A statement I'm using in FB debates about the current Brexit impasse.
This so called agreement that May has just withdrawn is nothing of the sort, it is just a statement of intent to do something after we leave on 29 March. Austerity has been the international ruling class way of making the workers pay for the financial crisis. There are also structural problems pushing in this direction in relation to the rate of profit. Climate change is directly related to the outbreak of a new imperial struggle between the power blocs that dominate our world - see what happened at the G20 and the climate change conference in Poland. The problems we face are of a global order and at the very least have to start to be tackled at a European level.
The EU provides a terrain of struggle for us to organise and fight with the working class across Europe on collective issues, including fighting the right and fascism. By just leaving we are turning our back on those struggles and creating an illusion that socialism in one country is possible. The only way out of this current situation as it stands is a general election or another referendum. Of course the possibility of a wider uprising via workers across the EU starting from France may also put a serious international challenge to capital and the institutions that support it. So I suppose there are three options.
Even with a general election referendum the probable key to which way a vote will go will be the Labour Party. I would largely support the Another Europe Is Possible position - which Corbyn once held - of remain and reform of it you like overthrow. If the Corbyn led LP argued to remain on the basis of a programme to oppose austerity and for the the democratic and social(ist) transformation of the EU it would put them at the head of the movement against the right and neo-liberalism both in the UK and across Europe. For example, it is possible to argue that we should remain and support the removal of the debt repayments of Greece; that we defend being European citizens and freedom of movement as a human right and on this basis start to remove the external border controls around the EU and work to support social and economic development of countries where people are desperate to leave.
As I final point I cannot accept the position where a socialist can support the argument that 'the means justifies the end'. Supporting leave means leaving over 3m citizens in the UK and 2m UK citizens in a legal nightmare land of limbo. This is a direct consequence of a leave position and I notice that few socialists who support leave ever mention people in this situation. Are they just collateral damage?
I wrote this last year and it explains my position in a more rounded way.
https://lenarthur01.blogspot.com/2017/10/workers-europe-not-workers-brexit-draft.html
Addition in response to a FB discussion 21.12.2018.
I find arguing as a socialist that a capitalist state or institution prevents you from doing something therefore it can't be done, defeatist to the core. The original MS article and a number of comments are presented within the terms that Brexit is a national issue. On the contrary it is a class issue and should be considered within the terms of the international working class. So if the EU prevents policies from a socialist government going forward that is challenged on cross border class basis. Instead of walking away from the way the class issues across the EU we should be confronting them on that basis and wider. So for an example Corbyn could be leading a fight across the EU against austerity with demands that relate both to the UK and other EU countries such as Greece with proposals such as state debt derived from the financial crisis being written off. Of course that would require us remaining.
The EU should be seen as a terrain of struggle. A more specific problem with the Lexit argument is where do you actually want your independent UK to end up? Not an insignificant or abstract issue as we will leave on 29.3.2019 if the process is not stopped. Currently with no deal it means the WTO which is as restrictive on state enterprises as the EU! Or it could be nothing, which means virtually over night the UK economy would grind to a halt with drastically rising inflation and job losses. Don't forget even Trotsky had to negotiate with Germany at Brest Litovsk, it was not possible just to walk away from the international situation. Is that what you advocate?
Finally: freedom of movement across the EU for all EU citizens will end on 29.3.2019 without an agreement. This, among other things, is throwing 3.7m EU citizens in the UK into a legal limbo land in the country that many have come to call home. Are they just collateral damage? This is an even more pressing issue as the Corbyn led LP has abandoned the defence of FoM. Personally I wish to retain my European Citizenship as it provides a real basis to me being an international worker and relating to issues on that basis. Moreover, I believe arguing that ends justifies means is not an acceptable position for a socialist to take: it is in fact the hallmark of Stalinism, which of course brings the argument back to the MS:)
Together with Craig Lewis I recently wrote this piece about the economic implications of Brexit: http://leftunity.org/socialists-should-still-oppose-brexit-a-reply-to-costas-lapavitsas/
11.01.2018
Another comment from a FB discussion:
Corbyn before the referendum had this principled internationalist position on remain and reform as set out in his speech in April 2016: "There is a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union. Just as there is also a powerful socialist casefor reform and progressive change in Europe" If there is going to be a chance of winning the next election or defeating Brexit he and the LP need to return to this position and argue the case.
