Many who read this blog will be familiar with the idea of disaster capitalism. This, in essence, is the idea that there is always money to be made out of economic mayhem, in which case, to use the vernacular, ‘bring disaster on'. I am sure this motivated many who promoted Brexit. Disaster socialism is a less familiar idea but I have little doubt that it is now gaining in popularity on the left, including in Momentum.
Essentially Trotskyist, disaster socialism is based on the idea that revolutionary change is not possible without the collapse of the current order. In that case that collapse has to be encouraged. Brexit provides the perfect opportunity for this in the case of the UK. It is well known that Brexit will precipitate chaos. Lexiteers who subscribe to disaster socialism are as aware of it as anyone. And they see that as the opportunity to create a new socialist order, which they are convinced will happen because people will blame the existing order for the economic chaos that will occur. So, to use the vernacular again, they too are inclined to suggest ‘bring disaster on'.
From reviews of twitter, comments now being posted here on occasion and feedback from those I talk to, the idea that disaster socialism is good reason to support Brexit is growing. It would appear that those involved know that they will harm the well-being of very large numbers of people by supporting Brexit. I suspect they know that some will die as a result. And it seems that they do not care. The utilitarian argument that it is all for the greater good prevails, they think. And they appear to have no doubt that it is socialism and not fascism that will follow from this chaos. Why, or how, I have no clue.
How far spread is this thinking? I do not know. That's an honest statement of fact. That it exists within Labour and, it would seem, Momentum (albeit, and I stress it, as a minority view, overall in both cases) seems indisputable. The idea that Brexit is the opportunity to overthrow capitalism and establish what might be termed old-fashioned Clause 4 socialism appears firmly established amongst some now.
I should be clear: such ideas have always existed on the left-wing fringe. I admit I have always treated them dismissively: the reality is that I cannot think of any way that an economy can be organised in accordance with the idealism that underpins this logic, and I fear that those promoting it cannot either. The consequent alternative might be at least as deeply oppressive as disaster capitalism might be as a result.
Let me also be clear. I would love a world of more opportunity; wider use of co-operative structures; better trade union participation and rights; better pay; more flexible working without loss of employee protection; reduced wage inequality and much more. I think we need all those things, in fact. I do not see them as nice options to afford if and when a land of milk and honey arrives. They are the pre-conditions of a better economy. So I am not going soft on my ambitions here.
But the idea that better outcomes can result from Brexit is absurd. I cannot countenance that there are those on the left who treat their communities with such contempt that they would put the people who live in them through potentially significant unnecessary hardship for a deeply uncertain and candidly improbable supposedly socialist outcome.
And I cannot also imagine those proposing such a change have for a moment wondered how people are going to take to this new world. As I asked one coffee drinking socialist recently, was he going to be happy to find there was just one state run cafe chain in the future? And how was the temporary employee of that chain ever going to associate their work for it with ownership or control? He had no answer.
Now, this may be a caricature, and it was tainted by my genuine recall of the British Rail sandwich, but the point is real: the fact is that there are large sectors of the UK economy where the private sector is undoubtedly better suited to meeting need than the state sector could ever be, just as the reverse is true.
There is no doubt that we have that line wrong now. But even then I cannot see state ownership of railways, water and even power companies radically transforming the well-being of people in this country. I hate to say it, but large organisations will remain slightly dysfunctional large organisations that feel remote from their employees and customers whoever owns them: that's because we as human beings have not yet adapted to embrace their reality even though we have benefited from their existence. That will not change even if we have disaster socialism.
So I remain of the view that a much better regulated mixed economy is, overall, what we need.
Actually, I think it is essential. I cannot see anything else eventually adapting anything like fast enough to climate change. Of course nothing might. And outright capitalism of the sort right-wing Brexiteers want never will, by simply denying the need for change exists. But nor can I see state socialism reacting either: the demand for innovation requires economic diversity of action at present and that appears unlikely in a socialist system. So the biggest challenge we face would not be addressed by disaster socialism, in my opinion.
So why get worried about this? Only because I do not trust the Labour leadership on this issue. I do think those around Jeremy Corbyn, led by Seumas Milne, want a hard Brexit. I do, of course, think they want it to happen on a Tory watch. And I do think they believe it will be good news for the left, embracing in the process at least some of the thinking within disaster socialism. And I think some, at least, are taking part in talks with the Tories right now to tick the clock down, just as May did earlier this year, thinking it suits their agenda, and denies her choice, just as she finally found it did in March. I suspect the aim of some of those involved is to deliver Lexit.
