The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

#Nichtmituns: No pact with fascists – never and nowhere!

Demonstration in Erfurt on 15 February, Call to action in English, German, Turkish, Dari, Arabic and Spanish


11/02/2020


Taken from the unteilbar Website. Contact us at lag.internationals@dielinke.berlin for information about buses from Berlin

Where now for the French strike movement ?

After the Seventh national day of action, what happens now?


24/01/2020


After more than a month of severe disruption, trains and metros were running again in France this week, but the movement is far from over, and an unprecedented number of insurgent grassroots initiatives have erupted. A seventh national day of action Friday 24th, with demonstrations in 350 towns, is, once again, huge. Where can the strikes go now?

Train and metro workers mostly voted to suspend their indefinite strike earlier this week, after over a month, although they are massively involved in today’s day of action. ‘It’s not a movement which is exhausted, it’s just getting its second wind. I’ve never seen anger like this,’ said one metro striker this week.

The movement did not succeed in spreading massively and becoming a general national strike. This possibility was very much hindered by trade union leaders of the various confederations. Leaders of the CFDT called off the movement after a few concessions by the government. Philippe Martinez, leader of the far more combative CGT, although he called for a generalisation of the strike, continued to attend negotiations with the government and has agreed to take part in a grand and ‘urgent’ ‘Conference on the Financing of Retirement Pensions’ called with much fanfare by Macron, which is to report back in April. This conference is a disgusting propaganda trick. Its aim is to make the public think that retirement pension financing is in crisis (it isn’t) and so to make slashing pensions look inevitable. The plan is to get trade union leaders together, give them strict instructions not to suggest that employers pay more into their workers’ retirement schemes, and then ‘listen to’ any other suggestions they might have.

Trade union leaders should boycott this conference.

Sadly, despite the tremendously dynamic involvement of rank and file strikers in the movement, the national union leaders maintain essential influence and radical networks have not  the kind of legitimacy which would allow them to organize a real general strike over the heads of the leaders.

A rapidly spreading general strike was the best way to guarantee victory for our side, and with 61% of the population in general opposed to Macron’s reform (far higher numbers among the working class) this was a realistic proposal. Now that financial hardship has led transport strikers to suspend their indefinite action and limit themselves to the weekly days of action, it will be harder to win. But the fight is far from over as this unprecedented movement continues to find new ways of scaring Macron’s elite.

Spreading strikes

Oil refineries have been on strike or blockaded this week. Dockers called a three-day strike and blockaded ports in Lorient, Marseilles and Ajaccio. In Le Havre in the North, strikers occupied the Port Administration H Q, while the biggest hydroelectric plant in the country, in the East, (1600 MW) was closed down. All six of the huge incinerators which burn refuse from the Paris region are being shut down by strikers this weekend.

Teachers, city refuse workers and employees at the Bank of France are on strike. In a welcome involvement of private sector, hypermarket workers from Carrefour struck for half a day on Tuesday, while retail workers held their own demonstration in Paris on Wednesday.

Energy unionists have been showing their power by deciding who should have electricity and who should not. Visiting ministers have found their meetings plunged into darkness while thousands of poor people whose houses had been put on strictly limited power because they were in debt have been given back full access in the South West of the country. When the police arrested one power worker on a demonstration Bordeaux, they suddenly found that all electricity had been cut off to the police station!

Ministers can hardly move without being harassed by protesters. Macron had to scuttle out of a Parisian theatre last week when activists discovered where he was. Strikers and supporters, sometimes organized into city-wide strike committees bringing together many different professions, have been behind innumerable grassroots initiatives, set into motion without asking the opinion of the professional negotiators who lead the trade unions.

An insurgent movement 

Dozens of towns have had nighttime torchlight processions. In Lille the procession was banned by the police chief, but went ahead anyway. My town of 100 000 inhabitants, Montreuil, just outside Paris, had a local feeder march to last week’s Paris demonstration. Two days later the high school students set up a torchlight demonstration, and hundreds of us were singing and chanting anti Macron and anti capitalist slogans. ‘Even in 1968, I never saw this,’ said one local veteran activist.

