Pages

Saturday, 16 February 2019

Decomposing Liberals

Nick Cohen cuts a pathetic figure and his latest rant reads much like his last rant. And the one before that. And the one before that. But after his pitiful wittering on about personality cults, the agonies of the deepest, darkest reds hiding under Labour Party beds and the hounding, the hounding of MPs by legions of far left attack dogs, the thousand word torture finally culminates there in a wee nugget of political interest.

Responding to the persistent rumours of the imminent arrival of a new centrist party, he rather fancies its chances. Behold,
The media and, more seriously for its supporters, the Corbyn Labour party do not understand the fury at Brexit that is raging through liberal Britain. It is white-hot and capable of immense destruction ... Likewise, Corbyn believes he can renege on his referendum promise without Remain voters making him pay. For all the world they sound like Scottish Labour politicians circa 2005, taking their voters for granted and guffawing at the notion that the SNP could ever sweep through the Labour heartlands.
Blimey. He goes on to say "Volcanic pro-European fury" threatens to up end the political system and destroy the old certainties, including the two-party iron law of Westminster politics. It goes without saying that Cohen's record of insight and clue is as rubbish as other scribblers in the dying centrist, liberal tradition, but an ignominious back catalogue of mistakes is no guarantee he will always be wrong. Broken clocks are right twice a day, and political realities might even sometimes impinge on the dismal consciousness of a Spectator columnist.

On the dinner party circuit and among the dwindling band of Labour MPs who give him the time of day, there is anger all right. And it has certainly proved capable of mobilising a hefty march or two. But it's not enough to take an impression from the inside of the bubble surrounding your life and simply assuming it's the case everywhere and for everyone else. Yes, many remain supporters are appalled by the Theresa May's antics and the smug complacency of the Tory ultras. No doubt many wish the clock could be turned back. Still, there is a world of difference between wanting something and accepting you can't have it. Assorted commentators tend to forget this when puzzling over polling that suggests a majority of Labour members want a second referendum, but are also happy to support Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the Brexit crisis. The truth of the matter is only a minority of remain voters are obsessed with and frame their politics around a remain prospectus. Brexit is intangible to most people, the damage the Tories have inflicted and are inflicting now is not.

Bold claims, so where's my evidence? Well, Labour might have slipped a touch in a few polls but its electoral coalition is more or less holding together. Despite desperate attempts to talk up apparent membership losses by the Labour right and their media friends, there doesn't appear much evidence of this. And our friends the Liberal Democrats are hardly surging. Nor is there a clamour for a new centre party because, if there was, our bold, brave heroes would have struck out for themselves long ago and success would be theirs.

We know this, Cohen knows this, the centrists know this, and the organised forces of liberalism know this. Yet are we on the cusp of a liberal storm surge of SNP-style proportions? If we use that experience, the moment suggests not. The collapse of Westminster politics in 2015 was not a bolt from the blue. The SNP skilfully built a reputation for steady-as-she-goes government since taking charge in 2007. They have avoided major political calamities that are routine for establishment politics elsewhere in Britain, and successfully opposed themselves to Westminster with a semi-populist civic nationalism with liberal characteristics. As such they had something different to offer by the time the Scottish independence referendum swung around, enabling them to hegemonise long-bubbling discontent with London rule and returning all but three of Scotland's MPs in 2015. The signs were there if you chose to look at them. Think about the UKIP experience too. They didn't explode from nowhere in 2013 as the Tories tussled over equal marriage. Their rise was a combination of consistent, modest success in European elections and being indulged by the mainstream media. And even Corbynism, which presents as an overnight phenomenon, was nothing of the sort. The exclusion not just of the left but the denigration of and lack of interest in what the Tories were doing to with their cuts, their social security cruelties, their hostile environments, and their assertion of market fundamentalism was building up a huge constituency who burst into mainstream politics via the twin eruptions of the 2015 leadership election and the 2017 general election.