And I think they know this will impose significant cost in the country. And they are indifferent to it. I suspect they are more realistic than those on twitter, and in the grassroots. I would, at least hope so. But do they share a goal? I fear some do. And that is as worrying to me as the knowledge that there are those who undoubtedly want Brexit for the short term profit taking opportunity it creates.
And to those who think this is me moving to the centre? Forget it! I want radical reform. I want a Green New Deal. I want a world better for everyone - including all the 99%. And I think we can deliver this. But not via a politically created disaster. We have one human made disaster to deal with in the form of climate change. We need no more to distract attention from the one core and essential task we have of preserving the chance of life in earth.
Disaster socialism, like disaster capitalism, wholly ignores that risk in the interests of a few and not the planet as a whole. That's why I reject it out of hand. This is no time for 19th century politicking. This is time for real change. And disaster socialism is a million miles from the reform we need.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Agreed.
A strategy that seems to solely to rely on the other side fucking up is thin gruel indeed. It is all about gaining power at anyone’s expense but with little idea of what to do when (if) it happens.
My view on all of this is that I think that Labour are holed below the water.
The masses will not automatically swarm towards Labour when the merde hits the fan. The MSM has done an excellent job on Corbyn and Labour for a start – we even see comments about Milliband and how he was actually right about some of the issues he contested the last election on but the MSM did a hatchet job on him for sure. And Labour’s refusal to nail their colours to the mast on BREXIT will turn out I feel to be counter productive.
But something else I’ve seen is that out here there are plenty of ‘Thatchers children’ as I call them – people who reject any notion of being helped by the Left (whom they associate with failure and weakness) and who like the Tory Government because these are people who want to ‘get on’ and be something and think that they have the talent to do it – they do not need help, or to be told by any well-meaning Leftie that they are ‘poor’ or ‘disenfranchised’ – these people want to define themselves. They do not want to feel like losers.
They are also people who are ripe for exploitation by right-wing groups – such is their distrust and rejection of the Left. So they line up to blame any one but the Tories for their travails and slag of the Left whilst they are at it – Youtube is full of bloggers saying this stuff.
The Left also suffers because New Labour too often would have rather chased swing voters than concentrated on their former hinterlands and effectively abandoned them. How many times must we hear ‘But they’re all the same’? Triangulation = strangulation.
So Labour are in a mess. And I agree with you about markets – regulation and it’s policing is the key to actually meeting society’s concerns.
But what is tragic for me is that PQE, GND, MMT – all these excellent ideas will suffer if they are actually associated with what is the now a discredited Left in this country and I go back to my view that we need a new party to deliver these ideas.
There is only one party therefore that could have delivered MMT, GN and PQE and have been taken seriously and I think that that party was the Conservative Party – as bizarre as it sounds but also again tragic because no one has rumbled that the Tories have not been a real conservative party for long time.
Interregnum?
Oh yes – definitely!
The predicament is that to endorse brexit would be to agree with the brexit narrative of scapegoats. The alternative is to pretend that the EU is all good. The point equidistant isn’t where they are either.
Surely the important thing is to talk about what happens afterwards (in/out). The green new deal for example is possible inside and outside.
It is very unlikely that the Green New Deal would happen outside
There would simply be no political energy available to do it given all that would have to be directed to recreating the Union and salvaging from the wreckage of UK trade
Many thanks for this post. This case needs to be made, developed and advanced continuously. It seems pretty clear that Mr. Corbyn has been captured by the four “Ms” around him – Milne, Murray, Murphy and McCluskey. One can’t be sure about the latter two, but the former two are instinctive and reflexive advocates of disaster socialism. And they’re being supported by Lexiteers in positions of influence, such as the Economics Editor of the Guardian.
The two big political parties have always been riven by factions and when the factionalism was so intense that they failed to present any sort of united front to the voters they were out of power – often for long periods. Normally the battle in either party is between two factions, but it is possible to discern at least four factions in Labour (either fomally or informally fronted by some key individuals) – Mr. Corbyn surrounded by the four “Ms” with a majority of the NEC and a declining majoirty of the membership, John McDonnell (with Rebecca Long-Bailey) and some reasonably pragmatic leftists, then people like Tom Watson and Keir Starmer trying to impose some rationality on the Labour front bench and, finally, people like Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn who are seeking to exercise whatever influence they can from the backbenches.
