortgage lenders to prop up their house of cards
in the face of more rate rises that they are now advising people to
lie about their incomes to enable them to borrow more than they can
afford. Undercover reporters for the BBC's Money Programme approached
ten estate agents in London claiming to earn GBP30,000 with GBP35,000
in savings for a deposit. Nine out of ten mortgage brokers at the
estate agents advised them to apply for self-certification mortgages
and lie about their incomes. In Manchester three out of seven offered
the same advice. One adviser even boasted that he had helped someone
with an income in the low GBP30,000s to borrow GBP340,000. A loan of
that size should have required an income of GBP104,000. Over-borrowing
on this scale leaves people highly vulnerable to both negative equity,
following any fall in prices, and unrepayable loans
The first rate rise of 0.25 percent in November 2003 will already have
cost average mortgage payers around GBP20 per month. A typical
GBP80,000 repayment mortgage has increased by GBP16 per month, while a
GBP120,000 borrower with an interest only loan has seen their monthly
payment rise by GBP35. Another three or four rises of the same
magnitude in 2004, which is entirely likely, will hit households by
between GBP100 and GBP200 per month. The impact on consumer spending
is self-evident.
The Bank of England has again declared that the pace of consumer
borrowing - which funds that spending - is unsustainable. Households
took advantage of the lowest interest rates since 1955 to run up a
record GBP10bn more debt in June, and GBP9.9 billion in July, up 14%
in twelve months. Households were sitting on total debts of GBP888
billion, or 124% of annual disposable income, in November 2003. Normal
heavy Christmas expenditure, compounded by the desperate early start
to the sales in December, will now see that figure approaching one
trillion pounds, equivalent to the size of the entire British economy.
Accountants KPMG said a quarter of the consumers it surveyed admitted
to borrowing more simply to "make ends meet" by paying basic living
costs such as household bills. "Net pay is falling in relative terms,
partly due to the increase in national insurance contributions, and
people are opting for credit and loans to top up their incomes," said
KPMG's Carolyn Steppler.
There are now 1,500 different credit cards available in Britain.
Credit card lending has doubled in just four years. The 'buy now pay
later' approach rammed down our throats from TV commercials, newspaper
adverts, and billboards, combined with the claim that the economy is
sound, boom and bust has been cured and so on, has resulted in debt
becoming more widespread than ever before. Even before interest rate
rises start to bite this has resulted in mounting bad debt problems.
A report published by the Leeds Business School claims that the amount
of debt being chased by bailiffs has soared by 70 percent to a record
GBP5 billion. The typical household in bad debt now owes GBP25,000
spread across an average of 15 different lenders compared to GBP10,000
just three years ago. A staggering total of 20 million cases of bad
debt (affecting an undisclosed number of individuals) have been passed
to collection agencies in the last year. Short of bad debt, borrowers
are behind by two months on debt payments totalling GBP60 billion,
that is more than GBP2000 for every household in the country.
Capitalism is very democratic when it comes to debt, everyone, no
matter how poor, is able to get up to and over their necks in credit.
New 'doorstep lending' companies have sprung up and spread like a
virus. These companies typically charge rates of over 100 or even 150
percent, quickly trapping the poorest sections of the community into
debts they can never repay.
On average British households owe 124 percent of their incomes. But
averages can be deceptive. Those with an annual income of less than
GBP11,500 owe 430 percent of their income, up from 330 percent in
1995. Those earning more than GBP50,000 meanwhile have seen their
debts increase from 104 percent of their incomes in 1995 to 107
percent today.
Inequality in income, assets and debts has spiralled under the Blair
government. In 1976 the richest 50 percent of the population owned 88
percent of non-housing wealth. Today they own 99 percent, meaning
conversely that the poorest 50 percent own just one percent of the
wealth between them.
There are in fact two housing crises in Britain. The second is the
lack of affordable housing to buy or to rent. Despite the Thatcherite
myth of the property owning democracy perpetuated by Blair and co, the
number of households who can afford to buy their own homes has fallen
by 10 percent over the last 20 years. From the end of the second world
war to the 1970s more than a quarter of a million houses were built
each year. Council house building has virtually disappeared and the
number of 'affordable homes' (to use the government's phrase) built
last year was just 24,000.
Since Blair came to power the British economy has coughed and
spluttered along with a growth rate of around two percent per year.
However, in the same period household spending has grown by four
percent per year. While industry remains in the doldrums and
manufacturing investment continues to fall, the economy is being kept
afloat by credit cards and unsustainable house price inflation.
Despite Brown's constant claims of prudence - in reality the
unwillingness of a Labour government wedded to the market to invest in
public services - he has in reality presided over record breaking high
street borrowing and personal indebtedness. British household
liabilities exceed incomes by one third. That is a record. The KPMG
survey claims that many people have no idea what interest rates they
are paying on their loans or credit cards. More than a third - 36% -
had only a rough idea how much interest they were paying. While
interest rates remain low and repayments likewise it doesn't matter.
However interest rates only have to rise a fraction to plunge many
into misery. Average credit card debt now stands at GBP1100 per head,
double the figure just five years ago. Total consumer debt excluding
mortgages now stands at GBP3400 for every adult in Britain, GBP1150
more than in 1998.
Government debt is also burgeoning with the public sector owing 50
percent more than it is worth. The Treasury's own forecast predicts
net government borrowing of GBP100 billion between 2003 and 2006.
For all the wishful thinking of those at the EEF who imagine they can
see the green shoots of recovery, ignoring the figures they quote
themselves, investment will not recover until profitability does.
Given the weakness of the world market, Japan, Europe and the US it is
hard to see that happening for some time yet.
The house price/credit card economy cannot continue indefinitely.
There is always a morning after the night before and this time will be
no different. As David Walker argues in The Guardian, 'People think
they can easily work off their debts - by doing overtime, winning
promotion or getting a new job. But that's to make a heroic assumption
about economic conditions. Orgies do not go on forever. The economic
cycle has not been abolished; unemployment will start growing again -
history is littered with gurus who proclaimed its end.'
On the one hand the fate of the British economy is more than ever tied
to the world market. Continued recession in Europe and the fall of the
dollar limit the growth of exports, constrained anyway by the
decimation of manufacturing and the long term failure of British
capital to invest.
On the other hand the British economy is precariously poised like a
house of cards where each new interest rate rise adds another card to
the teetering edifice of consumer debt and overvalued houses.
Whether the economy continues to grow or sinks into a new recession is
of course not unimportant. But in either case there will be no let up
in the attacks on workers jobs and conditions. The working class will
not benefit by boom, in the way they did to some extent in the past,
and will be hit still harder by a new recession. The key feature of
the present period is instability and uncertainty. This has a profound
impact on the outlook of the working class, and indeed of all classes
in society, beginning with the ruling class, which is divided over how
best to proceed.
Ruling class
The British ruling class was once famous for seeing its future spread
out before it for centuries. Over the past hundred years however,
along with the diminishing role of Britain on the world stage -
economically, politically and militarily - each new generation has
seen that horizon creep nearer and nearer. Today the British
bourgeoisie is a short-sighted and ignorant class desperately
scrambling around for the means to ensure it keeps its nose in the
trough.
Just one example of the philistine nature of our current rulers is
provided by the television show Restoration. Here, with an eye to the
popularity of Big Brother and Pop Idol, the more cultured BBC2 gave
viewers the opportunity to vote by phone on which one of three
historic buildings to save and restore. At one time, a century and
more ago, the ruling class used to spend their own money on such
projects with an eye on history, heritage and culture. Today's
parvenus have no such long view. Not only are they not prepared to
protect art and culture, except as a hedge investment, they are even
undermining the very infrastructure of the country and the economy in
the pursuit of a quick profit. They have no confidence in the long
term survival of their system.
For example, the failure to repair and replace a sewage and water
supply system laid down in Victorian times, combined with the fast
buck mentality which led many of Britain's reservoirs to be sold off
as prime real estate, then converted into car parks, leads to the
obscenity of water shortages in a country where rain is hardly a
rarity.
A doom-laden report by the Institution of Civil Engineers, a much
respected 200 year old body, claims that Britain could face serious
power cuts regularly by the year 2020. By then 80 percent of the gas
used to fuel Britain's power stations and domestic central heating
will have to be piped in 'from politically unstable countries
thousands of miles away.'
Vulnerability to events in the countries through which the gas
pipeline runs (Algeria, Russia and Iran) is compounded by Britain's
lack of gas storage space for a strategic reserve. While Germany and
France maintain an emergency reserve of 70 days of gas, Britain has
less than 48 hours capacity.
The ICE's report concludes 'A return to the blackouts that marked the
three-day week and the country grinding to a halt are very real
possibilities in less than twenty years time.' This is no mere
scaremongering. Simon Skilling, head of UK strategy at electricity
generator Powergen, admitted, 'It is feasible that by 2020 the lights
could go out.'
When this report was published it gained little attention in the
media. Short term, fast buck, asset stripping means we didn't have to
wait 17 years to find out just what an appalling state Britain's
infrastructure is now in.
The astonishing sight of a quarter of a million people having to be
evacuated from the London Underground on September 2, 2003, traffic
lights out and trains stopped short in mid journey with passengers
being led to safety along railway lines by workers carrying torches is
perhaps the most graphic example of the descent of Britain. These are
scenes one might expect to see in Nigeria or India, not a so-called
advanced western economy which claims to be the fourth richest in the
world.
Professor Ian Fells, an adviser to the World Energy Council said the
London power cut 'proves that the system is frail and needs more
investment. Since we privatised our electricity companies it's become
extremely difficult to get investment in the infrastructure.' He added
that extra funding was urgently needed before an even bigger blackout
became inevitable. 'I predicted that this might happen in winter but
not in the middle of summer. The fact that this could happen now is a
very bad sign for the industry. It should act as a warning. If we
don't heed these warnings we could slide down to become a third world
country. The policy is to leave energy to the free market but it needs
political incentive. The industry is there for profit. If they get
away with power cuts like this they will never improve the system.'
Just as the catastrophe of railway privatisation has made the idea of
nationalisation widely popular for transport, no doubt power cuts like
this will lead to widespread calls for public ownership of energy. At
the same time each new disaster of this kind makes the idea of
privatisation in general more and more unpalatable, preparing major
battles against Blair's attempts to extend privateering into public
services.
It is events which transform the outlook of the working class, and
indeed all classes. By events we do not just mean strikes,
demonstrations or economic crises. War, for example, is a decisive
event affecting the outlook of society. So too sometimes are
'accidents' like the death of Dr. Kelly. Power cuts like the one that
gripped London on September 2, 2003 can also have a dramatic effect.
On the day when every newspaper should have carried headlines about
the massive power failure caused by privatisation, the king of spin
managed to grab the headlines for himself, by resigning. It was widely
known that Alastair Campbell was going anyway and has his memoirs
ready for publication when he runs short of cash. One cannot help
thinking the timing might have something to with what his old friend
Jo Moore called a good way to bury bad news. No doubt his main concern
was exoneration by the Hutton inquiry from the charges of rewriting
the dossier which was used as an excuse for British troops being sent
to war in Iraq.
Very few people had ever believed the claims of Bush and Blair about
Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Given the level of
opposition to war in Britain, Blair and co found it necessary to push
the boat out a little further and claim that those weapons could be
used in 45 minutes flat. Iraq therefore represented a clear and
present danger. This was never very convincing, and with each passing
day that these mysterious weapons were not found the opinion that
Blair and co were liars spread.
Nevertheless, they might have got away with it if it were not for
their obsession with spin and the silencing of criticism. Their
shameful bullying of the BBC and above all of weapons expert Dr. David
Kelly has only served to create a new crisis, and bring the whole
question into sharp focus. Ironically, Dr. Kelly supported war with
Iraq, but it seems that because he was not happy with having to
distort intelligence documents for propaganda purposes he was hounded
to the very edge of reason, and beyond to take his own life. The
impact of his death has been one of shock and awe. It resulted in the
Hutton inquiry, which in turn resulted in startling revelations, each
more shocking than the last, exposing Blair and his coterie of
advisers as a veritable nest of vipers. Yet none of these revelations
would be allowed to impact upon the outcome of the inquiry. No such
investigation has ever condemned a government, but few have produced a
whitewash so blatant as to fool no-one.