Concerts to raise money for strikers’ hardship funds are common. Bus and tram depots were blockaded, the Louvre museum was closed down by protestors, as was the National Library on Thursday. Main roads were blocked in the town of Rouen in Normandy. In Bayonne in the South, the train lines were blocked; elsewhere town council meetings have been occupied, and many city mayors who support Macron have not dared organize their New Year ceremonies, traditionally held in mid January. One who tried found dozens of strikers turned up and scoffed the petit fours !

Some left-wing town councils have voted to give money to help strikers in financial hardship, and strike funds have collected several million euros from the public (although of course this makes up only a tiny proportion of lost wages).

Self-employed lawyers, generally rather well-paid, but set to lose a lot if the pensions attack goes through, have joined the revolt. The vast majority of court lawyers are on strike, and cases are now routinely cancelled. The National Bar Council, which represents some 70 000 lawyers, has refused to meet with the Minister of Justice and say they will only negotiate with the Prime Minister. A group of lawyers brought banners to a major rugby match in Toulouse to help get their message across. Others protested two weeks ago by throwing  their robes on the floor in front of a visiting minister, and the symbolism has caught on. Health workers have been symbolically discarding their uniforms, and teachers have been dumping mountains of briefcases and text books in front of regional education headquarters. One such headquarters was bricked up last week, and a regional police HQ was barricaded by farmers with bales of hay.

Now exam season is over, universities are heating up. A national coordinating meeting was held on 18th January, with delegates from 30 universities, and there will be a weekend meeting on the 1st February, which aims at having far more institutions present. The University of Tours was blockaded, as was Nancy, and Paris Tolbiac and Nanterre are on strike, among others. Mass meetings in these universities debated the situation and planned future action. Other universities are slowly moving into action. Even a whole network of academic journal editors (this is generally an unpaid job) are meeting today to discuss what action they can take. Dozens of high schools are mobilized too.

All of these events keep the eyes of the public on the hatred for Macron’s attacks.

A choice of society 

Media lies claim the strikers are defending ‘privileges’. On the contrary, it is a tremendous example of class consciousness. Since Macron’s concessions in mid-December, the main victims of the attack on pensions would be those born after 1975, since the new calculation method will only apply to them. TV commentators cannot understand why hundreds of thousands of over 45s continue to join strikes and demonstrations. It is because people are thinking of their younger colleagues, of their children, nieces and nephews, of their class. As left wing MP Jean-Luc Mélenchon said at a mass meeting in Amiens last week: ‘This struggle is about what kind of society we want to live in, whether it’s every one for themselves, or whether it’s about everyone together’.

Macron’s response is threefold. Firstly, propaganda initiatives like the Retirement Financing Conference; secondly, waiting for the strikers to tire; and, finally, vicious police violence. Police thugs know they will be covered by their superiors and so give free rein to their thuggery. Horrific videos circulate every few days showing extreme violence, using clubs, rubber bullets aimed illegally at people’s heads, and so on. Some show protesters lying on the ground with blood streaming, while police continue to beat them.

The bill is being discussed in cabinet today, and the day of strikes will again show the anger – hundreds of schools will be closed and public transport and services will be hit. The latest poll figures, yesterday, show that 70% of the population think the movement will continue, while the conservative magazine, Le Point, published a report Thursday saying that 80% of people retiring would lose money if the bill becomes law! An eighth national day of action has just been called by four of the biggest national union confederations and four student and high school unions for January 29th.

A second wind in the private sector and among young people could yet bring us victory. But Macron knows that if he loses this one, his whole plan for full spectrum Thatcherism will suffer a hefty blow, and the bosses are still behind him despite billions of euros of lost economic activity this last month. The struggle will be a long one, and will impact the local elections due in March. We need the insurgent spirit of this movement to continue to develop.

Photo Gallery – Luxemburg-Liebknecht Demo 12/01/2020

Photos by Julie Niederhauser


12/01/2020


Photos by Julie Niederhauser

David Bowie Obituary

On the anniversaries of David Bowie’s birth and death, we reproduce an obituary by Phil Butland from our old Website


09/01/2020


He released milestones of pop music, and fought against racism and homophobia. Now David Bowie has died at the age of 69. An obituary by Phil Butland

 

David Bowie is dead. I can’t think of any other artist who produced such a variety of excellent music, or a body of work approaching the 12 original albums that Bowie released between 1969 and 1980. Every single album from this period is a serious candidate for any list of the best records of all time.