Irrespective of the viciousness of the attacks by the right-wing press (and irrespective of the internal Tory faction fight), voters are getting no sense of a competent, coherent alternative government in which they can repose their trust for a four to five year period. Falling support for the Tories is not translating in to increasing support for Labour. People continuously seem to forget Richard Neville’s observation that there is only an inch of difference between a Labour government and a right-wing government, but in that inch we can begin to live and breathe.
On current form Labour is fated to have another period in the wilderness. And it is a tragedy for so many people.
The problem is that the Tories will be in the wilderness too
And then the question is whether the void is filled by the sane left alternatives or by neo-fascists
From what I’ve seen (and FWIW I am definitely one) many Lexiters do not accept the supposition that a no deal Brexit will lead to the kind of earthly collapse scale of disaster that has become an article of faith in the Remain communities. This country will not be ‘destroyed’ by any measure.
Even the most pessimistic of the mainstream forecasts talk of a few percent GDP loss over decades (of government inactivity).
The point is that the line you talk of between the state and private capital interests will continue to move towards the latter inside the EU – just as it has done for the last 40 years. There are no where near the numbers required to turn the ship around – especially as the Lisbon Treaty and enlargement have essentially lashed the wheel (and the helmsmen are all ex-Goldman Sachs anyway).
As for some people dying – they’re doing so already. They’re taking their own lives in the austerity ravaged peripherals states, they’re choking on emissions from corruptly tested cars, they’re dying for lack of care in the denuded health servies of the states who we ransack for nurses and doctors – and worse of all they’re drowned in the med or languishing in squallor in Libyan detention camps. The disaster is here already – and it’s no less appalling for taking many years to materialise.
Ned D
I’m really curious
I guess I bring some expertise to this issue and am open about it
Before we debate it can you tell me what experience / expertise you have to base your confidence on?
I am really not interested in dogma when the question might be / will be people dying. I want to know why you are so sure they won’t when experts in the area (Colleges of Mdicien, for example) are sure they will
So please tell, in full
Richard
OK then Richard, I’m a middle aged (just turned 50) data scientist currently working in the insurance industry (previously within the Life sector) with a background (and PhD) in applied psychology — so I’ve a fair idea of the interpretation of mortality statistics and the like.
My knowledge of the drugs commission and procurement system is, as you suspect, relatively limited and I’m happy enough to take the warnings of the respective health authorities in mind – but also happy to weigh in mind the severe issues that the current marketized/neoliberal EU preferred model is producing (antibiotic resistance, soil degradation, pesticide over use etc.).
I’ve read (and understand the stats behind) various pieces of research that suggest any number of reasons for excess deaths as a result of a no deal Brexit, such as this one on the possible reduction in fruit and vegetables in the next decade:
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e026966
I am also well aware , however that most of these models, and all of the macroeconomic ones, hold too many ‘everything else being equal’/’business as usual’ assumptions — which completely miss the point of Lexit. The potential non-Brexit risks are so huge and the downsides so dire that BAU should be one of the last options that we wish to take and remaining in the irreformable EU is just that status quo option.
I am not indifferent to the potential costs of Brexit (and yes, they may include deaths I’m afraid) — it’s a judgement as to the greater good in the long run.
I agree with the likes of Dr. Lee Jones (and the rest of the commenters at the Full Brexit) that the ONLY level where labour has ever been effective at reigning in the excesses of capital has been at the level of the nation state, that this is the scale at which pressure can best be organised and applied and that shackling ourselves to a neoliberal institution with power structures too diffuse and corporately captured will result in nothing but misery in the long term.
Finally, here’s a little thought experiment for you – whoever is in power in a UK outside the EU will have an unparalleled opportunity to do something radical about the City of London – to significantly curtail all of the abuse without the abanks crying foul to the ECJ (I seem to remember you making this point when you were looking for silver linings in the aftermath of the Leave vote). All that tax abuse, all that rent extraction, all that inequality. How many lives might that opportunity be worth I wonder? If ‘we’ chose to go down the full tax-haven route (which essentially we are anway) the EU will be able (finally) to protect themselves from ‘us’. How many lives would that be worth?