Hutton, The State and Bourgeois Democracy
The lies and falsifications exposed by Hutton represent a severe
crisis for Blair, the most serious he has faced to date. Several
careers are on the line. Campbell has already gone. Hoon, the
Secretary of State for Defence, has managed to cling on for now.
Ultimately even Blair himself may have to pay with his job.
Some journalists have written that this is all a diversion. The Hutton
inquiry only served to draw attention away from the lies that led
Britain into war. This is the usual purpose of an inquiry of this
kind, to act as a distraction, to give the impression that the matter
is being dealt with, to exonerate those at the top and scapegoat
others. While this is undoubtedly the formal purpose of the Hutton
inquiry, the repercussions are far more important. To dismiss it as a
mere episode is to completely fail to understand the role such
accidents as this play in politics. What these people fail to
comprehend as they pore over the meaning of each word spoken and each
sigh uttered is that not much of this detail means anything. It is
they who are being distracted. Meanwhile, for the majority, all that
matters is the smell of corruption, someone is lying, someone is
covering up and Blair is in it up to his neck. The whitewash has only
served to confirm this perception.
It is almost unprecedented that a Prime Minister be dragged before
such an inquiry to account for his actions. The only previous example
was the Scott inquiry when Tory Prime Minister John Major was forced
to answer questions about, ironically, Britain's sale of arms to Iraq.
In a poll conducted by YouGov following Blair's appearance before
Hutton, more people thought he should resign than not. Their survey
published on September 7, 2003, found that 43 percent believe he
should go, compared to 42 percent who say he should stay and 15
percent who remain undecided. Six percent more thought he should
resign following his evidence to the inquiry than before. His attempts
to distance himself from the lies of the dossier and for
responsibility for the treatment of Dr. Kelly failed utterly. 82
percent blame Hoon and the Ministry of Defence, but at the same time,
79 percent blame Blair and Number Ten.
Following the publication of Hutton the number who believe Blair
should go immediately increased, as did the number who believe the
government lied. In the same poll, the consequence of the whitewash
was that the Tories overtook Labour by two percent.
When we said that this affair could cost Blair his job we did not mean
he would be forced to resign by the findings of the inquiry. That was
never likely. Instead, the real judgement will be delivered by the
labour movement and by the electorate. The importance of political
crises like the one surrounding the Hutton whitewash must not be
underestimated.
The shine has well and truly worn off Blair. An election is due in a
little over a year. If it were any further away Blair would no doubt
face a challenge from within. Cook and others are waiting in the
wings. They may yet challenge for the leadership. At this moment it
seems more likely that they would wait until after the next election.
A Labour win with a reduced majority would soon prompt a challenge.
Defeat, which is now a serious possibility, if not the most likely
outcome, would see the knives out everywhere. All the conditions which
laid the basis for Blair and so-called Blairism are being transformed
into their opposite.
All this is very unfortunate for the ruling class. Blair is their man,
but they would not be that bothered if all that was at stake here was
the career of one or two politicians. More worrying for them, the veil
has been partially lifted on the workings of the British state,
releasing a stench of corruption and intrigue in the corridors of
power. It is important for the ruling class to maintain the myth that
what democracy means is the rule of the will of the majority. In
reality under capitalism ultimately it is the banks and the monopolies
who decide. Blair and co do their bidding in the interests of their
system, with little concern for the desires and aspirations of the
majority.
It was certainly not the will of the people to go to war. To sway
public opinion Blair and co resorted to lying, falsifying documents
and persecuting a scientist so maniacally that they drove him to
suicide. They partially and temporarily succeeded in their aim. At the
outbreak of war, opposition became somewhat muted. However, their
propaganda success has been short-lived. The scenes of bullying and
clumsy intimidation of the press and of Dr. Kelly has stunned and
shocked the nation. This is not what they intended by a policy of
'shock and awe'.
This whole affair tells us a great deal about the sham of bourgeois
democracy and the facade of parliamentary rule. We devoted a great
deal of space in The New Situation in Britain to the monarchy, the
crisis gripping the ruling class and the constitution. Likewise the
current scandal is of enormous importance and should not be passed
over as a mere detail or episode.
We have commented previously on the anti-democratic behaviour of Blair
and co. The dependence of the Blair government on an unelected coterie
of spin doctors and special advisers has been further exposed by the
revelations of the Hutton inquiry.
The Guardian was quite right in commenting 'this episode casts light
on something larger than one administration or several careers. It
exposes the way we are governed. In other words, it should not
surprise us that things keep going wrong, whether it is arms to Iraq,
BSE, foot and mouth, or now this. The machine is broken. The centre of
government has become too powerful, the rest of the body politic has
grown too weak and the latter has no ability to hold the former in
check. Sacking the driver might feel therapeutic, but we need to do
more than that: we need to change the machine.'
Indeed it is the entire system which needs to be replaced. However,
The Guardian has in mind changing the machinery of parliament to make
it work better, changing the majorities on select committees etc, in
other words, reforming the machinery of government to make it more
democratic. What they fail to grasp is that the machinery of
government is constructed and reformed in the image required by the
rule of capital. They dream of a fair, open, democratic state resting
on the present economic system. This is utterly utopian.
Marxists do not have any illusions in bourgeois parliaments. Bourgeois
democracy is extremely restricted. In reality, all the important
decisions are taken by the monopolies and the banks. We do, however,
defend those democratic rights and conditions which have been
conquered in struggle by the working class. It stands to reason that
democracy, however restricted, is a better system for the working
class to develop its organisations and struggles within than open
dictatorship. In the present epoch those democratic rights that have
been won by the working class are constantly in danger. Democratic
rights, including the rights and powers of parliaments, are being
undermined because they do not coincide with the needs of the
capitalists. This process began under the Tories with their attacks on
trade union rights, and civil liberties in general.
In addition Blair and co have been systematically undermining those
democratic rights, desperate to prove their willingness and their
ability to run affairs in the interests of the bosses. Behind the
cover of the threat of terrorism Blair is promoting a new Identity
Card scheme. At the same time they have announced plans to establish a
British version of the FBI, a secret police designed to weed out
opposition to the state. The repercussions for the workers' movement
are self evident.
Ultimately the state in capitalist society can be reduced to armed
bodies of men in defence of private property, as Engels explained. The
proposed reforms to the army and the police as well as the other
appendages of the state have to be seen in this context. Yet at the
same time the crises within even the army - hit by expenditure cuts
and low morale - and the police, who for the first time since 1919
have even been considering taking strike action, are symptoms of the
sickness of the system. All those bodies and institutions carefully
built up over centuries to maintain the minority rule of the
capitalist class, and furthermore to maintain it subtly and hidden
beneath pomp, circumstance and morality, are in crisis to one degree
or another. Therefore they are being 'reformed' not to make them
fairer, but in an attempt to make them more suited to their task.
The latest scheme involves a complete overhaul of 'emergency powers'.
New laws are proposed giving ministers the right to ban gatherings,
meetings or demos, the right to seize property, and more such
draconian measures in the event of a terrorist scare or other civil
unrest. Far from reforms in the image of The Guardian's delusions of a
fair and democratic state, the machinery of government, judiciary and
the state in general is being refined to suit the needs of capital in
the new situation unfolding before us.
There have been other attacks on civil liberties, the threat to the
right to jury trials, as well as on parliamentary democracy, which has
become still more limited under this government. Under Blair the
government's powers have increasingly been passed from Parliament to
the cabinet and, in turn, from the cabinet to the Prime Ministers
office and a clique of unelected advisers. This has now been exposed
for all to see.
As a result Campbell had to go, and hurried announcements were made
about the abandonment of spin, and the return of government
communications responsibilities to civil servants. Meanwhile, behind
the scenes, an increasingly isolated Blair has begun to organise a new
'kitchen cabinet', in reality a kind of kitchen junta, to bring back
his most trusted aides, including the twice disgraced Peter Mandelson,
and Stephen Byers. This demonstrates just how narrow is Blair's base
of support inside even the Parliamentary Labour Party and for that
matter the cabinet. Blair is utterly dependent on a close circle of
unelected advisers. In the late Victorian work Trilby the heroine
needs her Svengali because without his magical powers of ventriloquism
she sang horribly flat. Blair needs not one but a whole plethora of
such figures to sell his policies which are increasingly out of tune
with the population.
For all the claims that spin had been abandoned as a result of Hutton,
at the TUC Blair's speech at a dinner for union leaders on 'fairness
and listening to everyone', was immediately translated to the
reporters waiting outside as a strongly worded attack on the left, and
in particular new T&G General Secretary Tony Woodley's appeal for a
shift to the left at the top of the Labour Party to stop the Tories
getting back in. In reality he had said nothing of the sort. The spin
doctors cannot be dispensed with because they are all Blair has left
to rest upon.
The war in Iraq opened up new divisions at all levels in the Labour
Party, even inside the cabinet, leading to the resignations of Cook
and Short. Cook in particular is preparing his challenge for the
Labour leadership. He has published a new book Point of Departure on
his principles and beliefs. Its subtitle should be Vote Cook for
Leader. Whether Blair faces a challenge before or after the next
election is impossible to predict at this stage, it depends on
unfolding events.
For the moment Blair is attempting to regroup and retrench. He is now
skating on very thin ice. The 'Project' to transform the Labour Party,
whilst taking Labour further to the right then ever, achieved nothing
fundamental. Now it has been shelved. Sooner or later (and
increasingly sooner rather than later) Blair and Blairism are
finished. He and his bourgeois tendency within the labour movement
represent yesterday's conditions. They represented a long period of
electoral and industrial defeats, and a lack of activity in the
movement which allowed the right wing to gain a stranglehold inside
the unions and the Labour Party. That grip has already been broken in
the unions. In the next period it will be broken inside the Labour
Party too.
There has been no qualitative change in the nature of the Labour
Party. As our tendency, and our tendency alone, has explained Labour
remains firmly wedded to the unions. The changes now beginning to take
place in the industrial wing of the movement presage changes in the
party to come. This is a process which will not be completed
overnight, but inevitably a new period of militancy will have an
impact inside the Labour Party, not least by bringing the trade unions
into conflict with the leadership inside the party. The process of
interaction between events in society, changes inside the trade unions
and inside Labour is not a straightforward one calculable by the four
rules of arithmetic. The complexity of this process however does not
make it less real and inevitable.
The policy of the bourgeoisie and its media all along has been to use
and then discredit the Labour Party. The ruling class were quite happy
for several years to rest on Blair - after all he was doing a good job
for them. That remains the case at present. However, now they are
becoming uneasy, they believe, quite correctly, that the changes
taking place in the unions will sooner or later be reflected in the
Labour Party. The minute Blair's grip at the top is weakened they will
dump on Blair and co from a great height.
The development of a new left inside the Labour Party, following
developments in the unions and reflecting changes in society in
general, is inevitable. The next period will see a left-right
polarisation inside the Labour Party, in which the unions will play a
key role. On the basis of events new splits inside Labour can even
reach similar proportions to those in the 1930s. The timing and
personalities involved cannot be accurately predicted. The Blairites
will leave in droves when to stay will no longer enhance their
careers. Blairism will be vomited out of the party and the ruling
class will turn the venom of their media on the Labour movement once
more. They will turn back to their more stable base, the Tories, which
despite their woes and crises remains the main party of the British
ruling class.
Even now they are busily applying sticking plasters to the Tory
Party's damaged carcass. The other Humpty Dumpties of the British
establishment, the monarchy and the church, are proving somewhat more
difficult to stick back together.
The Monarchy
The last perspectives document dealt with the monarchy at some length,
so we will devote less space to it here. The analysis made previously
remains entirely valid. Since then Walter Bagehot's famous appeal, "we
must not let in daylight upon magic,' has appeared regularly in many
newspaper articles in which the daylight let in has exposed not magic,
but degeneracy. From accusations against Prince Charles, to the
publication of a book by Paul Burrell - Diana's former butler - to the
reopening of the wound surrounding the inquest into the Princess of
Wales' death, the bad news continues to pile up for the royals.