It is even more impressive that these records were so diverse. Let’s start with “David Bowie (Space Oddity)” from 1969. Most people know the title track, a song about the alienation of an astronaut. The BBC used it as the soundtrack of the coverage of the moon landing. Yet the whole album from the then 22-year old contains a series of impressive beautifully written short stories performed in a folky style.

This was rapidly followed by albums of pop, glam rock, soul, alienated electronica and the first New Romantic record “Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps)”. There’s not the space here to describe them in sufficient detail. It’s better to listen to them yourselves.

Bowie spoke openly about his bisexuality

Bowie was not just a musical innovator – he was the voice of the outsider, and particularly of LGBT people. On the sleeve of “The Man Who Sold The World” album he was photographed wearing a dress; on “Top of The Pops”, then one of the most popular television shows, he wore a leotard and make-up, and his stage performances with guitarist Mick Ronson were clearly homoerotic.

In interviews he spoke openly about his bisexuality – at a time when homosexuality was still considered scandalous. In “Rebel, Rebel” he hailed the rebels of indeterminate sex (“not sure if you‘re a boy or a girl”). The gay musician Tom Robinson tweeted following Bowie’s death about the importance of his performances for young gays and lesbians of this era.

Bowie’s half-brother was schizophrenic

Bowie’s lyrics covered other socially excluded groups. The artist Grayson Perry wrote that “he was a megastar, but his power came from the fact he was the champion of the outcast in the bedroom. The loner, the misfit.”

Bowie was particularly concerned with mental illness. His half-brother Terry was schizophrenic and committed suicide in 1985. Bowie wrote several songs about Terry, including “All The Madmen”, and “Aladdin Sane” (A lad insane).

Another recurring metaphor in Bowie’s lyrics is of space travel – an area that is as far away from the “real” socially acceptable world as you can get. Major Tom, the hero of “Space Oddity returned twice – in “Ashes to Ashes” and “Hello Spaceboy”. Other early song titles included “Starman”, “Life on Mars” and “The Prettiest Star”.

Alienation from reality

This metaphor is partly a wordplay on the word “star” (which can be both an astrological and a cultural phenomenon), showing the increasing distance from reality that accompanied Bowie’s growing celebrity. This is also the subject of the song “Fame” that Bowie wrote and recorded with John Lennon in 1975.

It would be wrong, though, to see Bowie’s alienation as being purely the product of his fame. Already on his first “proper” record in 1969, you can see it on the song “Unwashed And Somewhat Slightly Dazed”. Here Bowie presents himself to a beautiful rich woman:

“I’m the Cream / Of the Great Utopia Dream / And you’re the gleam / In the depths of your banker’s spleen / I’m a phallus in pigtails / And there’s blood on my nose / And my tissue is rotting / Where the rats chew my bones / And my eye sockets empty / See nothing but pain / I keep having this brainstorm / About twelve times a day.”

This song – deeply poetic and careering between arrogance and self-hatred – shows a lot about Bowie. It also helps us understand one of his darker phases. Because this really needs an explanation.

Bowie gives a Hitler salute

In an interview with the magazine “Playboy”, Bowie said the following: “I’d love to enter politics. I will one day. I’d adore to be Prime Minister. And, yes, I believe very strongly in fascism. The only way we can speed up the sort of liberalism that’s hanging foul in the air at the moment is to speed up the progress of a right-wing, totally dictatorial tyranny and get it over as fast as possible. People have always responded with greater efficiency under a regimental leadership. A liberal wastes time saying, “Well, now, what ideas have you got?” Show them what to do, for God’s sake. If you don’t, nothing will get done. I can’t stand people just hanging about. Television is the most successful fascist, needless to say. Rock stars are fascists, too. Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars.”

Rosemarie Nünning and I have already written about the consequences of this statement in our article about Rock Against Racism in the Winter 2015 edition of marx21 magazine. I won’t repeat the story here, except to reiterate that Bowie gave the interview in 1976, when the British Nazis of the National Front were gaining an alarming amount of support. Earlier in the same year, Bowie had also apparently made a Hitler salute at London’s Victoria station.

How could it be that someone who had stood up for gay rights and for the rights of the mentally ill was suddenly making fascist statements? Some people blame the copious amounts of drugs that Bowie was taking at the time. They may indeed have made a contribution, but I find this explanation insufficient.