I am staggered that anyone able to appraise evidence can come to such bizarre conclusions as you have
And that you can ignore the evidence that there really will be a loss of well-being (I think it absolutely unavoidable)
Or that you can ignore the result for the UK – which will cease to exist – which will impose mayhem on England which will be the loser in this with those leaving being the gainers
And that you can somehow believe that the remaining England and maybe Wales will vote hard left
And that there will be any capacity left to deal with climate change – which there won’t be
But I have to respect your right to want to wreck anything of value we have, and the chance to address the faults as well
It’s not going to be a rational debate. They are convinced that “…things can’t get any worse…”
As Alex states: “They seem completely blind to the fact that the right and the disaster capitalists of this world are far better at exploiting the sort of chaos that would result from Brexit than they are.”
Unlike Citizen Lexit ( & Labour) the Tories actually have a Hard Brexit plan: one so right wing and overt it had to be removed from the publications of the Institute for Economic Affairs because it threatened their (spurious) charitable status: workers rights, environmental protection, Food & Health standards… NHS…all terribly “anti-competitive” & all got to go…
MY suspicion is that accompanying this the remnants of UK industry will be focussed on “defense” because selling bombs & murder expertise around the world is still highly lucrative. “Jobs” will be created by the need for grunts to suplement the high tech mayhem & will be supplied from the deprived areas which are already being targetted by the gov & UK military.
Ned
It may not be the case that the EU inexorably continues its march towards ‘capital interests’ given a more serious endogenous threat – the re-emergence of fascism which the EU was set up to prevent happening again.
This factor alone could be the biggest moderating factor on capital in as much as the threat of communism was a moderator of rabid capitalism.
It could happen.
It should happen.
When even the IMF are asking questions about how the world economy is structured there is reason for hope.
As someone who can assess evidence Richard, I am staggered that you appear to have such a limited view of the ‘wellbeing’ promoted by the EU.
Firstly, where is your evidence that the post SM EU has done anything to foster trade within it’s borders? Where is your evidence that it has done anything to increase GDP?
But worse than that — to maintain your position you simply fail to address the effects of the Four Freedoms, the SM, the Lisbon treaty, the Fiscal Compacts and the thoroughly captured ECJ – on THE most important mediator of the ‘wellbeing’ of any nation — the distribution of the wealth created. On almost every measure of inequality (individual, regional and national) the performance of the EU has been catastrophic (with the Euro of course turbo charging the disparities within the Eurozone). The captured EU has ensured that all the benefits of the (debateable) enhancement of trade have been syphoned and extracted with national elites able to get away with it whilst claiming that their hands are tied.
I’m staggered that anyone could think the EU is the answer to this – it’s an institution whose ‘Structural Reform’ proposals still think the solution is to ‘make labour markets more adaptable and responsive’ and to “liberalise service sectors, boost competition in production and services markets…” and who place these factors well ahead of trifles such as sustainability and coherent local communities.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/growth-and-investment/structural-reforms/structural-reforms-economic-growth_en
And in reply to Pilgrim SR, there is no evidence whatsoever that the EU is a hindrance to fascism — the far right parties in France, Italy and Germany are now happy to remain as they realise that it really is no barrier. Fascism isn’t just the Nazis – Mussolini himself said “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” — and that is what the EU has become. If you want to debate this point please do so having spent an hour or two perusing a few of the many reports from the Corporate Europe Observatory and definitely read this piece where I first saw the Mussolini quote:
https://braveneweurope.com/mathew-d-rose-how-the-eu-has-become-an-incubator-for-fascism
As for England (and/or Wales) not being willing to vote ‘Hard Left’ in domestic elections — all of the left Remainer disaster capitalism / Rees-Moggmagheddon tax-haven, neoliberalism run-riot predictions assume that England is just itching to vote far-right. Where is YOUR evidence for this? It’s all bogeymen, it’s all bullshit.
Finally, in reply to Marie — I do not, as Richard suggests, ‘shrug’ at any of those things, but then neither do I shrug to an EU economic model that relies upon such dislocation of migrant ‘cheap labour’ working in roles that are significantly below their skills or the poaching of expensively trained workers to prop up the wealthier states.
If you want to suggest I am taking bullshit it’s quite clear you are not interested in debate
Thankfully, you have not a hope in hell of ever seeing your vision realised
I will join with those addressing the far right by offering real opportunity to people to save the planet whilst you play with your far left fantasies
To be clear Richard – I think the bogeyman threat of a far-right political swing after Brexit is BS. Where is your evidence that Gove, Hunt, Rees-Mogg, Bojo or Redwood or whom ever this alleged strong-man might be could ever acheive the electoral support necessary for such a swing in England?