This is more than simply entertainment, however. The monarchy serves a
serious purpose under capitalism. It is intended to be a reserve
weapon of the ruling class for use in times of severe crisis. The
monarchy is not simply a harmless anachronism with no powers. It is an
important reserve weapon of reaction. In reality, the monarch has
considerable powers that would undoubtedly be used against any Labour
government that attempted to challenge the power and privileges of the
big banks and monopolies, that threatened the future of the capitalist
system.
If a Labour government were to be elected, pledged to carry through a
fundamental transformation of society, then the monarchy would have a
more important role to play in defending capitalism. The Queen's
signature is necessary before any decision of parliament becomes law.
By refusing to endorse the socialist programme of a left Labour
government the Queen would provoke a constitutional crisis. The army
swears an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch, not to the elected
parliament. In these circumstances whom would the army, police and
civil service obey? The Queen could suspend parliament and rule
through the Privy Council. This is the reserve plan of the capitalist
class for a 'legal coup' in the event of their system being
threatened.
The adherence of New Labour to this antiquated feudal system was
condemned by Tony Benn in an interesting article in The Guardian
(11/11/03).
'The royal prerogative, exercised not by the Queen but by the prime
minister in her name, is seen as the final guarantee that democratic
decisions by parliament and the people could never be allowed to
undermine the hierarchical and semi-feudal system we have. The fount
of honour has been re-routed from Buckingham Palace and now sprays the
holy water of patronage on the chosen few from 10 Downing Street,
which appoints archbishops, bishops, cabinet ministers, peers and
judges, and fills most senior government posts with the people it
wants.
'Declarations of war and Britain's adherence to treaties such as the
new European constitution are exercised under prerogative powers by
the prime minister, who may or may not choose to consult the Commons
or the electorate in a referendum.
'Government policy is revealed in the Queen's speech, which she does
not write herself; all laws to be enacted require the royal assent;
parliaments are all summoned and dissolved by royal proclamation; and
the Commons even requires the consent of the Queen before it can elect
a speaker, because we have a monarchy.
'MPs have to swear allegiance to the Queen before they can take their
seats, while those joining the privy council - a requirement for all
cabinet ministers - have to do so in person, on bended knee, before
the Queen herself.' (our emphasis)
In order to maintain the institution of the monarchy the ruling class
would have no compunction in getting rid of a king or a queen, no
matter what oaths they have sworn. They have done this before. The
problem today is that it is not one individual who has been exposed
but the whole rotten bunch. This is a concern for the ruling class.
Peter Preston writing in The Guardian (27/10/03) compares the crisis
in the monarchy with that in another venerable institution of the
British ruling class, the Tory Party. 'We can, if we wish, get rid of
Iain Duncan Smith. Find 25 desperate Tory MPs and the deed is done. He
has no confidence left to survive a vote. But there are no available
confidence votes for the House of Windsor. There is no closure. Only
the dragging, clattering sound of disaster throwing itself down
another flight of stairs.'
They did indeed dump Duncan Smith, but they need to cling on to the
monarchy, and so will try to patch it up, perhaps passing the mantle
to one of the younger generation, keeping it in reserve for the
future.
The Church
All religions and denominations have suffered from one crisis or
another in recent times. For our purposes it is enough to look briefly
at the continued and deepening splits within 'the Tory Party at
prayer', i.e. the Church of England. .
The 'troublesome priest', Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has
been barred from conducting communion in 350 Church of England
parishes because of his support for women priests. Like the previous
struggle over homosexuality, and the proposed appointment of a gay
bishop in Reading, this is a serious crisis reflecting a split between
those who fear any further undermining of the church's authority by
adopting more modern, liberal attitudes, and those who believe that
their authority will continue to decline unless they adopt such
changes.
A recent survey found that just four percent of Londoners now attend
church compared to 40 percent in the 1950s. This is a testament to the
decline in the authority of the church in just half a century.
The crisis over the church's attitude to homosexuality has not gone
away, indeed it has reached the point of a possible split over the
appointment of a gay bishop in New Hampshire in the US. The
contradiction between the Archbishop, leader of the 70 million
Anglicans worldwide, reversing the appointment of Dr. Jeffrey John in
England but accepting the appointment of Gene Robinson in the US is
being seized upon by both sides in the 'debate'.
The 'liberal' wing has published a pamphlet in London urging change,
'The discussion of homosexuality is not something that is going to go
away. People need to be encouraged to explore. whether there is an
unhealthy obsession with sexual sin that prevents people focusing on
other forms of sin. such as commercial greed, poverty and inequalities
of wealth.' (The Guide, Some Issues in Human Sexuality -our emphasis)
The 'conservative' faction meanwhile has influential and wealthy
backing in the US. The US Episcopal Church has 2.4 million members -
less than three percent of US church-goers - but it has a
disproportionate number of business and political leaders. A meeting
opposing the appointment of Gene Robinson held last October in a
luxury hotel in Dallas, once famous as a headquarters used by Ronald
Reagan, was attended by 2600 people including 46 bishops. Strictly
speaking such a meeting is against the rules of the church, but the
organisers have powerful backers. Jim Naughton, a leading church
official in Washington DC said their real motive was 'to weaken
progressive political forces in American society.'
The American Anglican Council which organised the Dallas conference
receives a large part of its funding from one Howard F Ahmanson Jr.
who spends $10 million a year on right wing causes. They are also
linked to the 'Institute on Religion and Democracy'. These
fundamentalists are believed to be linked to those in Britain who
orchestrated the campaign against Jeffrey John. They do not believe
that the church should be concerning itself with things like
'commercial greed, poverty and inequalities of wealth' except in so
far as it can help to perpetuate them. It is not so much the intricate
detail of these debates that interests us as what they represent - a
division in an important institution of the ruling class for
maintaining the present order. Like all such institutions the church
is deeply divided over how best to maintain its role, how best to play
its part in defending the status quo.
The Tories
The Tory party is the oldest political party in Europe tracing its
roots back to the Cavaliers. Throughout its history, regardless of the
real situation, The Conservative Party has striven, with considerable
success, to give the impression of a united organisation free from
fissures and splits. In the past, as Engels explained, they were led
by aristocrats, who saw themselves as above the fray, concerned with
the greater interests of 'the nation', i.e. British capitalism.
Alongside the decline of Britain's world role, the decline of her
economic and military power, the old aristocratic layer in the Tory
leadership were elbowed aside to be replaced by upstarts representing
the needs of finance capital, the city of London, and the monopolies.
This process was completed by the election of Thatcher, whose
government faithfully served the interests of modern British capital.
Instead of looking ahead, planning for the future, seeing decades and
centuries ahead, these ladies and gentlemen act in the short term
interests of making a quick buck today through speculation.
The inglorious decline of the Tory Party continued after their
electoral defeat in 1997 - the worst they had suffered since 1832 -
under John Major, with the elevation to the leadership of two
non-entities, firstly William Hague and then the tragic figure of Iain
Duncan Smith. How low the Tories had sunk. They were shaken by the
scale of their defeat (the Tories have always considered themselves
the natural party of government). At the same time their splits and
confusion were accurately reflecting the divisions inside the ruling
class over what to do next.
The 'election' of Michael Howard as the new leader of the Tory Party
at the end of 2003 was described in the media as a 'coronation'. In
reality, it was more a matter of handing over the poisoned chalice as
quickly as possible, before the 'hang 'em, flog 'em and kick
'em-out-of-the-country' ranks of the local Conservative associations
could have any say in the matter.
Howard's shotgun coronation has led to renewed warnings of the danger
of a Tory revival, at least from those highly reliable sources the
Labour leaders and the rightwing press. Can the Tories recover, even
win the next election? What does Howard's appointment tell us about
the current state of British politics and the state of the Tory Party?
The Conservative party is no longer seen as monolithically united,
having disposed of three leaders in just six years. Tory MPs and
right- wing commentators are now attempting to restore some kind of
united image by fawning over Howard's professionalism, gravitas,
honesty, etc, attributes that apparently eluded them when he first
offered himself as leader in 1997. Then, the Home Secretary in John
Major's rejected government was regarded by those same MPs and
commentators as so voter-repellent that he came fifth - out of five -
in the leadership contest that produced William Hague. A humiliated
Howard did not even enter the contest that threw up Iain Duncan Smith.
By then Hague had introduced his short-lived reforms allowing the Tory
membership a say in electing their party leader.
From their own point of view, for Tory MPs to have allowed the aging
blue-rinse membership any voice in the election of another leader
would have been electoral suicide. They would only vote for the
candidate who offered the most reactionary line on asylum seekers,
crime and tax cuts.
The Tory MPs who crowned Howard were desperate instead to find a
candidate who, if unable to win the next election, can at least not
lose too heavily. The serious representatives of the ruling class who
stand behind them need to maintain their first eleven in some kind of
order because they recognise their second eleven - Blair and co - on
whom they have been able to rely in recent times, are entering more
troubled waters. They understand that the changes taking place today
inside the unions, the increased militancy in the workplace, and
indeed in society - witness the mass demonstrations against the war in
Iraq and then against Bush's state visit - will all be reflected
inside the Labour Party. Sooner or later Blair and co are finished and
the bourgeoisie will have to turn back to their more stable base, the
main party of big business, the Tories.
While Howard is so associated with the Tories' discredited past, there
should be nothing for Labour to fear on the electoral front - yet this
fear will no doubt be trotted out as the excuse for a lurch further to
the right on the part of Blair, Blunkett and Straw, especially in
relation to their favourite scapegoats, single parents and asylum
seekers.
It had been thought, at least by our friends the experts in the media,
after eight years in office and with memories of the Conservative
years fading, it would be hard for the Labour leaders to deploy the
'don't let the Tories back' argument. Of course, the main purpose of
this slogan is not so much an electoral strategy as a threat to the
labour movement - 'don't go on strike or you'll get the Tories back,'
'don't rock the boat or you'll let the Tories in,' and 'don't ditch
Blair or the Tories could win the election.'
With Michael Howard as Tory leader, it should be that much easier for
Labour to remind the country of the poll tax and all the other
features of the Thatcher and Major years that have been roundly
rejected by everyone. Everyone, that is, except Blair and co who have
assiduously stuck to Tory policies. Here we find the real Tory threat
to Labour's electoral fortunes, not in the Tory Party but on the
Labour frontbench, in the shape of Blair and his pro-capitalist
policies. The Tories would represent no threat at all if Labour in
power were carrying out policies in the interests of working people.
Losing confidence in the ability of Blair to remain in charge of the
second eleven the bosses and their media hirelings are now edging back
towards their own party. How else can one explain the recent
announcement by Rupert Murdoch that he might be about to tell his
editors to back the Tories rather than Labour. The bosses'
organisations, too, are creeping back towards their main party. The
Confederation of British Industry published a survey showing that
three-quarters of its top companies believe that the Blair government
is less business-friendly than five years ago.
Howard is not the saviour that the Mail and co claim. He is meant to
be a caretaker manager. The intention will be to replace him with a
new leader after avoiding utter humiliation at the next general
election. On the merit of their personalities and policies alone it
would be hard to imagine the Tories winning that poll. However it is
events which will decide the outcome. Blair and his pro-capitalist
policies could lose it. In this context a Tory victory is a serious
possibility. Today a Labour victory with a reduced majority, due to a
low turnout seems the most likely result of an election around May
2005. However, a lot can happen between now and then. The biggest
electoral threat to Labour is not Michael Howard but Tony Blair.
In any event whoever leads the Tory Party at the time of the next
General Election doesn't make a fundamental difference. The key to
that election will be events. It will be the war in Iraq, the economy,
university top-up fees, and privatisation of public services that will
be decisive. The Blair leadership of the Labour Party on its present
course will create more disillusionment, support for Labour will
probably fall again, alongside a further decline in turnout. A Tory
victory, though highly unlikely at this moment, can no longer be so
readily ruled out. Not because they have a new leader, but primarily
because of a fall in support for Labour.
The dearth of leadership in the Tory Party has not been the cause of
their recent crises, but it is not an accident either. The failings of
these leaders faithfully reflect the impasse of their system. Nye
Bevan once said of the Tory leaders they have nothing to say about
tomorrow, and harp on about the past because they have no part to play
in the future. They are a doomed party representing a doomed class and
a doomed system. The crisis in the Tory Party is symptomatic of the
impasse facing the profit system. The sickness of that system spreads
like a cancer affecting every aspect of society. The crisis of
capitalism is not simply an economic matter, though it has at its root
the inability of the system to develop the productive forces - the key
to progress in society - in the way they did in the past. This is the
basis of crisis but the undermining of these foundations sends tremors
and shocks through the entire superstructure of society leading to
political and social crises, the crisis in morality, the rise of crime
and drug addiction and splits and divisions in the institutions of
capitalist society.