Bowie’s rebellion was always individualistic. He was highly gifted and felt intellectually constrained. In the song “Quicksand”, he called himself a “mortal with the potential of a superman” who was “sinking in the quicksand of my thought”, terminology that he took from Nietzsche.

Preoccupation with Nietzsche

Bowie had shown significant interest in Nietzsche’s philosophy. In 1970, he wrote a song called “The Supermen”, and the last line of his 1971 hit “Oh You Pretty Things” states “You gotta make way for the Homo Superior”. Although Nietzsche himself was not a fascist, the Nazis adopted many of his ideas, including the terms “Homo Superior” and “Superman”, or, as they preferred to call it, the “Übermensch”.

At a time which was experiencing a degree of class struggle, Bowie came neither from the proletariat nor from the ruling class. His father was a teacher and head of the art department, and his mother had been an active member of the British Union of Fascists as a teenager. They lived in Bromley, part of the Commuter Belt around London, home to many middle managers. Bowie came from precisely that class of society which is open to both progressive and fascist ideas.

Notwithstanding his mistakes in the 1970s, Bowie was eventually won over for progressive ideas. After his racist comments, his acquaintances from the radical Berlin scene had words with him. Later, he would not just have black friends (like his musical collaborator Nile Rodgers and his wife Iman), but he also clearly spoke out against racism.

Both Rock Against Racism, and later the Anti Nazi League (ANL) were formed as a direct response to Bowie’s remarks. In 1994, with a renewed fascist threat, the ANL reformed and organised a festival in London. Bowie sent a cheque for £1,500. Attached was a note with a single word. “Sorry”.

Fight against racism

Bowie did not just fight against racism in the UK. He said the following about Australia, where he briefly lived: “As much as I love this country it’s probably one of the most racially intolerant in the world, well in line with South Africa.” He made a clear stand for Aboriginal rights. When “Let’s Dance” was released in Australia, its video clearly depicted racism against Aboriginal people. Since Bowie’s death, one of the most shared videos is of his appearance on MTV, where he attacks the US- based media giant, where he attacks for allowing little space for black musicians.

I have written little here about Bowie’s music after 1980. In the past 36 years, he has released 12 more solo albums, plus 2 records by his band Tin Machine. Nearly every one has been hailed as a “return to form”, and some have been very good indeed.

Yet for me, Bowie’s greatest musical contributions comes from the 12 records that he released in and around the 1970s, and from the albums by other artists in that decade on which he was a producer (at least 3 of these are also candidates for a list of best albums of all time – Lou Reed’s “Transformer” and Iggy Pop’s “The Idiot” and “Lust for Life”).

By 1980, Bowie was finding other interests – including as a painter an actor. He was impressive in films like “Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence” and “The Hunger”, and on television as Berthold Brecht’s “Baal”. He may not always have maintained the quality of his early epic work, but he still developed a tremendous quality and range – in all genres from drum and bass to heavy metal.

A few days before his death, Bowie released his last album “Black Star”. It was – once again – hailed as a return to form. Experience has taught me that we should wait a little before we make our final judgement. But I hope that “Black Star” will affect us every bit as much as Bowie’s earlier works.

With David Bowie’s death, one of the greats has left us.

This obituary was originally published in German on the marx21 Website:

British Election results – Response to Phil Butland

Thank you Phil – Your comments are very helpful to stimulate an understanding, of ‘what happened here?” At the outset let me say that like Phil – this was not the outcome I had wanted. What a disaster it is for progressive people, both in what is still called the United Kingdom (for the moment […]