Just to type that list of gits shows how preposterous the notion is.
To suggest that my rejection of this bogeyman argument as BS is to suggest that all you say is BS is a bit OTT I’m afraid.
The Brexit Party is far right
It is likely to lead the polls on 23 / 5
The Tories will still capture more than 20%
Between them they may get near 50% of the vote
You need evidence: that will be it
And Johnson is likely to be our next PM
So your strong-men are Farrage and Johnson then? Hmmmmm, scary.
“Brexit party is far right.”
Possibly, but they are also a protest vote. There’s no indication that their appeal will extend in a FPTP General Election. UKIP haven’t in the previous two.
“And Johnson will be our next PM.”
This is the man who (along with Michael Gove and the other preposterous Tory leadership front-runners) had no idea of a plan post-Brexit, so malevolent their intent, so devious their machinations.
I very much doubt your political judgement
I think you’re wasting my time
I’m not sure where your forecasts are from. I’m not sure where Corbyn’s ideas about the sunny uplands of Lexit are from. May well be that disaster socialism which has been tried, tested and failed elsewhere.
I only look around me, I see the reality of BrexitLexit already shaping up, and it’s not pretty. Actual reality happening. No might, no will.
Nurses and doctors from the EU having already left or planning to leave our local hospital which is already stretched to breaking point, so when they leave, it’ll break. People’s life jeopardised. Local economy empoverished.
Local hotels, restaurants, campsites, farms and related processing factories where almost half the EU staff/workforce is planning to leave because they’re mostly young and want a secure future.
They’d planned it to be here, with kids in local schools, but they no longer do, don’t feel it would be secure. Many are from ex-communist block (Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Belarus) absolutely allergic to any sort of limitation on their Freedom of Movement…you may understand why if you’re old enough.
They pay local taxes, use local shops, rent accommodation from private landlords…all that money recycled in the local economy, enriching local schools and culture. Gone.
Shall I mention our university? Where applications from EU countries have fallen so much that the already serious deficit is going to be so bad that 100 jobs will have to be cut in the next 3 years. Jobs gone, local taxes gone, money circulating in local economy gone, expertise gone, cultural diversity gone.
So your Lexit, that experiment in disaster socialism, is not doing the town where I live any good. The experiment is real here, and worsening as the deadline approaches. So don’t try selling it as sunny uplands, it feels more like like a dry desert from here.
The Lexiteer shrugs to all that and says ‘it’s a price worth paying by us little Englanders’
And, like you, I profoundly disagree
Partly because to care about your neighbour is a definition of being progressive
“It would appear that those involved know that they will harm the well-being of very large numbers of people by supporting Brexit. I suspect they know that some will die as a result. And it seems that they do not care.”
I suspect their argument, and it’s not without merit, is that people are being harmed in very large numbers and dying as a direct result of capitalism in it’s current form. I think they are deluded if they believe Brexit will result in less harm and fewer deaths but it’s at least a nebulous enough comparison to make that people seem to be able to wave it away.
I think what you’ve written is spot on, there is a delusional wing of the left that really thinks this is the only way to defeat capitalism. They seem completely blind to the fact that the right and the disaster capitalists of this world are far better at exploiting the sort of chaos that would result from Brexit than they are. Rather than resulting in a stronger left and gaining an ability to enact a socialist agenda it will produce the exact opposite, a regulation and tax free libertarian paradise.
The only thing I’d quibble with is that I don’t share your belief that “a world of more opportunity; wider use of co-operative structures; better trade union participation and rights; better pay; more flexible working without loss of employee protection; reduced wage inequality and much more” is possible within the EU either. I think reform is a pipe dream.
We have to disagree on the last: show me any reason why any of that is not possible in the EU and I will show ou a unicorn
On the rest I almost agree, except it was not capi8talism per se but neoliberal politics that has killed people. They’re not necessarily the same
Mostly agree – good post. Disagree on some (minor?) details.
“I cannot see state ownership of railways, water and even power companies radically transforming the well-being of people in this country.”
The DNOs (Distribution Network Operators) plus Ofgem are getting in the way of de-carb of the power network at a local level. You could change the rules (they will game them) or you could simply re-nationalise @ which point gov’ calls the shots. – as it used to. In the case of generators, in terms of the delivery of renewable electricity, the biggest player by far is Orsted – Danish & 50.1% state owned. Why is a state-owned danish company doing what a UK state-owned company could do? As for the railways – don’t re-new the operator licenses and move back to a unfied structure. Water? re-nationalise & fund through the GND – cheaper.