The crisis of this system affects all classes in society, beginning at
the very tops. For us it means stress, low pay, a housing crisis and
so on. The divisions in the Tory Party are part of this process too.
In fact, the three pillars of the British Establishment, the three Cs
- Church, Crown and Conservative Party - are hopelessly divided over
how best to proceed. Up to their necks in sleaze, or corruption,
scandal or intrigue, their crises reflect the inability of the system
to offer any way forward for society. These crises are unparalleled in
British history, they cannot be passed over as mere entertainment.
They are in fact a clear illustration of just how profound the crisis
facing the system really is.
The present Tory leadership is all at sea precisely because Blair and
co have stolen their clothes, spending limits, privatisation of public
services, and immigration control. Whilst the response to crisis at
some point will be Labour moving left and dumping Blairism, the Tories
will move further to the right. They have within their ranks the
outlines of future splits to the right too, in the shape of their most
xenophobic, monarchist and racist elements.
Such splits are inevitable in the future. Today they are enjoying a
temporary truce, their new found unity buoyed by the troubles facing
Blair and by the prospect of a new general election.
The Tories can get back into office. Disillusion with Blair led to
massive abstentions at the last election. That can only grow as Blair
and co continue with their devastating plans to privatise public
services. Even by the next election many former Tory voters may decide
to return to their roots, while Labour voters increasingly sit at
home. A lot can happen before the next election. Some level of Tory
recovery however seems most likely, dashing the daydreams the Liberals
had of overtaking them.
The Liberals
Historically the Liberals trace their roots back to the Whigs, in the
days when the capitalists could afford to divide their forces between
two parties. Since the growth of the Labour Party the Liberals have
been reduced to the role of fifth wheel in British politics. It is
their destiny to be trapped between a rock and a hard place. For all
their dreams of government, their real role is to mop up the votes of
disaffected Tories and stop them going over to Labour.
The modern Liberal Party emerged from the split caused by the Liberals
entering the National government of 1931. At that time Lloyd George
led a split refusing to support the Tories, right wing Labour MPs and
the majority of his own party who formed the National government, in
an effort to present himself as a 'radical' alternative to Labour. In
the Eighties they swallowed up the remnants of the SDP, at least those
who had not already joined the Tories or been welcomed back into the
Labour Party.
They are often seen by sections of the population as a 'radical'
party, with their appeal to local democracy, and various single issue
campaigns. This view was enhanced by the mildly anti-war stance they
adopted in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The Liberal rank and
file at least is considerably to the left of the Labour leaders.
Unlike the Labour government the Liberals have called for the railways
to be renationalised. However, whilst the membership may see this as a
measure to repair public transport, the leadership see it as being in
the interests of capitalism. Their membership and support is largely
middle class and concentrated in the countryside, the south west of
England, parts of west Wales and some areas of Scotland. However
radical they may appear on the surface, the Liberals accept
capitalism, and only differ with the Tories over this or that detail.
The Liberals are Tories in orange-dyed sheep's clothes. In reality,
they differ only superficially. Most importantly they are both
capitalist parties. They now dream that their Brent East by-election
victory last year guarantees them a big swing from both Labour and the
Tories at the next general election. They have even revived their
hopes of overtaking the Tories and becoming the main bosses' party.
Even leaving aside the fact that people often protest in by-elections,
the facts of the Brent East poll tell us something different. Voting
figures like any statistic are only of any use if they are seen in the
context of all the other events taking place in society.
The fact is that there was not really the 29% swing from Labour, and
15% from the Tories, to the Liberals, that the press proclaimed. Had
one third of Labour's voters last time around voted Liberal now, but
the remainder of Labour's voters turned up and voted Labour then the
Liberals would not have won. Assuming that broadly speaking the 36% of
the electorate in Brent who voted in this election were part of the
49% who voted in the general election, then nearly 3000 people who
voted Labour in 2001 voted for the Lib Dems, while almost 2000 former
Tory voters switched to the Liberals. Meanwhile, and clearly
decisively, just over 10,000 former Labour voters stayed at home,
either not inspired to vote, or inspired not to vote.
For several years the Liberals dreamed of uniting with Labour, or at
least getting a couple of seats around the cabinet table in a
coalition government. Once Blair abandoned Ashdown, and latterly
Kennedy, having secured a big parliamentary majority, many will have
turned their hopes to Blair's 'project' of abolishing Labour and
creating some kind of new People's Party. However, that project proved
far more difficult than Blair imagined, and has in fact been dashed in
the recent period.
The hallucinations of the Liberals turned instead to replacing the
Tories as the main party of opposition, and subsequently the main
bosses' party. They saw in the crises of the Tories the possibility to
overtake their big brother electorally and then in the affections of
the bourgeoisie. To facilitate this development they began to ditch
their more 'left' policies and personalities. Matthew Taylor and Simon
Hughes were replaced by Mark Oaten, Vince Cable and David Laws, three
MPs described by Liberal peer Lord Greaves as 'pseudo-Blairites'. He
added 'It's a disaster because the people who have been promoted
represent a small group of rightwing so-called economic liberals whose
views have very little support in the wider party. This is part and
parcel of the party strategy to go after Tory seats rather than going
hard after the Labour Party.'
To continue along this path would inevitably mean a split in the
Liberals, just as it did in the past. They cannot become the main
party of the bourgeoisie. Such matters are not decided by electoral
arithmetic, nor by personalities, but by the social base of the party
which is too narrow and too unstable a resting place for the ruling
class.
The Liberals may yet have some role to play. They may get one or two
seats in government one day, but they would be very hot seats indeed.
In the event of severe crisis, the formation of some sort of
government of national unity could include some Liberals. Given their
unstable base this would again lead to splits. Otherwise they will be
doomed to the fringes.
In last year's local elections they gained 30 percent of the vote, and
their current crop of 54 MPs is the highest they have achieved since
1929. They may gain a few more seats in the next election, but their
main role will continue to be mopping up temporarily disaffected
voters from other parties. They will continue to be the party of the
protest vote and the by-election upset.
The Liberals will not become the capitalists' main party. Their
attempt to appear to straddle the class divide means they will be
crushed by the development of class struggle. For the Liberals, in the
long run, all roads lead to ruin.
The SNP, SSP, Plaid Cymru and others
The Socialist Alliance, SLP etc have signally failed to make any
progress. Their candidates in Brent got a sprinkling of a few hundred
votes apiece. Far more Labour voters protested by not voting - more
than half of those who had voted Labour in 2001 did not vote at all -
and a similar outcome seems likely in the next general election. The
result would be Labour losing seats to both the Tories and the
Liberals without either of them garnering a great deal of new support
themselves. Meanwhile the various sectarian hodge-podge electoral
fronts will remain invisible to the broad mass of workers.
Opposition and protests against Labour take on a different form north
of the border and across Offa's Dyke, however. The National Question
in Scotland and Wales is a very important subject all too often
overlooked or even ignored. This is a serious mistake. During the
period of the Labour government there have been important developments
in relation to this question, most notably the concession of
devolution in the form of a Scottish Parliament and a watered down
Welsh Assembly. The existence of these institutions has had an effect
on both the national aspirations of the populations of Scotland and
Wales and on the Nationalist Parties, notably the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
Both nationalist parties have enjoyed limited success in trying to
outflank Labour from the left. However, while in Wales the Labour
Party managed to gain ground securing an overall majority for the
first time in the last elections, by distancing itself from the Blair
leadership and offering some minor reforms, in Scotland to a certain
extent the opposition to Blair found an expression in a rise in
support for the SSP and the Green Party.
The SSP unlike the Socialist Alliance, the SLP and others in England
and Wales, has managed to gain a certain - though small - electoral
base. This has been largely thanks to the electoral system of
proportional representation. At the same time, they have continued
their opportunist trajectory towards nationalism with a seasoning of
left reformism. Even so they have succeeded in attracting a layer of
trade union activists and youth towards them. The clarity of our
ideas, and not only on the national question, can have a big effect in
winning these workers and youth to Marxism.
Given the pro-capitalist policies of the Labour Party nationally and
in Scotland itself, with Labour holding the office of First Minister,
the SSP can continue to gain a certain level of support in the next
period. However this will be undermined once the Labour Party shifts
left on the basis of events.
This has led some to ask whether the SSP has the potential to become a
second party of the working class in Scotland. Is the situation that
exists in some countries of Europe where the Communist Parties occupy
the position of the workers' second party about to be replicated in
Scotland with the SSP playing the role played by the CPs elsewhere?
Alternatively will they simply collapse and disappear from the scene
as the ILP did following the second world war?
Whilst they may well continue in existence for some time there is no
real chance of the SSP becoming a second party of the Scottish working
class. Such a development would have profound repercussions for the
unity of the British working class. In reality the SSP is a very new
party, and it does not have the authority of the Russian Revolution or
the Soviet Union behind it as the Communist Parties in Europe did in
the past. In addition the SSP has few roots in the trade union
movement. Whilst a handful of RMT branches have sought to affiliate to
the SSP the unions in Scotland have remained firmly bound to the
Labour Party.
The programme of the SSP is essentially left reformist. In fact there
are strong parallels with the programme of the Labour Party in the
1970s. When the Labour Party moves to the left, as is inevitable at a
certain stage, the policies of the two parties will become
indistinguishable. For the mass of workers, if there is a choice
between two left reformist parties, they will tend to support the
bigger party to the detriment of the smaller. This is only practical.
That was the fate of the Communist Party whose programme differed only
slightly from Labour's. It was also the experience of the ILP which
before the second world war had four MPs in Glasgow alone. As soon as
the Labour Party moved to the left following the war the ILP collapsed
unceremoniously into the Labour Party.
The importance of this subject for our tendency cannot be dealt with
in a few lines here. Therefore we intend to produce a separate
document dealing with these questions in more detail in the near
future.
At present the RMT are preparing to endorse their previous decision to
allow branches to support candidates in elections from the SSP and
even from Plaid Cymru. A clear Marxist analysis of the national
question will be able to reach those workers and youth drawn in the
direction of these nationalist groupings either out of genuine
national aspirations, or simply as a means of protest, or a mixture of
both.
In the next period continued disaffection with Blair and co. and their
representatives in Scotland means that the SSP will attract some
excellent class fighters into its ranks. We must have a friendly
approach to these workers and youth who are seeking a revolutionary
alternative to Blairism, patiently explaining to them the perspectives
and ideas of genuine Marxism.
Theory, the ideas of Marxism and the clarity of our perspectives, our
programme and our methods, this is the key alongside patient and
consistent work, to building our tendency in the trade unions.
The Trade Unions
2002-2003 saw a fundamental change begin inside the trade unions. With
around eight million members the trade unions remain the most powerful
organised force in British society. The capitalists realise this, and
therefore they try to shackle the unions with legislation, and pour
attacks and bile on them through their media. Thus one day's
courageous firefighter is hounded as a Bolshevik the moment he/she
begins to fight for their rights. Decades of attacks on trade union
rights and above all the destruction of manufacturing industry saw
union membership fall parallel with manufacturing workers losing their
jobs. This fact conspired with the propaganda of the bourgeois to
peddle the myth that the unions were dead, and the class struggle was
over. To these factors must be added the role of the union leaders
whose policy of class collaboration amounted to sitting idly by while
millions of jobs were destroyed.
For a whole period following the defeat of the miners in 1985 the
right wing were dominant in the leadership of the unions and pursued a
policy of class collaboration first under the guise of 'new realism'
and then so-called social partnership.
Following the heavy defeat inflicted on the miners, the idea became
prevalent in the movement that 'if the miners can't win no-one can'.