17/12/2019


Thank you Phil – Your comments are very helpful to stimulate an understanding, of ‘what happened here?”
At the outset let me say that like Phil – this was not the outcome I had wanted. What a disaster it is for progressive people, both in what is still called the United Kingdom (for the moment at least!) and the progressives of Europe.
But I hope Phil does not mind a slightly differing perspective?
Anyway, here it is.
Phil rightly says: “The Conservative win in this week’s British election was not surprising”.
However Phil then goes on to say that the margin of victory was surprising.
But is it possible that more deliberate reflection, rather than a hopeful optimism, would have made for less surprise?
It can be seen from my phrasing, that I disagree with Phil that this was all that surprising.
Let me argue, that Phil puts the key analysis in the first two sentences in his first subheading.
Any sober analysis would have provided the left, with at least a clue that a large Conservative victory was imminent.
i) The election revolved around Brexit
Phil B: “Whether we wanted it or not it was a Brexit election. Since 2015, the Brexit discussion has paralysed British politics.”
That wording precisely frames a central key issue.
The Brexit to-be-or-not-to-be question, has paralysed not only parliamentary politics but the whole of British society. In fact the entire British atmosphere, tone, daily life, conversations, plans – I daresay dreams, nightmares and sleeps…. Were all infected.
People were… sick of it. I regret that I see something here that is a bit sinister. For I suggest that the whole parliamentary charade of the last period after Theresa May became PM, was deliberately designed to stall and alienate the public. I believe that the conservative opposition and their financiers are very, very cleverly calculating and strategic. The longer a ‘non-decision’ was left hanging, like some Sword of Damocles – the more alienated people would become – from any ‘normal’ semblance to a political discussion. This merely allowed in…. a liar and manipulator… i.e. the now elected PM Johnson.
And – to put bluntly – Jeremy did not help. Jeremy took at least two combined mis-steps on this matter.
After all, of what help is it to the voter, who watched over some two years of enervating, endless parliamentary manouevering, to hear Jeremy say that he ‘has an open mind on Brexit’?
Such ‘agnosticism’ is not admirable in some one supposed to lead.
For wasn’t agnosticism the only logical implication of urging yet another vote-referendum? There was never a clearly put recommendation to the Labour constituency, one way or another.
What is a Labour ‘leader’ supposed to say as the class enemy (I apologise for old-fashioned terminology) approaches with drawn sabres? “Well the sabres may not actually be sharp”?
How could it be argued, that he did not realise that the election was indeed another ‘referendum’ on Brexit?
Let us accept for the moment, that indeed he did not realize this to be so. Then there were two mis-steps – which in reality formed the combined political equivalent of suicide.
So let us return to whether we should have released the election revolved around Brexit.
In fact the very possible outcome had been clearly signalled by the European elections when Labour came a resounding third. As Daniel Finn says:
“the incessant internal attacks on Corbyn’s policy were damaging in their own right. These pressures told against Labour in the Euro elections. Those who took part—only 37 per cent of eligible voters—mainly seized the opportunity to express their views on Brexit. The election itself symbolized May’s failure to deliver, and Tory voters deserted her in droves, with the Conservatives dropping below 9 per cent. Leave supporters gravitated to Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party, which topped the poll with 30.5 per cent. Remain voters lurched in the opposite direction, backing the Liberal Democrats (almost 20 per cent) and the Greens (a little under 12). Corbyn’s soft-Brexit pitch, and his attempt to shift the debate towards domestic political concerns, gained no traction with the electorate: Labour finished in third place, with 13.6 per cent.” [Daniel Finn; “Crosscurrents Corbyn, Labour and the Brexit Crisis”; New Left Rteview; London; 118; July-August 2019.
Now the struggles within the Labour party complicate the picture, and are dealt with in detail by Finn (ibid). However the central issue is that both Jeremy and John McDonnell knew the electoral mood. Yet we should pause – for both Jeremy and John McDonnell are very, very smart cookies. Is it at all conceivable that they truly did not know this was what was happening? Personally, I think they are too smart not to have seen this somewhat obvious fact. I would like to come back to this point at the very end.
ii) The electorate overlook the “real social change” proposed by Labour
Phil goes on to say the Brexit domination of electoral issues occurred: “Just as the Labour Party elected a leader who promised real social change and a Green New Deal financed by taxing the rich, political discussion was diverted to what had started as a private discussion inside the Conservative party.”