I agree with all your comments
But what I am saying is renationalisation is not the aim – other things are
And all one one go is not required: a process of attrition could work
I think they should be in state control in the end – but state control is not the end, it is just a means
Well, assuming that society is now subjected to Surveillance Capitalism then it’ll be the neo & proto Fascists who will more effectively exploit the zeitgeist and thus fill the void. My week of qualified optimism has been short-lived 🙁
Sorry….
Working class Labour voting communities are in the main deeply conservative. The anti Europe vote is related more to historical traditionalism of the Britain standing alone variety than an upsurge in radical revolutionary seal so if Momentum think Brexit will lead to left wing revolution it is very unlikely. It is more probable that communities will veer towards the ‘strong man’ variety of politics in the hope of restoring order which is a gift for those neo fascists promoting Brexit as a means of making Britain great again. That won’t happen either but it will mean that the nation can fall under the control of a small group of wealthy individuals willing to promote their own self-interest in the guise of a false political message.
I agree
Historically, this is exactly what happened, time after time. Talking of tried and tested…
No matter how that ‘strong man’…or woman…positioned themselves politically. Names matter very little when it comes to practical life experience. Reality changes the meaning of names. There was no socialism once Stalin took over the ‘protection’ of the working class, no matter what the name USSR stood for and what the original experiment was aiming to achieve.
Anyone who needs a reality check should read Camus’s play written in 1950: Les Justes.
It’s the perfect antidote to disaster socialism and to fascism which often follows once the former has inevitably failed. It should be compulsory reading for extremists of all hues.
Camus was a philosopher but also an observer of his times, and he was good at it.
We live in different times, but human nature is pretty constant. Those who learn to manipulate that know it.
Agree with what you say but I think most of lexiters think that the EU is unreformable. See
https://www.e-ir.info/2019/05/05/review-the-left-case-against-the-eu/
for example.
It is true that the neoliberal plan has always been to get international treaties signed so that they are unreformable on a local basis, but nonetheless oblige every state to conform – so I can see where they are coming from.
But Lexit really indicates that they have given up and theirs is effectively a policy of despair and where they have lost the internationalism for which socialism was reputed.
@Peter May: You’re right about Lexiters viewing the EU as being irreformable – and a good explanation for interested readers as to precisely why can be found in this piece by Lee Jones linked below.
It also has some trenchant (and I think entirely correct) statements regarding how the progressive/liberal left view the British (and specifically here it seems, the English) working class – that they’re just ripe to be swayed and exploited by a fascist strong-man (Simon Grey and Marie Thomas has said as much in comments on this post – with Richard’s full agreement) – if people can’t see the contempt inherent in such assumptions, then we’re all doomed:
https://braveneweurope.com/lee-jones-the-folly-of-remain-and-reform-why-the-eu-is-impervious-to-change
Even if you do accept that patronising hogwash – then you still have to explain to me how reversing a democratic decision to leave the EU will make any of these supposed just-itching-to-don-their-jackboots robots LESS suceptible to fascist ideas?
Here’s a very good read regarding why working class people voted Leave and it wasn’t racism or stupidity – it was a demand to finally be listened to.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/15/we-dont-exist-to-them-do-we-why-working-class-people-voted-for-brexit/
There is absolutely no contempt in my opinion: just well-grounded fact
I have been opposing Trots since I was a student: they’re not welcome here and I put you in the category
I also note you seem to have multiple identities here
I always wonder why trolls need them
No, it won’t. There will be one-off adjustment costs but that is not the same thing as chaos. Membership of the EU is not essential, and since the Maastricht Treaty has been more trouble than it is worth. Anyone who aligns themselves with an organization led by sociopaths who inflicted devastating austerity on the people of Greece has a questionable claim to being progressive.
With respect, as someone who looks at things from the perspective of what is possible, I suggest you are completely wrong
And if you think abandoning all agreements with all nations we have then with
And breaking up the Union
And creating mayhem in Ireland
And removing people’s rights
Whilst reducing people’s incomes
Is not disruptive then respectfully you are progressing to cloud cuckoo land
Bill Mitchell… Disaster Socialist… Interesting…
He is just that, I fear
He’s in Scotland right now saying MMT requires that Scotland never go near the EU again
He’ll be setting back the progress of MMT in Scotland by a very long way as a result
It is instructive to go back to Bevan’s In Place of Fear, which, unfortunately, many people read for just for a summary of the genesis of the NHS. Bevan’s data on public and private investment and productivity is most instructive, i.e. the private companies did not invest, the government had to do it for them, e.g. steel and oil. Left to the private sector Britain would have curtailed its steel production to about 70% of market demand and its oil production to even less.