Activity and participation in the unions declined, leaving control in
the hands of the right wing. With a boom in the economy, albeit at the
expense of immense strain on the working class, with no lead from the
top, many workers sought an individual solution, through working
overtime and so on rather than struggle. The interaction between a
lack of industrial activity and the grip of the right wing on the
trade union leadership took place in a dialectical way with cause
becoming effect, and effect becoming cause. That is, the lack of
activity that allowed the right wing to take a firm hold at the top of
the unions meant that in turn the right wing leaders became an
obstacle preventing workers taking action. The numerous instances of
repudiation, particularly in the post office are a case in point. On
many occasions the postal workers would walk out on strike, only to be
told by their leaders that because of the anti-union laws their strike
was illegal and would not be recognised by the union for fear of
having their assets sequestrated by the courts. In time this would
have important repercussions inside the postal workers' union.
Leon Trotsky pointed out a little over 60 years ago the tendency for
the tops of the unions to fuse with the state. The union leaders come
under intense pressure from the capitalist class. At the same time
they also come under pressure from the working class. When they are to
some extent freed from this latter pressure they will bend to the will
of capitalism. They have no perspective for changing society, and no
faith in the ability of the working class to struggle. This process
went a long way in the last period
Thus for fifteen to twenty years we had a shift to the right at the
tops of the trade unions. This in turn had important repercussions in
the Labour Party. Ironically, considering Blair's disdain for the
trade union base of the party, it was the right wing union leaders who
played a key role in forcing through the abolition of Clause Four and
Blair's other 'modernising reforms', against the wishes of the rank
and file.
The right wing elements in the labour movement are based on the
inactivity of the masses; their success was predicated on defeat, and
on economic boom. The effect of these factors could not last forever,
however. Sooner or later the workers always recover from a defeat. At
the same time the boom could not last indefinitely. No matter how long
it lasted, it was in any case based on stretching every nerve and
sinew of the workers to the limit. Nevertheless, the myth that the
class struggle had ended seemed to be supported by weighty statistical
evidence.
The number of days lost through strike action reached historic lows.
Statistics, however, are just figures, what is important is how those
figures are interpreted. They did not reflect contentment, but the
effect of previous defeats, the impact of the anti-union laws, and
above all the role of the union leaders themselves in preventing
struggle. Statistics are important, but they are not enough. They are
one indicator of how things stood yesterday. Alongside statistics one
must have one's finger on the pulse of the movement. Often an anecdote
from a factory or an office can tell you as much if not more about the
mood of the workers than bald statistics. In any case there are many
statistics, and Marxists should take note of all of them and view them
in the context of all the other factors involved.
For example, while days lost through strike action fell, days lost
through ill health - the consequence of the bosses tightening the
screw in the workplace - doubled and doubled again. This statistic
tells us a great deal about the accumulation of anger, bitterness and
frustration beneath the apparently calm surface of low strike figures.
Dickens' stern utilitarian Thomas Gradgrind in Hard Times always
appealed to the facts 'the facts, sir, the irrefragable facts'. Facts
and figures cannot be ignored but they must be seen in context. In
isolation they can lead to all kinds of mistaken empirical
conclusions.
In The New Situation in Britain we analysed in detail the process
which led to the election of a new series of left leaders in a number
of unions, the increase in militancy in the workplace, and how
dialectically these developments were linked, and would in turn be
linked to further changes in the unions and eventually inside the
Labour Party.
The establishment of a government forum 'to discuss public sector
reform' with the unions was a recognition by the Labour leaders of the
threat they faced from the renewed militancy. Of course, Blair has no
real intention of discussing anything with union leaders. This is a
sham, a cover behind which Blair intends to proceed with his
privatisation of public services.
The reality is that Blair has no intention of changing course or of
'listening to the unions'. In his own words - paraphrasing Thatcher's
'you turn if you want to, but the lady's not for turning' - he does
'not have a reverse gear'. However, the fact that such a forum has
even been established, that such a front is needed, demonstrates the
pressure being felt by the government of increased militancy and the
shift to the left in a number of unions. Nevertheless Blair intends to
carry on with his pro-capitalist policy of privatising public
services. Remaining on this course will prepare a major confrontation
with the unions which in turn will accelerate the process of
polarisation within the Labour Party.
The analysis of this process in the last perspectives document remains
entirely valid and is now being confirmed with statistics which always
tend to lag behind the real situation. Woodley was elected general
secretary of the T&G; a new left deputy general secretary, Dave Ward,
was elected in the CWU putting further pressure on Billy Hayes. A left
executive was elected in PCS.
In this context it would be hard to believe that elections in a union
as important to the economy and to the labour movement as Amicus could
be allowed to produce a left executive. We believed that the left was
on course for an even greater victory than the immense step forward
achieved. All sorts of pressure, chicanery and more besides were no
doubt applied inside that union to keep the shift to the left to a
minimum. Nevertheless, the Amicus election still marked a huge swing
to the left inside the one union seen as a bulwark of Blairism and of
social partnership - i.e. class collaboration.
This latest shift to the left demonstrates that the defeat of Mick Rix
in ASLEF, for example, was not the turning of the tide in favour of
the right wing as some papers predicted, but an aberration, and a
warning that the process of radicalisation in the unions is only just
beginning. A conscious effort is still required to organise a campaign
amongst the membership, in order to expose and defeat the right wing
in the movement.
Developments inside the TUC have also confirmed the continued shift to
the left across the trade unions. One step further removed from the
workers than individual unions, nevertheless the growing mood of
militancy is reflected here too, in the passing of motions against
Blair's privatisation policies; in the re-election of Jeremy Dear;
and, after missing out narrowly last year, the RMT's Bob Crow to the
General Council.
Elections in the unions provide us with one important piece of
evidence about the changes taking place in the outlook of the working
class. Figures for industrial action and ballots are also important.
However, statistics can be interpreted in many ways, on their own they
tell us very little. It is vital for us to see them in the context of
the overall processes at work in society, in the economy in politics
and in every aspect of life. We must see them not in isolation from
other events, but as part of a process. Therefore it is important not
to base ourselves on one statistic, any more than we should base
ourselves on one poll or one anecdote. Instead we must collate as much
information as possible, all the available evidence, and see it in the
context of what went before, if we are to understand what is likely to
come next.
The last year for which complete figures are available, 2002, marked a
12-year high in the number of days spent on strike. Railway workers
were at the forefront of that action. After initially rejecting action
in a ballot, postal workers staged a dramatic unofficial strike which
rapidly spread across the country, and, had the employers not backed
down, could have resulted in a national illegal strike. For years we
answered the nonsense of 'experts' in the press about the 'end of the
class struggle.' This gibberish was still being repeated last year
when The New Situation in Britain was published. Now the facts are
answering them for us.
Official statistics recorded 1,323,000 working days spent on strike in
2002, the highest since 1990. The total was more than double the
525,100 counted in 2001 and over twice an annual average of 496,000 in
the previous decade.
Compared to the seventies and eighties last year's figure still
appears to be very small. In the 1980s, an annual average of 7.2m days
was spent on strike, although that was a fall on the 12.9m in the
1970s. Strikes occupied 24m days alone in 1972 (45% in the pits)
during Ted Heath's spell in Downing Street and 27m in 1984 (this time
80% in the pits) when Thatcher was in Number Ten, and the miners were
left out in the cold.
Upwards of 29m working days were spent on strike in 1979, a post-war
record, and the total is regularly, if wrongly, pinned on the winter
of discontent towards the end of Callaghan's Labour government. Just
over half of the 29m strike days were, in fact, accumulated during a
national engineering dispute after Thatcher had moved into No 10, in a
struggle for a shorter working week. In other words, that period of
militancy did not end with the electoral defeat of Labour, it
continued in the first period of Tory rule and was expressed
politically too in the shift to the left inside the Labour Party which
almost secured Tony Benn the deputy leadership.
Even those years appear relatively harmonious, however, compared with
the greatest of all British industrial conflagrations - the 1926
General Strike and lengthy miners' dispute of the same year - which
saw an incredible 162m days spent on strike or locked out from work.
Current figures may fall well short of these records, but the
important thing is not the number itself, but the trend, the direction
the figures are moving in, their causes, and the context of events in
society against which these developments unfold.
Was the first national firefighters' strike for a quarter of a
century, and the first-ever joint national strike by blue and white
collar council workers, concrete evidence of a new wave of militancy?
This is what we argued. At the time the media was dominated by stories
arguing that this was not the case. Eventually these short-sighted
empirics were forced to change their minds by the facts staring them
in the face. 370 big companies, collectively employing 1.7m people,
and 22 trade unions, covered by a survey conducted by the law firm DLA
in the second half of 2003 reported that a third of public sector
employers, half of those in the private sector and two-thirds in the
recently privatised sector, are braced for a surge in strike ballots
and stoppages in the coming 12 months.
We have previously explained the relationship between this growing
militancy and the election of a new layer of left wing officials in
the unions. At the time the media was full of denials of such a
relationship. Now we read this everywhere. Eventually these people
come to the same conclusions as the Marxists, although somewhat slower
and in a particularly distorted black and white variation.
'A new, assertive, more confident generation of left-leaning trade
union general secretaries was elected to lead their members rather
than hold them back', argues Kevin Maguire in The Guardian. This is
true, of course, but it fails to mention the pressure being placed on
these leaders by the rank and file, and the changing outlook which led
the members of the unions concerned to elect new leaders.
No sooner had they begun to see the real situation however, than they
grasped at the first straw as evidence that it was all over. Here we
see the dangers of the empirical approach. Two events, the defeat of
Mick Rix in his attempt to be re-elected as General Secretary of
Aslef, and the vote by postal workers not to take industrial action in
a national pay dispute, were read by our expert friends in the media
as proof that the shift to the left and the new militancy had reached
their limits. Only days later the unofficial walkout of 30,000 postal
workers was to demonstrate the weakness of their method.
'It is dangerous to assume that the worst is over after the initial
explosive phase. Predicting an eruption's end is even more difficult
than predicting its beginning.'
Encyclopaedia of Volcanoes, Haraldur Sigurdsson, editor
Conditions and Consciousness
In a very profound expression 150 years ago Marx explained that
conditions determine consciousness. The constant attacks on the
working class, wage restraint, teamworking, short term contracts,
longer hours, inevitably create a volcanic build up of anger and
discontent beneath the apparently calm surface, which low strike
figures alone might otherwise demonstrate existed in the workplace. In
the end, no matter how hard the union leaders try to keep a lid on it,
that volcano will explode. If the union leaders get in the way of that
process then they will be blown away too and replaced by a new
generation of leaders. In the last 18 months to two years we have
witnessed the first explosions through the surface of the crust.
It is important not to exaggerate the stage we are at. This process
has just begun. It will not be over in a day, a week, or even a year.
Nor will it simply proceed in a straight line. There will be ebbs and
flows. The best stewards and union activists tend to put all their
faith in each new struggle of the working class. The only downside to
this approach is that, without a perspective for the movement as a
whole, any defeat or even setback can result in demoralisation and
confusion.
Marxists have an unshakeable faith in the struggles of the working
class, but we also recognise the fact that many industrial struggles
end in defeat. After all, if every strike was victorious there would
be no need for political organisation, and we would already be living
in a socialist society. More than that, we also recognise the
importance of each struggle not only for its own sake, but also as
part of the process of the changing consciousness of the working
class.
Lengthening working hours, speed-ups, new management techniques all
represent constantly changing conditions, and increasing toil which
inevitably has an effect on workers' consciousness. Inevitably workers
in different industries, different parts of the country or from
different backgrounds, draw conclusions from events at different times
and different speeds.
The illusion of stability still exists among a layer of workers,
buoyed by the modest falls in unemployment, the easy availability of
credit and the mirage of house price rises. However this illusion is
being undermined daily by the intrusion of reality. This slow mounting
pressure over a period of years, the growth of stress and instability,
has accumulated a great deal of explosive material. Whereas the impact
of a sudden economic crash or a deep slump can be to dampen the
workers' willingness to struggle - at least initially - a prolonged
so-called boom accompanied by unprecedented uncertainty about the
future create the conditions for an explosion of militancy. This
demonstrates a profound idea explained by Leon Trotsky decades ago, it
is not simply boom or slump that lead to social peace or revolution,
but the change from one period to another, the instability and
uncertainty produced by change which affects the outlook of the
working class. In addition there are many other factors, political and
social which have a combined effect on the consciousness of workers.
The war in Iraq has already had an impact on broad layers of workers
and youth. Social issues like crime also play an important role.