The debate since the referendum has revealed that those who support leave are extensively divided over what they want and what leave means. This is the problem with now trying to read the referendum result as 17m said this etc. Just by adding another version as Corbyn does in this speech seriously risks losing the support of the 16m who voted to remain and many the 17m who appear to want to leave without an agreement, whatever that actually means. His speech also avoids the question that article 50 would have to be suspended to allow for an election. Without that we leave on 29 March.
As socialists we can only tackle the power and exploitation of capital internationally as Corbyn suggests in his earlier position. Socialism in one country is even less possible than in the conditions of the 1920s and 1930s. Even then it was forced upon the Soviet Union by the failures of revolutions elsewhere and was seen at least by Lenin and the Left Opposition as a temporary measure not something to strive for, that came with Stalin's rise to power.
The EU should be seen by international socialist as a terrain of struggle through uniting workers across boundaries not seeing the 3.7m EU citizens in the UK as collateral damage. The one thing we don't do as socialists is to support a demand or course of action that makes life worse for workers: that really is 'ends justifying means' Stalinism.
23.3.2019 comment on Tyrone O'Sullivan's post.
The democracy argument really needs unpacking and is not straightforward. First, of course we had one referendum in 1975 which was for remain. So having another in 2016 opens up the legitimacy for having another on the same issue. Circumstances changed between 1975 and 2016 you may argue, yes and of course they and consequences of leaving have changed since 2016 including the now doubtful legal validity of the 2016 vote. Second, it is fundamental to our democracy that we elect a government for a maximum number of years before, by law, having another election. We also have an official opposition which legitimately opposes the elected government and holds it to account immediately after the election. These principles of democracy and accountability must apply to referendums otherwise we start to move from democracy to dictatorship. Remember Hitler always referred back to having a 'mandate' that he hoped would last a 1000 years! Thirdly, we don't have a written constitution unfortunately, leaving it up to governments to make the rules up as they go along, subject only to Parliament. Due to the complication of squaring a referendum to the democratic principles that apply to elections, most written constitutions have checks within them such as 50% of those able to vote voting in favour or a certain percentage vote having to be reached such as two thirds. None of these checks applied to the 2016 referendum. Fourth, the 2016 referendum was not binding but consultative so it is perfectly legitimate for Parliament or the prime minister to now say it is time to decide to remain. In fact Theresa May voted against accepting the outcome of the referendum to set up the Welsh Assembly on these grounds so knows the form. Finally, over 3m EU citizens - and we all are EU citizens in the UK something I personally value a great deal - were excluded from voting in the 2016 referendum because their national citizenship was in another country, even though they have the right to vote in all UK Parliament and local elections. This alone makes the vote illegitimate in my view and if there is another referendum both these fellow citizens and people 16 and over should have the vote. So it is a liitle bit more complicated isn't it than 'you lost' and 'get on with it' which, based on the above I would say are unconstitutional, undemocratic and tending to the dictatorial type statements 'I have a mandate arguments'.
25.6.2019
My delay in responding is as a result of travelling back from visiting daughter and family in Brussels! You raise and conflate many issues. First, the nature of the EU like that British state is an emanation of the class that dominates that state: in both cases capitalists - those who own the means of production. Both states are protectionist and have imperial tendendencies. Both however have had to develop democratic and legal processses under pressure from below to try to retain and legitimate their power. These processes leave opportunities for us as workers to challenge their power and legitimacy. And as Lenin argued about the Duma in Russia all these opportunities should be used. Which leads to the second point about being 'unreformable'. This is a totally defeatist argument which could also be applied to the British state. There is a long socialist argument about reform v revolution however I think the idea of transitional demands and action (the former possibly best developed by Trotsky). I've appended a link to a paper of mine which takes this argument further forward. You will probably consider it 'abstract'. Certainly both leave and remain have dominant voices. The Lexit voice is an insignificant minority in the leave case and the Another Europe Is Possible which Left Unity supports is possibly in the same situation but we are working hard to change that with action taking place o 6 July. However you underestimate the power of the extreme right, nationalist and I will say racist case that dominates the leave camp. I spent days combating these arguments during the referendum finding myself in the bizarre situation of at the same being under attack from those who support Lexit who seemed to me at the time to be spending more time attacking us on the left than the right. That situation has changed a bit but elements are still there. I've also written about the situation of Ford's as part of an analysis about how international capital destroys communities in its search for profit maximisation. And how in fact we need to fight and argue the international case for controlling the power of these corporations - an EU transitional demand if you like. Lapavitsas of course does not share you view of a soft Brexit but sees nothing wrong with the WTO situation, shared with some interesting people. I would argue the Another Europe is Possible case that Corbyn should return to the interntionalist remain and reform position he held in 2016 - only now I think it should be strong as remain and transform! https://lenarthur01.blogspot.com/2017/07/transitional-demands-and-action.html