The private sector has, as the Jamaicans would say: “Eaten their horse”, especially in the Slater Walker/Thatcher era. The trouble is that it was our horse too. They should not be allowed to run any strategic asset, from energy and water to rail and health and education.
The Tories, like the extreme Left, have no idea or good organisations really work and have merely inflicted them with untested theories – then refused to believe the evidence of utter failure. We need top to bottom new economic education.
In response to Ned D.
(Sorry for the length Richard, block me if you must!)
And erratum, the play I referred to in a previous post was Les Justes, not La Chute…quickness of the mind…La Chute is my Bible (;-)
Cheap labour, as you call it, is not that simple to categorise.
Indeed, many EU workers find jobs in the UK well below their competences, as did I for a while (declaring interest here).
For some, those jobs are a lifeline. Look at the unemployment rate for young people in Spain for instance, for them it’s either some job somewhere, or no job at all where they live. It’s not about politics for those youngsters, but about immediate survival. The long term doesn’t register on their scale. And it’s not the EU that caused this situation, although their country joining the Eurozone, a sovereign political decision, was a mistake, judging by the results.
I’m very critical of the monetary union, of some EU institutions covering up corruption, inefficiencies and waste, and ashamed of the EU refugees policies, or lack of them.
Show me a perfect system and I’ll sign up.
Coming back to the example of Spain, unskilled workers in Spain were living in quasi third world conditions before joining, same in Portugal, both recovering from decades of fascist dictatorship.
Austerity set them back, as did joining the Eurozone shortly before that, but you must remember who was responsible for the Crash in 2007/8, that was a tipping point.
Some right-wing or right-leaning European governments just jumped on an austerity opportunity, wanting to cut state services, others didn’t. It was not inevitable, they were sovereign political choices.
As for Eastern Europeans, they’re recovering from decades of restricted freedoms, their situation is only different in that instead of a fascist dictatorship, theirs was a so-called array of socialist ones…what’s in a name…
Some of these EU workers spend a few years here, gaining language skills and experience, then either go back or go elsewhere if they find better jobs, or stay if they feel like it.
As for poaching highly skilled doctors and nurses from the poorer countries in the EU, such as Romania, if they didn’t come here they’d go elsewhere, and will do so until their own countries are on track for a sustainable lifestyle, which is more likely to happen within the EU than without (but proper checks must be in place as old habits die hard, see Hungary and its systemic hijacking of EU funds).
These health professionals also go to France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark…in the old days they’d have gone to the U.S. They still do sometimes.
Of course in an ideal situation, we’d train enough doctors, nurses, researchers here to meet our needs. But we don’t. And people are waiting for treatment. Now. And that’s not EU’s fault, is it.
It can take a couple of decades for newer EU members to develop their infrastructures and skills based economy before young people there can feel confident that their future is at home…or not.
Their choice, their freedom.
This reversal of migratory flow is happening to Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, etc… though they still need more time, and support. These countries, and others, are recovering from terrible times. Have you met people from there? Did you visit while they were still behind walls or under the boots of generals? It wasn’t that long ago.
Meanwhile some of these people will take back skills and invaluable experience to their country of origin after a spell in another country, be it Britain or one of the other luckier ones.
It’s Freedom of Movement. That’s what it does. You may not like it. It has its problems, they need sorting and should include a degree of regulation so workers don’t get exploited.
I’m strongly in favour of reform, in fact it’s essential for the EU to survive in a different shape to what it is.
Not at all in favour of destruction. And certainly never will I be in favour of stopping or even curtailing FoM.
Regulating, making sure workers from anywhere working anywhere are treated fairly, absolutely.
Nothing else will stop fascism from taking hold again, and again.
It always sprouts somewhere, let’s hope Europe can keep it dormant this time, since it can’t be killed off.
Thanks
And no problem….
Ned D
Evidence? I think that you have got the wrong end of stick.
Two world wars Ned conceived in Europe – the last one ending in 1945. The two biggest opponents – Germany and France whose armies and geography’s have clashed repeatedly.