Racism, which is a filthy virus spread by capitalism, affects the
working class as a whole. As the crisis of capitalism deepens the
bourgeoisie resorts to its most abhorrent policy in an attempt to
divide the working class. At present their energies on this score are
largely aimed at scapegoating asylum seekers. Having said that the
rise in support for some racist or even fascist grouplets in recent
local elections does not presage a new rise of fascism. Having burnt
their fingers on the fascists in the past the ruling class have no
intention of putting them in power. To suggest that this is a real
threat can only serve to disorientate and disarm the movement. At the
same time, these repugnant groups do pose a real threat to individuals
in local communities and the labour movement needs to organise a
serious fight to prevent them gaining any footholds and carrying out
their loathsome and cowardly attacks.
The crisis of capitalism affects all sections of the working class. At
the same time Black and Asian workers, and those from other ethnic
minority backgrounds suffer a double oppression under this system.
They are exploited as working class people but they also suffer from
racism and widespread discrimination. At present there are something
like 10,000 black men in prison in England and Wales, while there are
less than 5,000 studying in university. According to census figures
Afro-Caribbeans constitute 2 percent of the population, yet they make
up 6 percent of the prison population. Ethnic minorities make up just
9percent of the general population, yet they make up 25 percent of the
prison population. This is evidence of both the racism of the legal
system, and the social conditions in which many of those from ethnic
minority backgrounds live. The contrasting university attendance
figures demonstrate the same thing.
A similar trend is reported in the US where more than 30 percent more
black men are in prison than in university. In the last twenty years
the black prison population has grown by 500 percent while the
attendance of black men going to college has grown by just 30 percent.
In other words the rise in racism not just of racial attacks or votes
for racist groupings but the racism which discriminates against those
from ethnic backgrounds, the racism of the legal system, educational
establishment and employment, has increased alongside the developing
crisis of the capitalist system.
Women workers also suffer a double exploitation under capitalism. They
are exploited as workers, often in the lowest paid jobs with the least
protection. The number of hours worked by women continues to increase,
partly because more and more households require two incomes just to
survive. According to a report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development, working mothers now have to spend an extra half a day
at work each week than five years ago. Of course it is a step forward
that more and more women have been able to take up occupations
previously unavailable to them. This is in large part a gain made by
the struggle of the trade union movement.
However it remains a fact that women still find themselves the primary
carers of children. At the same time as capitalism increases its
exploitation of women in the workplace, the failure to provide
alternative forms of childcare and the continued attacks on social
spending place a heavy burden on family life the brunt of which is
borne by working women. While women spend more and more time being
exploited in the workplace they continue to be oppressed in society as
women as well. Working long hours in low paid jobs does not free
working women from oppression. In reality it means they are being
exploited more than ever. This exploitation has a dramatic impact on
the health and family life of women workers and must have an impact on
their outlook.
Youth
The introduction of the minimum wage by Labour ironically legalised
the exploitation of young workers either excluded or subject to an
even lower rate than other low paid workers. At the same time the
introduction of student loans, fees, and now the threat of top-up fees
increasingly undermines the ability of young people to attend
university. Attacks on education, forced into call centres and
Macjobs, the day-to-day conditions of young workers and students has
an important effect on their consciousness and their willingness to
struggle.
A National Union of Students poll found that most 14 and 15-year-olds
who had set their sights on university would change their minds as a
result of the threat of debt. This fear is a big barrier to students
from lower-income backgrounds considering applying to university. The
government wants to allow universities to charge top-up fees of up to
GBP3,000 from 2006, although a big backbench rebellion came close to
sinking the proposal. In the end Blair secured a majority of just five
votes. This does not resolve the matter, however. A mass movement
outside parliament could still defeat the plan
The NUS poll found that 85% of students who wanted to go to university
said they would reconsider if they accumulated a debt of GBP20,000,
and one-third of those who wanted to go said they would change their
minds even if fees were raised to GBP2,000 a year - GBP1,000 less than
the government has proposed. The NUS needs to do a little more than
conduct polls amongst school students if this bill is to be defeated.
They should be organising amongst this layer, most threatened by
Blair's plans for education. They would find a ready response amongst
14-16 year olds for the formation of a school students union and the
calling of action, including a mass demonstration against fees.
Young people more than anyone are deeply affected by world events.
War, the attacks of imperialism, the crisis in the Middle East, what
the future holds for society, these events and developments all affect
the outlook of young people, probably even more than their daily
conditions. The participation of school students and university
students in their tens of thousands on anti-war demonstrations
testifies to this fact.
Throughout the last period the activity of the youth movement in
Britain declined to barely discernible levels. This is linked to the
destruction of the youth section of the Labour Party, and above all
the lack of movements of the working class. All this will change. The
youth, especially the school students were at the forefront of the
anti-war struggle. In relation to day-to-day questions, and the wider
questions of war and imperialism the youth and students of Britain are
poised for a new period of struggles. These youth will be seeking a
revolutionary solution for the crises in society. They can fill out
the Marxist tendency with the new cadres needed in the next period.
International events have a pronounced impact on the outlook of young
people, and also a profound effect on the working class as a whole.
Issues like the jobs exodus, and the threat to pensions add to
uncertainty about the future. The exodus of manufacturing jobs in
search of cheaper labour overseas exemplified by Dyson the vacuum
cleaner manufacturer, was, according to Blair, not a problem since
there were plenty of jobs in the service sector. These too are now
being shipped overseas, witness the transfer of call centres to India
and elsewhere. The city estimates that some 200,000 jobs in financial
services alone will be lost in this manner in the next five years.
Job insecurity, unprecedented levels of indebtedness and stress, low
pay, all serve to undermine any attempt by the bosses or the union
leaders to peddle the myth of social partnership. British workers have
taken the whip from these masters long enough. The result is a new
militant outlook, more industrial disputes, and more activity inside
the unions. More activity means a shift to the left. The right always
rests on inactivity and a lack of participation by the membership.
That was the case for most of the Nineties. This was the basis for the
swing far to the right at the tops of the unions, and in turn was one
of the conditions which allowed Blairism to rise to the top of the
Labour Party, as scum rises to the surface of stagnant water. This
whole process is now being transformed into its opposite.
The postal workers strike was not the only unofficial action of 2003.
British Airways check-in staff walked out on unofficial strike at
Heathrow in July in order to pre-empt management plans to impose
electronic timekeeping. If an increase in militancy were simply a
result of new left leaders not only would we have no explanation for
how such leaders come to be elected, but we would have no explanation
for the BA strike, which was clearly against the wishes of Bill Morris
and co at the top of the union at the time. Similarly, even after a
new left Deputy General Secretary, Dave Ward, had been elected in the
CWU, the right wing press gleefully convinced themselves that the vote
by postal workers not to strike over pay meant that militancy was on
the wane.
The growth in unofficial walkouts represents a rejection of employment
laws that Tony Blair boasts remain "the most restrictive on trade
unions in the western world". Once the workers move into action,
however, such laws are impotent, their only power was in the hands of
the union leaders as a threat to prevent action.
There is a month or more of hurdles a workforce must clear before it
can take industrial action that would be recognised as lawful.
Employers have ample opportunities to threaten high court injunctions,
exploiting loopholes in the postal balloting process. A week's notice
must be given of the intention to ballot, with a sample of the ballot
paper handed over three days before it starts. The code of practice
stipulates a ballot must be open a minimum of 14 days.
Any action has to commence within 28 days of the result and at least
seven days' notice given of the start of the strike alongside the
numbers, categories and workplaces of those to be called out, to allow
a company to "make plans" to cope with the impact.
Unions were required under the Tories to give the names of all those
involved, but Labour, in its 1999 Employment Relations Act,
substituted the requirement to provide broader information. Solicitors
representing unions complain it has actually made matters worse, with
firms pressing for more and more information backed up by the threat
of injunctions.
The UK remains in breach of International Labour Organisation
conventions, most notably in an outright ban on sympathy or secondary
strikes that is repeatedly condemned by the UN body.
Those who take unofficial action leave themselves open to summary
dismissal union leaders constantly warn, but as we have long argued
and as the BA and Royal Mail workers demonstrated, there is safety in
numbers - and, as the treatment of 87 car components workers in north
Wales reminds us, going through the laborious balloting procedure is
no protection against dismissal.
Two years ago employees of Friction Dynamex in Caernarfon voted to
strike over pay cuts, walked out and after eight weeks were sacked as
the US-owner exploited a loophole in legislation introduced by Labour.
The group won an employment tribunal and looked forward to hefty
compensation until the company was put into administration, and re-
emerged as Dynamex Friction under the control of an associate of the
previous owner.
For years the union leaders hid behind these laws to prevent strike
action. The firefighters, whose dispute had ended in a disappointing
muddle earlier in the year, took unofficial action too when they
received a week's notice that they would not receive the full 7%
tranche of the 16% deal intended to settle the dispute. The crews that
took the action, refusing to answer anything other than 999 calls,
knew it was impossible to organise lawful industrial action before pay
day.
The firefighters could have won the full GBP30,000 they initially
fought for, had the leadership stood as firmly as the rank and file.
Instead they buckled under the pressure from the media, the employers
and the TUC and Labour leaders. Gilchrist, widely viewed as one of the
more left union leaders in the last period, could now be replaced in a
shift further to the left. No matter how genuine Gilchrist or any
other left leader is, without a clear perspective for their own
struggle and the struggles of the working class generally they can
always succumb to pressures. For this reason Marxists must avoid
raising illusions in these lefts. Unlike the sects we do not indulge
in the empty and shrill denunciations of 'traitor' which for them
represent the heights of theoretical clarity. We support every step
forward they take, every action in the interests of the members, we
call on them to turn their words into action, and at the same time
criticise their programme and their tactics clearly where we disagree.
For Marxists it is necessary to understand the impact of events on the
outlook of workers. The years of pent-up anger, long hours of toil,
historic levels of indebtedness and stress, the failure of Blair and
co to solve anything, the war in Iraq, all combine to draw the
proverbial 'line in the sand'. The patience of the working class can
only be pushed so far.
An analysis of days spent on strike in 2002 published in June 2003's
Labour Market Trends by an official in the Office for National
Statistics noted that, although the 1,323,000 working days was a
12-year high, the number of stoppages was the lowest on record. There
were just 146 labour disputes in 2002 that resulted in stoppages, with
just two of the disputes, the firefighters and a one-day council
strike, accounting for around 60% of the strike days.
In other words the vital change illustrated by these figures is that
these were major national strikes, as opposed to the very bitter, but
usually very local disputes in the previous period.
The first six months of 2003 saw just 186,000 days lost on strike -
leading some journalists to ponder that last year's jump was an
aberration. They were deluding themselves, however.
Marxists do not take such an empirical view basing ourselves on bald
statistics alone. Thus from developments inside the CWU over several
years, the changing conditions of postal workers, and the daily
attacks they suffer at the hands of management, we were able to
understand that one vote against a strike did not mean that the postal
workers were now content or resigned to their fate. As we have pointed
out on many occasions workers cannot be on strike perpetually. There
are ebbs and flows in the number and size of disputes taking place. At
the TUC the bosses' leader, Digby Jones of the CBI, appealed for 'a
return to moderate trade unionism'. The bosses are clearly shaken by
the rising tide of militancy, even though it is still in its early
stages. Ironically, just days later, it was the postal workers, whose
decision not to strike was supposedly proof that militancy was on the
decline, who walked out in one unofficial dispute after another.
All the available evidence described here points to a stormy period
ahead in British politics. Workers cannot be on strike permanently,
that is self-evident, but a new period of struggles on the industrial
front has undoubtedly begun. This is intimately and dialectically
linked with a shift to the left in the unions, and an increased
activity and participation in the movement. This must inevitably find
a reflection inside the Labour Party.
The Unions and Labour
The new left General Secretary of the powerful T&GWU, Tony Woodley, a
vocal advocate of the campaign to reclaim Labour, pointed this out in
an article in The Guardian, 'Working people need a coherent and
unified political voice, underpinned by an electoral discipline. It is
clear that this will largely fall to the trade unions, which founded
Labour and have sustained it through good times and bad. I believe
that the majority of union affiliates to the party now share a broad
common policy agenda - and also share a desire to see Labour's policy
making democratically opened up once more.'