Monday, December 17, 2018
Friday, June 22, 2018
Socialists should still oppose Brexit: a reply to Costas Lapavitsas Craig Lewis & Len Arthur
Socialists should still oppose Brexit: a reply to Costas Lapavitsas
Craig Lewis
and Len Arthur
Jeremy Corbyn’s
insistence that the UK must leave both the single Market and the Customs union is
not just a consequence of electoral “triangulation” to accommodate leave voting
Labour constituencies. It is also
indicative of the extent to which the Labour leadership and sections of the
trade union movement believe that a “people’s Brexit” is a viable strategy for
the radical left. This view has been
developed recently in a Jacobin article by Costas Lapavitsas, a Corbyn adviser
and academic economist. It has been widely publicised on the Lexit left: https://jacobinmag.com/2018/05/corbyn-labour-eu-single-market-economic-policy
Like most of the pro leave Left, he accepts that Brexit was led by racists and xenophobes
but nevertheless it was a working class revolt in areas “ravaged by the
neoliberal policies of the last four decades”. The thrust of his argument is
that staying within the single market will prevent a Corbyn government
implementing key aspects of its “radical” programme. EU Single Market rules will undermine its
industrial strategy by blocking increased public ownership, state aid to
rebuild key industries and the use of public procurement to promote decent jobs
and employment standards.These are all arguments commonly touted by the CP and
other Lexit groups. However, in a mirror image, of arguments used by Tory hard Brexiters,
Lapavitsas asserts that WTO rules actually provide significant opportunities to
implement a radical industrial strategy.
Finally, like many on the Lexit left, he seems to accept that free
movement is nothing more than a business ploy to lower wages. EU rules would
therefore restrict Labour’s ability to introduce a “progressive and fair
migration policy”.
Much of what he says is tendentious to
say the least and has been challenged by many on the left who supported a
“remain” position in the referendum. For
instance the idea that free movement should be replaced by a progressive
migration policy is a massive concession to the idea that low wages and
pressure on public services is the fault of migration not the result of
austerity. An idea which has been
extensively challenged even by mainstream economic commentators as Phil Hearse
has recently pointed out. https://prruk.org/product/transform-a-journal-of-the-radical-left/
In a widely quoted report for the
Renewal Journal, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi have undertaken a detailed
analysis of claims that EU rules would present significant barriers to Corbyn’s
industrial strategy. They looked at each of Labour’s economic proposals in the
2017 manifesto (26 in total). 17 would
not fall within State Aid rules at all. 7 potentially do, but these would be
exempted under current EU law. Only 2 measures would need to be reported under
existing regulations and these could be structured to comply. With regard to
nationalisation they suggest that little of Corbyn’s agenda would be affected,
and point to the far higher proportion of public ownership in other EU
countries.
State aid and nationalisation rules
have not stopped Germany from municipalising energy provision and it has not
prevented the operation of publicly owned railways throughout much of the EU.
In Germany 90% of passenger services are run by the state railway company; in
France both the main train operator and the infrastructure operator are state
owned; the same applies in Italy; the Spanish railways are virtually entirely
in public ownership; as is the case in Belgium and Holland; even in Sweden
which has started to privatise its railways 80% of services are still publicly
owned and run.
Lapavitsas’s
assertion that WTO rules would be more favourable than the Single Market is
frankly bizarre. It focuses only on WTO regulation
of state aid, procurement and public ownership.
He ignores the whole economic and political purpose of the WTO, which is
aimed at promoting free market competition and free trade. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/602053/IPOL_BRI(2017)602053_EN.pdf
The hard
right of the Tory party support trading under WTO rules precisely because they
understand that it will hard wire austerity and neoliberal economics into the
UK economy. Secretive bilateral trade
deals under WTO auspices are not a technical matter, they reflect the exercise of
raw political power in an increasingly anarchic trading environment. Will Hutton
argues perceptively that leaving the Single Market in order to engage in trade
deals with China, Russia, Trump’s America and the emerging economies of the
global South is akin to “swimming with crocodiles”
Combined
with the disruption to trade and supply chains attendant on leaving the Single
Market, such deals would massively increase the rate of exploitation within
British capitalism as explained below.