How many times have they fought each other since 1945 Ned? Since the talks started about the common market etc? I rest my case. There is your evidence. You know the answer – so do not play cute with me.
And note that your article says that the EU has ‘become’ an incubator for fascism which infers that it wasn’t previously. I rest my case. Thank you.
Having established that, allow me to say a few other things.
I have never seen the EU to be a perfect treaty framework, not the institutions that have been set up by its members to run it (note the language here Ned).
In many ways I agree – and so does Richard I think – that creeping neo-liberalism has infected the EU treaty because as I always point out, its membership is made up of state Governments who are influenced by neo-liberal ideas themselves. The direction of the EU reflects its members – generally. If you distrust the EU, then seek to change your own Government first – changing the EU begins at home Ned! But just make sure that the party you vote for wants to be in it (a bit hard because many of the ‘Big 3’ – or is it the ‘Big 2.5’? – are made of those who are pro and against).
And it is this growing neo-liberalism (not helped by a more recent EU institution – the ECB, nor even worse by the private banking fiasco of 2008) that has also led recently to a loud re-emergence of fascism in the euro zone.
But this is RECENT Ned – and that is why until now we’ve had a peaceful Europe. But you are right in the sense that if the EU does not deal with this now the European mainland is under threat from fascism again. No doubt about that.
So I still maintain that we have had a lot of peace in Europe since 1945 (in the sense that the usual suspects have not issued declarations of war on their neighbour) helped by the formation of the what ended up being the EU although I also think that there was at least another 10 years of human suffering as war torn countries put themselves painfully back together again.
And please – do not mention any European failure in the awful events of a post communist Yugoslavia which if I remember was never a member of the EU. That die was cast under Tito and from what Albanians and Croats tell me – interference from our good friends the Americans (yes – them again) did not help either. Mind you the Americans didn’t really help the Russians either did they when the Iron Curtain fell over.
I honestly feel that had the EU been able to deal exclusively with Yugoslavia and Russia, the world might be a better place than it is now.
Thanks PSR
“Richard, you say:
“….. I cannot see state ownership of railways, water and even power companies radically transforming the well-being of people in this country….”
I can. Though I’m not optimistic that we will see it happen. It will depend on a lot of ‘ifs and ans’ ….
If we have a polity in government that accepts the precepts of MMT….
And if that governemnt is of progressive leanings…
And if it accepts the idea of the Job Guarantee proposition
And is prepared to use Job Guarantee properly not just as a make-work scheme…..
Then there is huge employment scope within just the industry sectors you mention and if we don’t make the changes in these industries (and others) the Green New Deal will remain as a nice idea which we can fantasise about.
We over-pay for energy to generate money-profit and will decarbonise far too slowly. We will continue to pay the private sector to deliver water services on the same profit basis whilst leaking water like a sieve, and we will continue to have far too much reliance on individual conveyances for mass long distance transport.
Quite apart from the employment benefits to economic health via the improved conditions of those employed and the multiplier affect there will also be a massive advantage to both individuals and commercial ventures in reducing ‘staple’ overhead costs.
Will we see this happen…? Not without some major change in the way we order our society. But that is precisely what GND and JG and MMT are all about….as you have been saying for years. The challenge is to get enough people to see the possibilities, so that there is a critical mass of public opinion to make it happen.
And it doesn’t require a communist manifesto to make it happen, indeed, on the contrary, it will strengthen the infrastructure that the private sector requires so that it can operate effectively to create the good life for all.
Woof! Woof! Woof!
Yes. I’m barking. 🙂
But trying everything at once is not possible
And ownership is a minor condition in all this
And 3verything else is more important
And ownership can work out over time
“And ownership is a minor condition in all this”
I don’t quite see why given that if you want private sector owners to do anything it is necessary to throw money at them….. and they charge just for getting out of bed.
No
Regulation works just fine and costs less
“Regulation works just fine and costs less”
How do you know ?
Oh ! You mean like financial regulation of banking and audit functions….that sort of thing…. ? Press regulation offstead, offgem and offuck. 🙂
Government regulation of the unicorn population, at zero, is the only government regulatory body I know of that functions effectively. Even then the electorate keep voting for the horned beasts disguised as policy proposals.
We have regulators
They do impose regulation
It just has to be better regulation
“It just has to be better regulation”
Fucking right it does.!
It has to actually regulate something ……….other than the welfare of the professionals it’s regulating. That would be a start.
If it doesn’t work it cannot, by definition, be cost effective.