Woodley called on Blair to resign over the war in Iraq. His call for a
shift to the left at the top of the Labour Party in order to prevent
the Tories winning the next election has already gained an echo in the
movement, prompting Blair's spin doctors to make a public reply.
Understandably given the Blair government's capitalist policies and
their treatment of the working class, the bourgeois idea of breaking
the link between the unions and Labour gained some ground in the
movement. This development was to the delight of the sectarian groups
on the fringes who saw it as proof of their 'theory' that the Labour
Party was now no different to the Tories and the Liberals.
Unfortunately for them however, this was a temporary phenomenon, which
has now largely run its course.
The revulsion felt by sections of workers at their union being
formally linked to the actions of Blair is entirely justified.
However, as soon as there is the real prospect of a struggle within
the workers' organisations, especially a struggle by the unions to
reclaim the Labour Party, support for this policy based on frustration
collapses.
Whilst the FBU and the RMT are continuing to move towards
disaffiliation, this idea has failed to gain much support elsewhere.
The attempt to disaffiliate BECTU was roundly defeated in a ballot of
the membership who overwhelmingly endorsed maintaining the link with
Labour. Such a ballot of the RMT membership would probably produce the
same result. Instead those pushing for disaffiliation have simply
moved to allow local branches and committees of the union to affiliate
to other parties - the SSP in Scotland for example. This would be a
disaster, providing the Labour leaders with an excuse to suspend or
expel the union from the party. This would be a de facto
disaffiliation without the consent of the membership of the union. A
handful of branches must not be allowed to decide the policy, and the
affiliation of the entire union in this way.
Leaving aside the consequences of affiliating some Scottish branches
to the SSP, and the reactionary idea of affiliating any branches in
Wales to the bourgeois nationalist party, Plaid Cymru, the union
membership in England would be left with no political voice or outlet.
What would the ultra lefts supporting such a move suggest to railway
workers? Should the RMT in England support the Liberals, the only
national party to support renationalisisng the railways? Or would they
suggest the RMT be split on national lines? Either would be an
entirely reactionary policy, and a defeat of the historic unity of the
British working class. The consequences only need to be stated for the
dangers to be self-evident. For this reason alone the decision
allowing individual branches of the union to affiliate to any
political party they like will prove to be a big mistake. The railway
workers and their trade unions played a vital role in the formation of
the Labour Party and still have a key role to play in its
transformation and retransformation in the future.
Whilst the frustration of the activists in these unions, and their
anger towards Blair and co, is understandable and justified this
discontent must be turned in a more effective direction, into a
serious struggle within the Labour Party.
In all the big unions, UNISON, the T&G, Amicus, the GMB and others,
new left leaders, or old leaders under renewed pressure from below,
are instead calling for the union movement to co-ordinate a campaign
to reclaim Labour. Mick Rix has made a more concrete call for a
campaign to organise the deselection of MPs who support privatisation
etc. He is now calling for the convening of a conference of trade
union and Labour Party members to take the party back. Organised
seriously, taken to every member of the party and every trade unionist
such a campaign would undoubtedly get a real echo. Marxists must
demand that these words are turned into deeds. The idea of
disaffiliation has now begun to run out of steam. In the process which
is now underway we are less likely to see more impotent splits of
small groups to the left, but increasingly a polarisation, and a
struggle, between left and right within the unions, and within the
Labour Party
Add to this already explosive mix the current political crisis of
Blairism, the publication of the Hutton report, and the vote over
top-up fees for students, and we can assume that this process of
radicalisation and renewed activity in the movement will be
accompanied by splits and divisions at every level of the party, and
immense opportunities for our ideas in the next few years. There is no
guarantee that Blair will last until the next election. If he does
there is no guarantee that Labour would win. That may still be the
most likely variant. But win or lose the next election, the next
period will see the end of Blair, the development of a new left inside
the Labour Party and the unions reflecting events in society.
It is interesting to note that just a couple of years ago one would
have been hard pressed to find anyone not involved in politics who
could name the leaders of the trade unions. Now Bob Crow, Billy Hayes
and Andy Gilchrist have acquired a high profile as a result of the
actions of their members. Similarly today one would struggle to find
anyone capable of naming the leaders of the left inside the Labour
Party.
Ironically the two names likely to be mentioned are Ken Livingstone
and George Galloway, the fates of both of whom demonstrate how shaky
Blair's position is. Galloway's expulsion was an indication of the
weakness of the leadership and their desperation to silence criticism,
which could act as a focal point for opposition.
Outside the Labour Party Galloway's voice will find itself in the
wilderness. His new party, Respect, intends to stand in the
forthcoming European elections. Given the escalation of profound
discontent with Blair, Galloway could gain a certain vote. However
this will at most be a short term protest. History has begun to move
in a different direction. Outside the Labour Party Galloway will not
be a part of it.
Meanwhile, so desperate are the Labour leaders to avoid a humiliating
fourth place in the London Mayoral election in the run-up to a general
election that Blair himself proposes the readmission of Livingstone.
Suddenly it seems he has found a reverse gear. At the time of the last
mayoral election Blair denounced Livingstone as a disaster for London.
Now he is to be Labour's official candidate with Blair's personal
endorsement, despite the rules of the party which exclude any member
who stands against an official party candidate from reapplying for a
period of five years. All those previously expelled should take note.
The process which brought Blair to power in the first place is moving
into reverse, just as the conditions which Blairism reflected are
turning into their opposite. Blair is faced with a political crisis, a
weak and unstable economy and the prospect of a major confrontation
with the working class.
This is not the end of the matter for us of course, but just the
beginning. It will be the beginning of a new period in which we can
build the Marxist tendency in the labour movement. Of course we must
fight alongside the left in the unions and inside the Labour Party
where they are raising progressive policies, and calling for greater
democracy. However, the left always bring with them too all the
outdated reformist nostrums of yesteryear, Keynesianism etc. Already
the idea of import controls has been raised, along with state
subsidies for industry and the pernicious argument that foreign
workers are undercutting wages and conditions. We have answered all
these points in the past and we will have to answer them again. We
must differentiate ourselves with the clarity of our ideas, adopting
Marx's approach 'mild in manner, bold in content'.
The Labour Party
The triumph of Blairism inside the Labour Party represented an
enormous shift to the right. As Roy Hattersley (who wishes to take on
the mantle of 'the party's conscience') put it New Labour was not a
move through time to the future, but simply through space, to the
right. The experience of the last twenty years inside the workers'
organisations demonstrates above all the vital importance of combining
a knowledge of the history of the movement with the ideas and method
of Marxism. All those trends who failed to understand this - the left
reformists, the ultra-lefts etc - were blown off course by events.
In the New Situation in Britain we wrote: 'The changes inside the
unions do not necessarily lead to changes in the party overnight. At
the same time we should be prepared, things can change even more
quickly than we think. On the basis of the firefighters dispute there
was a radicalisation at the London Labour Party Conference. Even
before that with activity in the party still at a low ebb, we saw the
key role that the unions will play in the future demonstrated at last
year's national conference. The unions defeated Blair over PFI, the
government's flagship privatisation scheme. There is an interesting
story about the mentality of the sects and their complete blindness in
the face of the changes taking place before their very eyes. One of
them commenting on the 2002 Labour Party conference remarked with
bitter disdain 'did you see? 60 percent of them voted in favour of war
with Iraq!' These imbeciles could not see the dramatic importance of
the fact that, even in the currently rarefied atmosphere of a Labour
Party conference, supposedly under the complete domination of Blair,
thanks to the unions 40 percent had voted against!
'The connection between the Labour Party, the trade unions and events
is entirely lost on these people. They claim to believe that the
working class can change society, yet they deny that they can change
their own organisations - which by anyone's measure must be easier. In
reality they give away their whole arrogant approach by their attitude
towards the mass organisations of the working class. They do not
really believe that workers can change society. They believe that they
can change society, if they can convince the masses to line up behind
them.'
In the twelve months since these people have clearly learned nothing.
Indeed there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. While the
ultra left groups prattled on about how there was no discussion on
Iraq at the Labour Party conference, proving, of course, that Labour
is a bourgeois party (!), they completely failed to see the real
situation staring them in the face. The trade unions hold 50 percent
of the vote at Party Conference and effectively four unions - the T&G,
UNISON, the GMB, and Amicus - have 40 percent in their hands. They
used that vote to dominate the conference, overturning Blair and co on
privatisation, and even changed the rules so that in future there
would be twice as many contemporary motions discussed.
The conclusion we drew in the last document remains valid: 'We
recognise that the shift to the right at the top of the Labour Party
has gone further than ever before. But we do not see things in the
black and white, immutable way the sects do. We recognise the process
at work in society, and inside the workers' organisations.
'There is a process of interaction between events, changes in the
unions and changes in the Labour Party. Marxists do not believe for
one minute that a week on Thursday a million workers will apply to
join the Labour Party, and kick out Blair. This process will take
time. It is the reverse of the process that led Blair to power. Events
propel the unions to the left. The pressure of the working class below
forces them into opposition with the Labour government. This is the
stage we have reached.
'In the next period splits and divisions will open up at the top of
the party on the basis of events, and become focal points for
opposition from below. The war with Iraq can play an important role in
this. The opposition from the ranks and the unions is reflected inside
the party. A process of interaction and change will take place inside
the Labour Party. Over a period, a new left will emerge. At a certain
stage in the future it will even become dominant inside the Labour
Party. That may be some time off yet, but we must begin to prepare for
this development. We recognise the vital importance of the links
between the working class, the trade unions and the Labour Party. In
particular, Marxists must understand the history and traditions of
workers in different countries as well as theory, if we are to build a
mass force on the basis of events to come.'
The first split in the cabinet over the war in Iraq was followed by
Blair's narrow victory in Parliament on foundation hospitals. The
revolt against this attack on the NHS led directly on to the latest
crisis and split in the Parliamentary Labour Party over top-up fees,
where Blair succeeded in transforming a 161 seat majority into a
triumph by five votes. Even in parliament Blair's position is no
longer secure.
It is inevitable that splits develop at the top before new layers of
workers find their way into the Labour Party. There is little
attraction for workers to join the party in its present condition.
What is required is a focal point for opposition and the prospect of a
real struggle within the party. That will take some time to develop.
Therefore, the local Labour Parties remain largely empty and dormant
at this stage. The key to Labour is still through the unions. However,
a challenge to Blair, and Blair's eventual removal or resignation and
a new leadership contest could spark a new period of activity, and
breathe some new life into the GCs. Ultimately it will be big events
which will draw workers into activity inside the traditional
organisations.
An opinion poll conducted for The Observer (28/09/03) by YouGov
provided a glimpse of how little support Blair now enjoys amongst the
party rank and file. The survey found that 57 percent believed that it
was wrong for the US and Britain to go to war in Iraq. A staggering 81
percent believe that Blair either deliberately or unwittingly
exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile a majority
were not only opposed to foundation hospitals and top-up fees but
favoured the introduction of a 50 percent tax on earnings over
GBP100,000 a year, and the renationalisation of the railways. Most
disturbing of all for Blair 41 percent responded that Blair should
resign before the next election. This came the day after a Financial
Times/Mori poll of the electorate in general found that 50 percent
thought Blair should resign immediately.
Blair and the Labour Government
Blair's close association with Bush and US imperialism has further
undermined his already waning popularity. The huge anti- Bush
demonstration which greeted the American President must have sent a
shiver down the spine of the British prime minister. A Sunday
Times/YouGov poll published to coincide with Bush's visit found 60
percent of people responding that Bush was a threat to world peace. A
majority were opposed to the visit and declared their support for
those demonstrating against the close relationship between Bush and
Blair.
Two months earlier the same company conducted a poll on how Blair was
doing at home. A majority replied that public services had
deteriorated and for the first time the Tories overtook Labour in
voting intentions. Of course, opinion polls can prove almost anything
depending on the questions asked. However with a new election just
over a year away, could Labour lose?
The result of the 2001 general election, which on the surface looked
like a comfortable victory for Blair, was in fact a warning. The
historically low turnout was not a sign of 'voter contentment' as the
spin doctors claimed, but an expression of the disillusionment of
millions.