But, can we really forget that recent Labour Blair governments continued and escalated the de-nationalisations, that were started by Margaret Thatcher? The infamous North-South divide in wealth inequity was not a new phenomenon of the last 10 years of the Conservative reinvigorated ‘austerity’. Why would the traditional Labour supporting workers believe this 2019 sudden re-discovery of socialist elementary steps?
Such skepticism on the part of Labour voters, is entirely consistent with Phil’s comment:
”For a significant number of people, a vote for Brexit was a protest against the politicians who had systematically ignored them for decades.”
As Phil acknowledges, the ‘protest’ was not just directed at ‘Etonians’ – in fact it does not make sense to argue that.
Actually the Labour electorate voted with their feet. As Phil says: “The problem was that many Labour voters stayed at home.”
The underlying truth is, that the Labour party’s historic role for some time has been to serve as a left mask for a ruling class. Their historic record, finally caught up with them. The working-class electorate could no longer trust their promises.
iii) The Media
Phil goes on to make the point that:
“In the media discussion, the people allowed to make the case for Leave were swivel-eyed racists like Nigel Farage. At the same time, the case for Remain was generally accompanied by a smug assumption that EU membership had benefited “us” – an assumption that was derided by people struggling in the post-industrial wastelands in Northern England and elsewhere. This put Labour and Corbyn in an almost impossible situation..”
There can be absolutely no question that the media was extraordinarily biased, and we agree fully with Phil here. We leave aside one obvious rejoinder, “What do you expect of the capitalist media?”
But let me ask instead, how should a Labour leader respond to attacks? Perhaps not like Jeremy.
For example, when asked whether he was a problem for the election of Labour, Jeremy’s answer was pretty tepid. Does the retort: “Some people like Marmite, others don’t” – cut it? (Interview with Liz Bates Channel4; ‘Corbyn compares himself to Marmite: ‘Some people like it, some people don’t’ – Guardian video clip; Friday 6 December, 2019)
Jeremy here simply devalued political attacks on Labour and himself, by calling these ‘personal attacks’ and making it all about a matter of personal taste.
This ties in with the attacks on the alleged anti-Semitism. Why was there not a robust political defence saying that anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Zionism or defence of Palestine? Frankly the refusal to ‘apologise’ in interviews, without seizing the didactic moment, simply compounded the whole problem.
Either apologise – or fight back. Honestly, either was preferable to an endless hand-wringing.
Phil takes the charitable view that:
“And yet there was one sense in which Corbyn was a victim of his own humanity. A genuinely decent man, his instinct is to avoid conflict.”
I do not dispute that Corbyn is decent man. But further on, Phil acknowledges the problem, when he concludes this section:
“we needed someone to stick the boot in. Corbyn was not emotionally suited to be that person.”
So this was supposed to be a leader. He should have led, or quit early enough that an alternative ‘booter’ could have done it.
iv) Electoral Analysis
“Over 10 million people voted for Labour. This was the second highest number of votes for Labour in any of the last 5 elections…. Nearly 14 million people voted for the Tories”.
Phil is saying that largely the Labour electorate did come out (notwithstanding the earlier remark about stay-at-home voters).
So electoral analysis here largely supports Phil’s view. Notwithstanding one’s opinion about Lord Ashcroft and his speculative ways, the Ashcroft polls are a useful data source to inform electoral behavior.
Because it does seem that tactical voting played a major role in the vote moving away from Labour.
“Just over a quarter (26%) of all voters said they were trying to stop the party they liked least from winning, including 43% of those who voted Lib Dem and 31% of Labour voters. One in three Remain voters said they were voting to stop their least preferred party compared to 18% of Leave voters.”
By some other estimates, it seems that some “39 seats won by Tories could have been denied to them by tactical voting, almost completely wiping out their majority (80 seats).” (Private communication).
And a generational divide shows up once more, as in other recent elections:
“Labour won more than half the vote among those turning out aged 18-24 (57%) and 25-34 (55%), with the Conservatives second in both groups. The Conservatives were ahead among those aged 45-54 (with 43%), 55-64 (with 49%) and 65+ (with 62%).” (Ashcroft Poll; Ibid).
So there – as always is hope – but these young people who will bring us closer to socialism, need a party vehicle, other than the Labour Party.
As implied by Phil, in Scotland – the flag bearer of progressive causes is undoubtedly now the Scottish national Party. And moves towards a United Ireland seem to be taking hold. But within the rest of the “United” Kingdom… ?