But
Lapavitsas’s justification of a “people’s Brexit” is not just technically
flawed. His argument is completely devoid of any serious analysis of the global
economic and political circumstances in which Corbyn’s Labour Party and the
radical left more broadly finds itself.
This is surprising for someone who had first-hand experience of the
Syriza tragedy and at the time developed a much more nuanced and
internationalist perspective than those on the Greek left, like the KKE, who
advocated an economic nationalist style Grexit. In fact the extent of
Lapavitsas’s political analysis seems to comprise a sharp rebuke to those of us
on the Left who support remaining in the EU and the Single Market to: “come to
terms with the underlying realities of the referendum decision”. This is the language of Rees Mogg! It pays no heed to the political realities of
Brexit.
There is of
course no socialist principle that requires us to remain in the Single Market.
The EU is and always has been a “businessman’s club”. It has become a vehicle through which
austerity politics have been imposed by the European elite. An exercise of class power that has had
particularly devastating consequences for the people of Southern Europe
especially the Greek working class, where civil society has come close to
collapse through enforced privatisation and massive attacks on working class
jobs, living standards and welfare provisions since the 2008 financial crisis. But
as socialists we must confront reality as it is, not as we would wish it.
Brexit will not provide political and economic opportunities for a radical
transformation of British society. There
are a number of reasons why this is the case which left remainers have argued
consistently since before the referendum: https://prruk.org/product/transform-a-journal-of-the-radical-left/
In short,
the referendum was not aimed at giving the “people” a democratic say on EU
membership. It was supposed to resolve
the long running Tory civil war over Europe.
When it went wrong the hard right, both within and outside the Tory party,
seized the opportunity to initiate a “coup” aimed ultimately at completing the
transformation of Britain into a low wage, low welfare, free market economy
with increasingly authoritarian forms of government. A process starkly evident
in recent attempts to restrict Parliamentary Control over the final withdrawal
deal, and to undermine the power of the devolved governments to take autonomous
decisions.
The central
purpose of Brexit, especially in its hardest and increasingly most likely form,
is to attack working class living standards and increase the rate of
exploitation of labour in British capitalism in order to overcome a historically
low rate of profit. In concrete terms
this is already reflected in the higher inflation generated by a falling £. In
consequence real wages have stagnated or fallen for most workers; a process
that will intensify after EU exit. Tories talk openly of deregulation as a key
benefit of Brexit. Despite weasel words from May and the soft Brexiteers this
can only mean stripping away the last vestiges of “social Europe” protections;
reduced workplace rights, more restrictions on collective bargaining and trade
union rights, lower environmental and safety standards. Leaving the EU will, even by the Government’s
own assessments, be either moderately or massively disruptive of manufacturing
industry (http://uk.businessinsider.com/5-charts-secret-brexit-impact-study-damage-threatened-by-leaving-the-eu-2018-3) In practice this means large scale
job losses of between 35,000 – 80,000, and a further shift towards precarious
work and low pay.
Finally it
is undeniably true that the leave vote was high amongst working class
communities devastated by austerity. Yet any serious analysis of the referendum
result shows that this is neither the whole, nor even the main story. https://prruk.org/product/transform-a-journal-of-the-radical-left/. Much more important were the politics
driving the vote in those communities. Like
most advocates of a “people’s Brexit”, Lapavitsas downplays the fact that the
leave vote was dominated by racist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant ideas
pedalled by the authoritarian right inside and outside the Tory party, and
legitimated by mainstream politicians and key sections of the media. Reactionary rhetoric has continued to
dominate Brexit discourse since the referendum forming a background to what
Neil Faulkner refers to as “Creeping Fascism”. https://prruk.org/creeping-fascism-and-the-rise-of-the-far-right-one-year-on/. The ability of the Democratic
Football Lads Alliance and other far right groups to put large numbers of their
supporters on the streets in recent weeks, culminating in the estimated 20,000
who marched in London demanding the release of jailed Nazi Tommy Robinson is a
massive wake up call for the left. It is clear that British fascists have been
able to strengthen their ideological hold over sections of the working class by
using the same “tropes” as those legitimised by the hard Brexiteer right of the
Tory Party – denouncing anyone who opposes a hard Brexit as saboteurs, enemies
of the people, traitors etc. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/brexit-traitor-trope-hard-right-fantasies-risk The rise of the UK far right becomes more
alarming when set in a European context. Parties of the far right are in government in
Austria, Poland, Hungary and Italy. In Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark,
France, Germany and Finland far right parties are in national parliaments. As a
consequence anti-immigrant and Islamophobic discourse and policies are becoming
normalised in much of Europe.