This is not the case with liberalism. They don't have the numbers to break the mould, nor do they have the politics appropriate to the moment. Unlike Corbynism, unlike UKIP (as was) and the SNP, which are examples of political recomposition, angry liberalism is undergoing decomposition. The Liberal Democrats are marginal and barely relevant, so irrelevant in fact that their existence is oft overlooked by partisans of a new party. The liberally-remain centre of the Tories is routinely ignored by May's dilly-dallying with the Brexiteers, even though they're better represented on the payroll than the ultras, and Labour centrism is little more than one long sulk by MPs not used to and finding objectionable the idea of members wanting a say in how their party is run. As I've argued before, liberalism/centrism is a movement, a ruling class movement, but one that has historically (at least where the 20th century is concerned) subordinate to conservatism and politically demolished and partly absorbed by Labourism. 2010-15 was its last great hurrah - the LibDems were in government, liberal-leaning Dave and Osborne ran the Tories, and the beloved Ed Miliband was from centrism land and the legion of equivocations were thanks to the politics from there. And all that has gone. Liberalism is, effectively, a gaggle of generals without an army, a clutch of representatives without a party. The base has either slunk away, or is huddling around the LibDems for warmth. And, unhappily for them, the slice of the remain-voting population for whom remain is the deepest, overriding concern tend to be ... the same groups of voters already disposed toward liberalism.

It could make a come back some point down the line. In fact, I'd go so far as to say liberalism's long term future is a conservative one. That is to say a liberal-dominated, statist centre right party along the lines of Angela Merkel's CDU is the only way the Tories can secure their future over the long-term - it's certainly going to find successive elections more difficult sticking with the play book of contests past. Here then is an opportunity for liberalism. But that's a long way off. It's falling apart, has been turfed out and marginalised in the two main parties, and finds its media bastions under siege from newcomers and beset by social media.

Ridiculous pieces like Nick Cohen's are ten-a-penny, but are no less part - an aspect of the journalistic record - of the decomposition of liberalism. He and his petty oeuvre are one note of an elite choir screaming their existential doom as they feel the chill embrace of night gathering about them. The point is not far off when their chief representatives will no longer be seen, and their wonky speeches and desperate pleas resonating barely enough for a historical footnote.

21 comments:

  1. The liberal political centre is indeed dead, for reasons I have been describing for a decade, because the material conditions - the potential to raise the rate of surplus value and rate of profit, the consequent fall in the rate of interest, and consequent rise in asset prices, which became seen as the basis for increasing wealth, whilst only increasing fictitious wealth - no longer exist. It means that social democrats can only provide a way forward by being the kind of progressive social democrats that existed in the 1950's, 60's and early 70's, who privilege the accumulation of real capital over the accumulation of fictitious capital, and blowing up of asset price bubbles.

    There are three options. (1) Progressive social democracy adopts that strategy, which means also supporting the economic and institutional framework - the EU and similar economic structures, along with global para state structures to plan and regulate global economic activity, as proposed at Bretton Woods after WWII - and promotes real capital accumulation, whilst constraining the owners of fictitious capital.

    (2) Progressive social-democracy fails to do that, and immediately, in Britain, Brexit succeeds, so that the advances of social-democracy achieved in the last century are turned back by the reactionaries who seek to go back to an 18th/early 19th century model of small private capitalists, and rampant free market competition - which will quickly prove to be an impossible goal.

    (3) As a result of the failure of progressive social democracy, resulting in Brexit, or in order to prevent the calamity that Brexit would represent, the needs of large-scale industrial capital impose themselves, in the way they did in the 1930's. In other words, they will be imposed by some form of fascism/Bonapartism. It may cover itself in left verbiage, as Mosely did with the Mosely Manifesto in the early 1930's, which was supported by Nye Bevan and others, or as the Strasserites did in Germany, and its not hard to see where such forces could come from today, but it will be an economic nationalist/reactionary solution to the problem that progressive social democracy has again failed to provide.