I do not think the Labour Party merits that position. It has been downhill since the glory days of Aneurin Bevan. That name is not just tossed in, as a major fault line will be the legacy of Bevan – the NHS. It is very likely that this is being carved up as we speak, a wing here for the American health care insurers, a leg here for the pharma companies, a very generous slice here for American style management corporations.
All this has happened already in fact, in a steady march since the days of Barbara Castle. A very good short clip of Dr John Puntis (Chairman of “Keep the NHS Public”, speaking on Bradford radio on the matter is illuminating. (Bradford radio – Bradford Community Broadcasting; look for Drive Time, Monday 16th December 5-6pm; Interview runs from 44.15 minutes to 53.00 minutes on the clock,).
In fact the issue of the NHS helps us segue into the major portion of where the discussion needs to go now. Why did the British ruling class get so divided amongst itself? Because the NHS matter leads directly into trading relations with the USA./
v) Profound internal problems within the ruling class of the United Kingdom
Gramsci said: “The modern crisis . . . is related to what is called the “crisis of authority.” If the ruling class has lost its consensus, i.e., is no longer “leading” but only “dominant,” exercising coercive force alone, this means precisely that the great masses have become detached from their traditional ideologies, and no longer believe what they used to believe previously, etc. The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old way is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”(Antonio Gramsci (1973, 275–276); Cited by William I Robinson: “Global Capitalist Crisis and Twenty-First Century Fascism: Beyond the Trump Hype”; Science & Society, Vol. 83, No. 2, April 2019, 481–509 ).
I believe we are in such a nodal point nowadays.
We see all sorts of manner of: ”morbid symptoms”. And in fact the UK ruling class was itself sorely divided about which direction to go. That is why there was such a tensions for such a long time between the industrial sector ruling class (declining) and the trading and speculative financial sector ruling class (dominant). Despite the fact that the UK was in Tony Norfield’s Index of Power – in second place world wide (Tony Norfield’s blogsite; 12 February 2018; at: ) – there has long remained a central problem. After the economic crisis of 2007, the UK never really recovered. Michael Roberts’ data from various sources is compelling in showing a fall in productivity of the UK (at: Michael Roberts,” The productivity puzzle again”; ‘Michael Roberts Blog’ 29 June 2018; ):
If one doubts that the ruling class was divided about what to do, consider the extraordinary spectacle of the fights within the financial sector of British ruling classes. Hence the current Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney was attacked by an ex-Governor Mervyn King. (Richard Partington and Phillip Inman; “Mark Carney backs Theresa May’s Brexit deal”; The Guardian; 20 November 2018; and: Richard Partington; “UK should leave EU with no deal, says former Bank of England governor”; The Guardian; 29 March 2019).
As far as industrial capital was concerned the vast majority wanted to remain (Joe Sommerland and Ben Chapman, ‘‘Which companies are leaving UK, downsizing or cutting jobs ahead of Brexit?’ Dozens of companies have cut jobs, beefed up their European operations or issued warnings on the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU’; 26 February 2019, The Independent ; and; John Rees; ‘Marxism and the Brexit crisis’; Counter-Fire; February 5, 2019.
It is in these tortuous debates that the USA made its moves over recent years. President Trump’s trade agenda is quite clear now to all. His erst-while emissary John Bolton made matters clear as to who the USA viewed the UK:
“John Bolton… has three main aims. The first is… the UK’s withdrawal from the hard-won, US-trashed 2015 Iran nuclear agreement and the abandonment of fellow signatories France and Germany… Bolton’s second aim is to drive a wedge between the UK and Europe… to disrupt, subvert and weaken the EU, whose very existence offends him… If the UK, ever more beholden to the US for its daily bread, can be used to foil Emmanuel Macron’s ideas about integrated European defence, or undermine EU regulations covering digital multinationals, so much the better… The third Bolton aim: (is) to enlist a radically repurposed and realigned UK in pursuit of his singular vision of American global hegemony, of the truly exceptional nation whose power and dominion know no limits..” (Simon Tisdall; John Bolton doesn’t want a trade deal with the UK – he wants to colonise us”; Guardian; 13 August 2019.)
The Conservative Party was hijacked by the section of the ruling class whose mandate is to tie the apron strings of the UK back onto the USA. A significant part of the Labour Party hierarchy seems to have bought into this. Simply put – for the capitalist class the dilemma of a falling rate of profit is very real, and they have no alternative solution.
Let me simply echo here, Phil Butland’s channeling of Joe Hill:
“Don’t mourn, organize!”