The fact
that Lapavitsas ignores this wider economic and political context is
symptomatic of the dead end in which the Lexit left finds itself as the Brexit
process unfolds. His argument is little
more than toothless anti-EU propaganda and isolationist economic nationalism, underpinning
the Stalinist notion of a “British road to Socialism”. As a result he advocates a political and
economic strategy for Labour that plays right into the hands of the hard Tory
right and those more sinister forces now emerging on our streets.
There is of
course another way. The EU is as much a
terrain of struggle for socialists as the individual capitalist states which
comprise it. The radical left in Britain
needs to Europeanise and internationalise the fightback.
The Party of the European Left (EL) is a starting point in this process.
It covers 23 countries – not all in the EU – and 40 radical socialist and
communist parties. It acts more as a network than a democratic centralist party
and with regular meetings and congresses it provides an ongoing forum for
socialists to develop policy, politics and coordinate action. It is intent on
reaching out through the annual Summer University and European Social Forum,
the next one to be held in September 2018 in Bilbao. It is coordinating action
against the rise of the right and neo-fascism as well as emphasising the fight
against austerity, NATO and militarisation. The EL includes 27 MEPs and is the
largest part of the 52 GUE/NGL red green group in the European Parliament. A recently agreed EL statement has been put out in the name of
Gregor Gysi the EL President, appealing to the left across Europe to work
toward a joint platform against the right, neoliberalism and climate change
running up to the European Parliament elections next year.
Internationalism
also needs to be an integral part of the socialist case and action in the UK.
Defending these politics is what this response is all about and in practice, on
the issue of the EU working with others through organisations such as Another Europe is Possible, to ensure that the socialist case for remain and fighting
for a social and democratic EU is made as opposed to the ‘business as usual’
case being promoted by others. Just as important is the active defence of
working class action across Europe, against the attacks of neoliberal
governments such as that of Macron in France; opposing the rise of the right,
for example the AfG in Germany; and supporting social and human rights, such as
the vote against the anti-abortion laws in Ireland.
The key to a
radical socialist transformation of Europe remains the process of actively
linking local fightbacks, with building an international socialist organisation,
such as the EL. It, at least, provides a European starting point of being able
to seriously and meaningfully tackle the power of international capital and the
threat of climate change. Such a process becomes more urgent than ever, as parties
and movements of the hard right target next year’s European elections for their
anti-migrant and islamophobic politics.
Pulling up
the national drawbridge, as advocated by Lapavitsas, would mean turning our
backs on this international project, creating divisions and rendering the required
transformation less likely.
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Review for Transform ed 4 - The City by Tony Norfield
The City – London and the Global Power of Finance
Tony Norfield
Verso 2016
Len Arthur
The title disguises a significant and needed Marxist contribution to the
increasingly unstable relationship between the global capitalist financial
system, financialisation, the state, commodity production, monopolies and
imperialism, as well as placing the UK economy and the City of London into this
context. The author writes from the coal face having worked in the City as an
analyst and dealer for banks. He also brings his radical understanding of how
the global financial system works to place this firsthand experience into a
social and economic context.
There have been some excellent reviews published since the book’s
publication in 2016, one of the best being Michael Roberts[1]. Robert’s review covers a
synopsis of the key points made in the book and thus they do not need repeating
here in such detail. Roberts also defends the importance of continuing to work
toward an evidence base of Marx’s claims about the tendency of rates of profit
to fall as an explanation of the rise of the role of finance. Norfield places a
key emphasis on this tendency whilst questioning the possibility of developing
an adequate evidence base.
The main aim of this review is to propose avenues of further research
and discussion exploring the social and economic threats identified by Norfield
and using the results to develop demands and policies that socialists can take
forward.
Norfield argues that contrary to seeing the financial system completely
as a parasitical entity sucking the life out of the ‘real economy’, it is in
fact ‘an integral part of the capitalist economy… it is more like a central
nervous system: without finance, modern capitalism is dead’. Globally the UK is
surprisingly still second to the US on a range of measures as part of a small
group of powerful countries having a ‘privileged position in production,
commerce, investment and financial relationships…’. Pervading all economic
activity the global financial system is in a tension with the real economy of
commodity production. The financial system depends on the extraction of surplus
value and hence profitability for stability in the long run. However, the
system also has the potential to create financial assets that are separately
tradeable, commanding a market value based on expected value and income.