    The objective basis for the liberal centre ground has vanished, but Corbyn, with his programme of economic nationalism, and his confused economic and industrial policies is creating the ground for political forces to once more stand on that ground, much as happened in France, that allowed Macron to win the Presidency, which as I predicted at the time, would simply open the door to the future rise of the right, which is being seen today with the reactionary forces of the Gilets Jaunes, occupying the space that progressive social democrats and socialists should have been filling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Johny Conspiranoid.17 February 2019 at 10:16

    "He and his petty oeuvre are one note of an elite choir screaming their existential doom as they feel the chill embrace of night gathering about them."

    Great. He's just doing his job though. Who pays for the Spectator and why? Perhaps MI6 are paying but what outcome could they be looking for?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Incidentally, when progressive social-democracy failed to provide the solution to the needs of large scale industrial capital accumulation in the 1930's, although it was the forces of economic nationalism - of which Stalinism in the USSR was one variant - that took on that task, for example, Hitler's creation of the National Economic PLanning Board, the nationalisation or state direction of investment in core industries, the utilisation of Keynesian fiscal stimulus, to develop the necessary infrastructure, in autobahns etc. required for effective capital accumulation, it too quickly found that the nation state was already way too constraining for such development, and had to return to the idea of creating a much larger European economic structure to be effective.

    But, given the nature of those economic nationalist forces, the means they sought to achieve that was not by peaceful, and negotiated development, but was by the subordination of weaker national economies to that of the more powerful national economy, just as Germany had sought to do that in 1913-18, and as France had attempted something similar during the Napoleonic Wars. Brexit recreates the conditions for the resolution of that underlying contradiction of the needs of modern large-scale industrial capital that bursts beyond the fetters of the nation state, by those more brutal means of war and domination.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But of course their numbers will swell by the super seven who will fight successful by-elections following the example of the courageous Tory MPs who joined UKIP.
    Or not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In Ireland, the Liberals just went out and started organising poorer and marginalised people by arguing that liberal reforms would give them more power relative to the rest of society. This is roughly how Irish Republicanism - a Liberal Ultra-nationalist ideology - was born.

    The same pattern even persists today. Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland is marketing itself to young Protestants from a middle class background or who are LGBT as the most effective way of breaking down the stagnant, even reactionary, politics of the DUP.

    It was interesting to see Katie Ghose of the Electoral Reform society speak at a UKIP conference, she was basically trying the same approach to get the seaside towns to support Proportional Representation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Phil: if you're going to denounce all opponents of Brexit (including those of us who base our analysis upon Marx's speech on the Question of Free Trade and upon the Communist Manifesto - surely the definitive demolition of Brexit), then those who ride the Lexit unicorn (and you seem to be one) need to accept the role they've played in legitimising and encouraging the hard right, white English nationalism and out-and-out racism.


    Brexit cannot be understood outside of English/white nationalism, which is the primary means by which backward workers/lumpen-proletariat misunderstand the reasons for their economic and social situation.

    If the 2015 election began the process of shifting working class conservatism towards a form of populism, Brexit has enabled it: it is now a movement in formation, like all reactionary movements it is rooted in an idealised view of the past. In this case, England as an independent and economically powerful nation comprised of white English men and women. How it evolves, whether it amounts to anything will in large part be determined by the eventual Brexit outcome: what we do know is social media is replete with the ideologues of the right grooming this potential base around a narrative of 'Brexit betrayal’. If they succeed and some form of political organisation is created it will join the ranks of other movements rooted on nationalism and racism (and other forms of prejudice) presently found across Europe and in the US.

    Yet any sort of hard Brexit will represent the high water mark in the long march of the Brexiteers and their ruling class high-Tory leaders. Brexit is not 1846 when the Tories split over the ending of the Corn Laws and the victory of town over country, the bourgeoisie over the landed aristocracy. They will not be able to untangle the polyglot character of Britain, and certainly will be unable to bring economic prosperity – whether it is in its free market or a more fascistic corporatist form. It is a nonsense. It would be equally nonsensical to believe the scales will fall from the eyes of proletarian Brexiteers, once the economic realities of being outside the EU become a reality.