Events since - the mounting mood of militancy expressed in strikes and
the shift to the left in a whole series of unions; the magnificent
anti-war demo of two million people and the anti-Bush demo of over
200,000; the furore surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly, and the Hutton
inquiry - have confirmed this.
The patience of the working class may resemble that of Job, but it
does not last forever. Industrially and politically the working class
is now assimilating new lessons which point to a new period of
struggle.
Until recently any suggestion that Labour would lose an election was
met with derision. Now the possibility is taken seriously everywhere.
As long as Labour governments act in the interests of the banks and
big business the working class will not blindly turn out to vote for
them over and over again.
Whilst a Labour victory, albeit with a much reduced majority, is
currently the most likely outcome of the next election even that is
far from guaranteed. In a survey of 58 marginal seats conducted for
The Guardian last September, Labour was on course to lose 25.
Ultimately it will be events at home and abroad between now and the
next election which will decide the fate of the Labour government.
In this context, the Brent East by-election is a loud warning to Blair
and co, no matter what 'analysis' the failed masters of spin cook up.
Their lame excuses were entirely predictable. 'Mid-term blues' has
always been the lowest excuse of the careerist who sees politics as a
game. Despite this 'mid-term effect' Labour was able to gain a
majority in the Welsh Assembly elections earlier in the year simply by
advocating a few minor reforms, most notably the abolition of
prescription charges. Repeated across the country even this moderate
step would have an enormous impact. Such a move to the left would
guarantee keeping the Tories out at the next election. Blair however
is not for turning.
In the past we have repeatedly heard the argument that 'rocking the
boat' would endanger Labour's electoral fortunes. 'We mustn't let the
Tories back in' is an all too familiar refrain from those who try to
silence the critics of Labour governments from within. Given the state
of the Conservatives such a prospect might seem hard to believe.
However, Blair, and his pro-capitalist policies, mean that such a
defeat is now possible. Let us be clear, it was never because of Blair
that Labour won. Such Campbell inspired rhetoric never cut any ice
with us. Before 1997 Labour were more than 30 points ahead in every
poll. This illustrated the desperation of millions of workers not only
to get rid of the Tories, but to get a Labour government that would
solve their problems.
From the moment Blair became party leader until the 1997 election that
lead constantly fell. Labour won an historic victory in 1997
regardless of Blair not because of him. They won in 2001 in spite of
him. They could lose in 2005 because of Blair and his capitalist
policies.
Defeated by the unions at Labour Party conference, defeated for the
first time in a by-election in Brent East, Blair has narrowly escaped
his first defeat in the House of Commons. In the end Blair won the
vote on top-up fees but by such a narrow margin, and after so many
concessions, that the weakness of his position even in the
Parliamentary Party was clear for all to see. Many backbench MPs feel
the pressure of their small majorities as a new election looms. In the
past many of these MPs did what they were told for the sake of their
careers. Increasingly it becomes more prudent to rebel for the same
reason. Whether genuine or not their rebellion over fees was another
devastating blow to Blair. It may not have finished him, but it
demonstrates to all those not yet convinced that he is finished.
Whichever side the electoral coin lands, which is impossible to
predict with accuracy at this stage - though a Labour victory is still
the most likely outcome - Blair loses eventually.
The vote on top-up fees will not be the last revolt inside the
Parliamentary Labour Party. A third Labour government with a smaller
majority would be prone to defeat in Parliament if it continued along
the same path. Eventually this points to the formation of a government
of crisis. If Blair, or some other leader, were unable to secure a
majority for their pro-capitalist programme in Parliament, they could
be forced to call a new election which could result in a new Tory
government; they could - as in the past - be forced to rely on the
Liberals, even entering a coalition with them as they have done in
Scotland. In the event of a serious crisis the ruling class could even
be forced to create some kind of 'government of national unity'. This
would have enormous repercussions inside Labour. Whilst Blair and co
would have no difficulty at all in 'going over', the Labour Party
would be shaken from top to bottom.
This development is inherent in the situation at a certain stage, but
is not a course the ruling class would adopt lightly. They will only
do so when either their first eleven or their second eleven, or some
other combination cannot provide them with a secure enough base for
carrying out their policy. In the period following 1997 the
perspective of a National Government appeared to recede into the
distance. However it has never gone away altogether. If our
perspectives for the economy and for British society indicate the
development of a profound crisis, then the prospect of such a
government of crisis becomes a serious possibility once more. Under a
Labour government with a small majority, this perspective will be
brought into a sharper focus. Blair with all his talk of the 'national
interest' - Liberal leader Charles Kennedy correctly compared Blair
with Ramsay MacDonald in this regard - would be the ideal candidate
for prime minister of such a government. However by then he may have
been replaced at the top of the Labour Party, not that this would rule
him out of contention for such a role in the future.
In the immediate future however, Blair's days as Labour leader are
numbered. Simply replacing Blair with another leader who pursued the
same pro-big business agenda however, would solve nothing. At this
stage many of the new union leaders are rallying to Brown because they
see him as the most likely candidate to succeed. Whilst keen to get
rid of Blair, Marxists could not support Tweedle Dum against Tweedle
Dee.
At the 2003 conference Brown carefully tried to distance himself from
Blair. He mocked a previous speech by Blair proclaiming that 'we are
best when we are Labour'. His own spin doctor, Charlie Whelan, has
been whispering to the press that Brown is not keen on the fees idea,
and had 'deep reservations' about the war in Iraq. He certainly kept
that one quiet. The reality is that both support PFI, privatisation
and the market. Despite attempts to create differences between the
prime minister and the chancellor to enhance Brown's fortunes, in
reality there is little between them.
Blair in turn has blocked Brown from taking a seat on the party NEC.
The divisions between them are hyped in the press, but at the same
time, they are very real. They have little to do with policy, however,
and more to do with who is prime minister. Having said that the splits
already evident at the top of the party will develop into far more
serious divisions under the pressure of events.
In a leadership challenge - or election if Blair had already resigned
- especially one following the next general election, Brown would
probably not be the only contender. The Blairites such as Byers and
Milburn would be unlikely to win any support in the unions, or for
that matter in the rank and file of the party. Robin Cook has been
trying to carve out some territory to the left of Blair and Brown. His
carefully timed resignation over the war in Iraq will have enhanced
this perception. Any candidate seen as even a half step to the left
would immediately attract support from within the disillusioned ranks
of the party and the unions.
The outcome of a future leadership contest in the Labour Party is
impossible to predict at this stage. There are far too many
imponderables involved. Blair's removal or resignation does not in
itself mean a shift to the left, of course. Instead, the process of
change taking place in society, in the economy, in the trade unions
etc has undermined Blair's position and so-called Blairism in the
labour movement. It is these conditions which result in a shift to the
left in the unions at the present time and eventually inside the
Labour Party as well. The defeat of Blair will be a part of that
process, it will mark its beginning not its end. This is the important
point. There will be much debate in the next period over who will
succeed Blair, but most of this is just froth. What concerns us is the
process in society, its reflection inside the workers' organisations
and the direction in which events are moving.
The left emerging in the trade unions as a result of these changing
conditions and growing militancy, has begun to co-ordinate its actions
inside the Labour Party, at least at national level to ensure debate
of their motions on foundation hospitals, workers' rights, pensions
and manufacturing industry at the National Conference. This is a step
forward even if the resolutions concerned did not go far enough.
The left union leaders have announced that they intend to launch a
campaign to reclaim Labour from the Blairite carpetbaggers. We would
back such a campaign to the hilt. At the same time it is our duty to
honestly criticise the weakness of the policies being proposed by this
new left. Essentially their solution to all problems is to raise
taxes. One can assume that they mean taxes on the rich, not on all of
us. Who could object to reclaiming this wealth to spend on health and
education? True, but it is not a solution. It is at best a sticking
plaster, but it comes with side effects, as long as we continue to
operate within the capitalist system. The rich always find loopholes
and exemptions to avoid paying taxes. The likely effect of higher
taxes in general will be less investment and less spending. The bosses
would not be willing to pay for reforms in our interest for long. One
way or another, the cost would be passed on to us. In the end under
this system the working class always has to pay.
Obviously we are not against taking money from the rich to pay for
health, education and pensions. But to even begin to solve the daily
problems encountered by millions of ordinary working people will
require far more than that. That will require planning and resources.
Decision making must be taken out of the hands of the rich minority
and into the hands of the majority of society. The resources exist to
do much better than reduce child poverty by half in 50 years as Brown
has pledged. In reality, this is a feeble ambition. Britain is a rich
country. Or more accurately it is a country in the hands of a rich
few. Those resources, devoted to the needs of society instead of the
profits of the few, could transform the face of society and all our
lives. Such a transformation cannot be accomplished gradually, with
the consent of the bosses, over a century or more. It can only be
achieved by revolutionary means. That is one of the central lessons
the labour movement must draw from the last century of struggle.
Many genuine trade unionists and Labour Party members are now
searching for policies to deal with each problem facing society, a
realistic and practical way to deal with each problem separately. Yet
all our problems are interlinked. None can be permanently solved while
the others remain - and all trace their roots back to the capitalist
system.
Marxists fight to defend and to gain every reform, every step forward
we can. We will certainly fight alongside those on the left who are
advocating progressive reforms and more democracy inside the party.
For us however this is the beginning of the matter not the end.
The task of Marxism is to make conscious the unconscious strivings of
the working class. The molecular process of change within the working
class is conditioned by the crisis of capitalism which is unfolding at
the present time. White-collar workers, industrial workers, students
and youth, all sections will be looking for answers to their problems
and the problems of society. Those answers can only be provided by the
ideas of Marxism. Therefore we must study those ideas and take them
into the labour movement energetically and enthusiastically. We must
explain that only the socialist transformation of society can meet the
needs and aspirations of the working class, and put an end to the
nightmare of capitalism.
Theory is the bedrock of the Marxist tendency. Our attention to this
question throughout the very complex period which now lies behind us
allowed us to remain on course. A continued, even increased attention
to the question of theory and education will be vital in the stormy
period opening up in Britain and internationally. Along with our work
in the labour movement, and an energetic turn towards the youth, this
is the precondition for building support for the ideas of Marxism, and
building becomes more urgent by the day. Events are beginning to speed
up even here in formerly sleepy old Britain and we must be prepared.
We must be prepared with ideas, and we must get organised in readiness
for the great events which impend. Volcanic eruptions are being
prepared in British society.
'A question of practical importance to forecasting is how much time
elapses between an injection of new magma and an ensuing eruption. In
many volcanoes, this time interval may be measured in weeks or months,
but in others it seems to be much shorter, possibly days or hours.'
Encyclopaedia of Volcanoes, Haraldur Sigurdsson, editor
In describing the conditions which point to a new period of struggle
on the part of the workers and youth of Britain and even a generalised
movement of the British working class in the next period, not to
mention the movement in the direction of revolution we cannot talk in
terms of weeks or months, but what we can see is that 'new magma' is
constantly being injected. Explosions are inevitable. In reality to
ask 'when?' is to ask the wrong question. The question that matters is
will we be ready for the mighty events that lie before us? The answer
to that lies in our own hands.
The purpose of perspectives is to serve as a guide to action. We must
arm ourselves theoretically in order to continue the process of
amassing the initial cadre of the revolutionary forces needed to
ensure the victory of the working class in Britain and internationally
in the years ahead.
PM, London, 12/02/04
--
Karl
Kulrad Hellbar
> http://www.socialist.net/html/britishperspectives.html
<snip>
What's this got to do with football?
Cunt.
--
Kullrad (14)
UKSF Best New Poster 2003
"I'm going to tear you a new problematic psychosexual conditionhole"
Tony McChrystal
En art’culo <Xns95375DC5...@130.133.1.4>, Kulrad Hellbar
<kullra...@hotpop.com> escribi—:
> ka...@ntlworld.com tickled their tummies and meowed
>
>> http://www.socialist.net/html/britishperspectives.html
>
> <snip>
>
> What's this got to do with football?
Ah, I notice you didn't read it all. If you get past the first 340 pages of
the defence of Marxism, etc, he goes on to discuss the relative merits of a
Kevin Keegan hairdo (c.1978) versus the aesthetic pleasure of a good Cyrille
Regis. Furthermore, he cites that goal wot Beckham scored from 'is own 'alf
against Wimbledon as the best he's ever seen.
> Cunt.
GP,WM.