Norfield uses Marx’s term ‘fictitious capital’ to describe the second stage.
Tensions start to disrupt both spheres of activity when it become more
profitable to invest and trade in fictitious capital than to invest in
commodity production in the ‘real’ economy; driving ‘financialisation’ of the
world economy. Investment falls, speculative future value takes precedence over
the production of surplus value and eventually unsustainable expected value is
faced with delivery something tangible and the bubble pops as in the last
financial crisis. Being an integral part of the capitalist economy a crisis in
the global financial system feeds back into the global economy of commodity
production.
Norfield explores the consequences of this process for the interaction
between states and corporate monopolies. He identifies the current state of
imperialism where global monopolies are largely based in powerful nation states
and gain world advantages being identified with this state. Likewise an
imperialist state is one that can exert power on behalf of its ‘national’
capitalist companies. The US remains the dominant imperial power in this sense
not just through the number of corporations associated with the country but
also through the dollar continuing to remain the world currency giving it and
its corporation access to cheap low risk finance. This gives the US the power
to globally control financial securities. Fictitious capital ‘... is a very real
form of capital when it comes to exercising power, empire building and
appropriating value today’. Moreover, the UK continues to play a very big role
in the world financial markets having the second biggest current account
surplus on financial services and, if insurance services are added the UK
surplus is the highest. The City’s privileged status in the world economy
enables it to still facilitate the transfer of revenues into the UK from what
the rest of the world produces. The UK remains an imperial power through the
City of London.
Given the instability of the relationship between the production of
surplus value and fictitious capital it is hardly surprising that imperialism
that has evolved and rests on this relationship will also reflect this
instability, both in terms of financial crises and in ongoing competition to
sustain power and control. In this regard the UK continues to have a major role
in global ‘financial parasitism’ largely due to historical reasons and is consequently
in an unbalanced and vulnerable position.
Norfield also refers to the more questionable financial activities that
the City is turning to expand business in an attempt to sustain its domination.
Tax avoidance advice and organisation as revealed by the Panama[2] and Paradise[3] papers and writers such as
Nicholas Shaxson[4]
and the Tax for Justice Network[5]; the LIBOR scandal; welcoming
haven for ‘non’domiciled’ residents; purchase of UK commercial, residential
property; football teams; newspapers and other trophy items giving
‘opportunities such ownership might give for money laundering’. He also
includes in this expansion of business the connection with sovereign wealth
funds such as the £7bn injection of capital into Barclays from the Abu Dhabi and
Qatar. The list could have been extended to include the UK Private Liability
Partnership law allowing people from around the world to obscure ownership and
control as exposed by Private Eye[6]. More recently McMafia the
BBC TV series dramatically catches where these tendencies can lead[7].
What can we do about this as socialists?
Theory development: Norfield has made a
major and timely contribution to our contemporary understanding of the social
and economic power of capital and imperialism. We need to see this as a start
of the discussion not the end. As will be seen in Michael Roberts review above
of this book, Norfield’s position on the evidence of a declining rate of profit
remains controversial. Norfield has himself moved on to suggesting that
the effect of finance is now such that it may outweigh Marx's commodity analysis
in the first volume of Capital[8]. The dangerous
consequences of the exercise of social power globally by corporations is often
lost in the aggregate and detail of economic analysis and Norfield has started
to put this back on the agenda. A key work in this regard produced by the Swiss
engineers[9] requires further research
to expose the people who are actually making decisions that affect us all.
Making the links
between theory and practice: Continuing competition between imperial powers to
secure share of value and markets creates an instability that drives capital
toward continued financial crisis, making workers pay through austerity
policies and increased rates of exploitation, continued over exploitation of
the resources of the planet, together with associated populist and neofascist
cooption and division of workers. Finally, of course, competition morphs into
the use of force through wars. As socialist we need to continue to make the
links between this context and the problems experienced daily by people as a
consequence. Emphasising how integrally important to building resistance are
international links like the European Left. And how local acts of resistance
can, through starting to block the strategies of capital, can have wider
impacts and develop international solidarity against a common enemy.
A danger in making links to the wider context of resistance us
‘hegemonic pessimism’ where the task can be seen so big it overwhelms the
confidence to resist. A key to avoiding this danger is the development of
transitional demands and actions[10]. Of course, as Michael
Roberts argues, Norfield lays the grounds for the radical socialist case of
collective and democratic ownership of the process of investment and financing
so wealth can be used for need and not profit. If Norfield’s case is convincing
then it is important that Labour Party members start to toughen up the next
manifesto with demands that take this forward. In addition a series of other
policy demands could start to legitimate this radical position.
Although Norfield suggests that a Financial Transaction Tax would hardly
touch the surface of the issues he identifies this, combined with other
demands, could start to make a package so challenging that it could help to put
collective ownership on the agenda. Such a package might include a radical
‘opening of the books’ so that commercial confidentiality becomes a thing of
the past with the real owners of corporations being named and their total
remuneration fixed at say a 4:1 ratio with their lowest paid employee; their
companies being taxed according to where their income is generated at
internationally fixed high rates of corporation tax; all companies, no matter
what size, directorship and accounts are made publicly available; partnerships
are covered by the same rules; all personal income and tax publicly made
available and a public register of wealth for everyone with more than say
£500,000 in assets. These are just some suggestions, but given the power and
influence the rich have over our lives they should be made publicly accountable
and, if they don't like it, then their objection starts to lay the basis of
legitimating a radical take over.
Of course the challenge of political transitional demands also has to be
supported by those that people feel they are prepared to fight for through
direct action. Clearly at the moment the central issue facing people are the
policies and politics of austerity that directly derive from the strategy of
making workers pay for the financial crisis. Demands relating to ending public
sector pay capping, defending the NHS, demanding that elected representatives
such as councillors refuse to vote for cuts budgets, these all amount to a
direct challenge to the implementation and legitimation of the strategies of
our imperialist governments that derive from the instability of their system.
So, thanks to Tony for putting this updating of how international
capitalism and imperialism works back on the agenda. Hopefully, through this
journal we can take the renewed discourse about contemporary imperialism
forward as well as develop demands and actions that start to challenge the
power of the rich and their corporations.
Notes
[1] https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/british-imperialism-the-city-of-london-and-brexit/
[4] Shaxson, N, 2011 Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who
Stole the World, The Bodley Head, London.
[10]
Arthur,
Len, 2017 Where we are and where we could
be: Transitional demands and actions, Tranform – Journal of the Radical
Left, 2, PRR UK, London.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Better than Zero Wales - Planet article 230 Summer 2018
Article for the Planet - The Welsh Internationalist - 230 Summer 2018
Len Arthur is a retired academic, but not retired as a socialist,
trade union and community activist. He has been living and working in Wales
since the early 1970s.
Inequality of power of the employer over the individual
employee is a fundamental characteristic of the employment relationship. When
someone enters into employment they do so as an individual, having to accept a
pre-existing contract backed by a larger organisation with structures of management
and control. At the point of employment an individual worker experiences the
full weakness of being in a labour market.
Once in work the experience of being under the powerful
control of others only intensifies. Work ̶ or labour power as Marx would
describe it ̶ is a peculiar commodity
purchased by an employer. Labour power has the potential to produce more value
than is paid out in wages. It is not just a commodity that is consumed and
loses value: it has the potential to actually add value. The employer thus has
to realise this potential and will use all the organisational power available
to pay as little in wages and to extract as much effort as is possible. From
the first day of work, the employer fixes the terms of employment so the new
employee will produce surplus value ̶
the difference between wages and the value of the goods or service produced –
quickly and predictably.
Historically, extremes of worker exploitation have been alleviated
by hard-won law. It was recognised by wider society that basic protections were
needed to modify the power of the employer. In the UK the early Factory Acts
limited the length of the working day, initially for women and children. Health
and safety legislation has had to be introduced to try to stop people being
killed, maimed or poisoned at work. More recently in the UK, after years of
agitation, minimum wage legislation has had to be introduced to provide a basic
wage that gives some chance of providing a living.
The law is a blunt instrument to cover a dynamic employment
relationship, and enforcement is patchy. Trade union organisation, until
recently, enabled many new workers to start employment in workplaces where
previous workers had collectively negotiated, agreed and won contracts by
challenging the power of the employer. Sadly, the number of workplaces where
this is the case has declined across the UK: potentially as few as 13% of all
workers in private employment and barely 50% in the public sector are trade
union members.
Precarious work, where extremes of exploitation and inequality
are experienced, is no longer the exception. Precarious work is now being
experienced even in previously well-respected and unionised workplaces. The
recent strikes by junior doctors in England and latterlyuniversity workers across the UK exposed
the trend. The TUC reported[i]
in 2016 that 1 in 10 or 3.2m workers in the UK ‘...are now in precarious work – and the number of
workers at risk of missing out on key employment protections has nearly doubled
in a decade to 1.5 million (an increase of 700,000)’. The
Citizens Advice Bureau[ii] that
year put the figure for workers in England and Wales in insecure work at 4.5m
and in a survey carried out for the GMB union in 2017[iii]
it has been argued that up to 10m workers or nearly one third of the total UK work
force face insecure employment. The GMB report[iv] also revealed that zero-hour and agency contracts
had doubled in Wales since 2011. In a recent and
detailed report[v] from 2017 the TUC shows that the UK trend toward insecure work more
generally is becoming more prevalent, and highlights the sectors of employment
worse hit. In creative arts and entertainment 66% of UK workers experience
insecure work, in personal services (e.g. hairdressing and fitness instruction)
46%, and in land transport 35%. The list largely covers sectors that are
private and historically poorly organised, but not all fit this criteria, with
some traditional public sector areas included such as libraries and museums (17%)
and care for the elderly (20%). These are all industries which are well-represented
in Wales.
The clear conclusion is that precarious and insecure work is
on the increase across Wales and the UK. Surveys that have included the direct
experience of workers indicate this type of work is more widespread than those
that rely more on aggregate data (summary statistics based on multiple
measurements). Without restraint via the law or collective organisation,
employers will use their power over employees to sustain profit levels and
market position. Pressure to do this has built up ̶ with
the increase in international competition, with austerity cuts in the public
sector, with privatisation, with the individualisation of contracts and use of
self-employment in the gig economy, factors which are now overlaid with Brexit
and an ever fiercer international market context, with deregulation of working
conditions becoming the global norm.
The tide can be turned. A pincer
movement,[vi]
with public and media scrutiny exposing the consequences of precarious and
insecure work (and making terms like ‘gig economy’ and ‘precariat’ more
mainstream) together with trade union action, has started to have positive
effects. However, the key to winning an end to this workplace exploitation is
trade union organisation in the workplace itself. It is only the continuous
presence and collective strength of unionised workers that can challenge the
power of the employer on a daily and detailed basis: the law is a good start
but unions are needed to extend and police the law.
In Scotland this form of pincer action has been used to
organise and defend workers through the Better
than Zero campaign[vii].
This is an organisation supported by the Scottish TUC that has formed local
groups around Scotland, bringing together both workers and supporters to embolden
people to expose and fight local employer exploitation, encourage workers to
join trade unions and then to act for union recognition and collective
agreements. Many of the activists are under 25 and some of the stunts have been
effective and original[viii].
One of the most impressive has been supporters dressing in white overalls and
putting hazard-type yellow and black tape around pubs with the slogan ‘Hazard: Bad
Employer’ written on it to encourage a consumer boycott.
Bryan Simpson, the Better than Zero organiser in Scotland,
came to Wales to speak at a meeting in Cardiff in September 2017 organised
jointly by the UCU university workers’ union and People’s Assembly Wales, which
I participated in. As a direct result of the meeting it was agreed to start a
Better than Zero Wales campaign, preparing the ground for an official launch. A Facebook page[ix] was established, and has been well supported,
with the aim of encouraging people experiencing precarious and insecure work in
Wales to come forward and tell us their stories as a start to the organising
and campaigning process. We are aiming to have the official launch in May 2018,
and in the meantime widely leaflet workplaces around Wales. If throughout the
rest of this year, we can achieve here in Wales even half the success that has
been won in Scotland, we will lay the foundations for pushing back the
boundaries of precarious and insecure employment in our country.
If you wish to help or know more, please contact Better than
Zero Wales through the Facebook page or via People’s Assembly Wales: peoplesassemblywales0@gmail.com
[i] https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/32-million-uk-workers-1-10-are-now-precarious-work
[ii] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/how-citizens-advice-works/media/press-releases/45-million-people-in-insecure-work-reveals-citizens-advice/
[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/05/nearly-10-million-britons-are-in-insecure-work-says-union
[iv] https://www.westwaleschronicle.co.uk/blog/2017/07/04/wales-facing-epidemic-of-precarious-work-gmb-reveals/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)