    If matters are to change then the labour movement needs to engage with those bound up with the rise of populism, a job which cannot be sub-contracted out to the anti-racist left.

    It is mainly the job of the trade unions and in particular the winning over of the stewards, to take back to the workplace a message of class unity, and support for Corbyn’s economic programme (but *not* his pro-Brexit stance). A resolution to form such a labour movement campaign is set to be debated at the London Labour Party conference next month, let’s hope it’s passed and a start can be made.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But Jim, I'm not denouncing opponents of Brexit. I'm attacking liberalism. If you want to locate yourself in this tradition of ruling class politics, feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Boffy, I find in general your arguments interesting and often agreeable, but perhaps sometimes a bit dogmatic, so some notes here:

    «promotes real capital accumulation, whilst constraining the owners of fictitious capital.»

    Sure the replacement of real capital development with the speculation of fictitious capital has been a disaster, but “the owners of fictitious capital” in practice include a large part of voters, all those who made a fortune in fictitious capital from property in the lucky areas of the south. That is a big voter block that will only be constrainable after a big and long lasting crash, when their number will dwindle.

    «(2) Progressive social-democracy fails to do that»

    New Labourites failed to that, and pushed on with support for fictitious capital speculation, but I would not call them “Progressive social-democracy”, unfortunately in effect “Progressive social-democracy” was marginalized for decades, often by themselves.

    «so that the advances of social-democracy achieved in the last century are turned back by the reactionaries who seek to go back to an 18th/early 19th century model of small private capitalists, and rampant free market competition»

    There is a significant difference: those who want to go back to the 1750s want to go back to an idealized tory/georgian England, those who want to go back to the 1850s (what Keynes called the Manchester model) want to go back to an idealized whig/late victorian England.

    «which will quickly prove to be an impossible goal.»

    Not so impossible: the 1850s model is the Dubai model and the "Britannia Unchained" model, and it is eminently possible. The 1750s model seems to me more difficult to achieve, being a lot more disruptive and requiring the turning of much of England into a backwards agricultural economy, but many rural "left behind" areas are already there.

    «the needs of large-scale industrial capital impose themselves, in the way they did in the 1930's. In other words, they will be imposed by some form of fascism/Bonapartism. It may cover itself in left verbiage»

    The problem is that the fight between the tory and whig wings of the right has not been resolved yet, and the victory of the "big business" wing is not assured. They haven't yet been able to call to obedience their political delegates (the Conservative party), precisely because the right-wing is divided.

    «but it will be an economic nationalist/reactionary solution to the problem that progressive social democracy has again failed to provide.»

    Sure, and the Conservatives are continuing the New Labour policy of reactionary "law and order" policies, but that's because both wings like it.

    «The objective basis for the liberal centre ground has vanished, but Corbyn, with his programme of economic nationalism, and his confused economic and industrial policies»

    J Corbyn (and J McDonnell) to me looks like a strong proponent of policy that “promotes real capital accumulation, whilst constraining the owners of fictitious capital” (e.g. his admiration for the northern european socialdemocratic model) but he has been handed a very fractious and confused party to manage, and his absolute priority is to keep most of the party together, and this has resulted in many temporary fudges. I'd give him a lot of benefit of doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Phil,

    A previous comment I made has again disappeared. I think to be fair to Jim your critique of liberalism reads pretty much as a critique of all opponents of Brexit, and Corbyn's economic nationalism. As I pointed out in the comment that has gone missing, the idea that it is only Blair-rights/Liberals criticising Corbyn's support for Brexit, and that others are also not leaving the party is simply wrong, as Joan Twelves letter to him sets out.

    Blissex,

    The fuller response to the points you make is contained in my blog post Brexit - a Battle Between Two Great Class Camps.

    On fictitious capital, the main beneficiaries have been the share owners. Conservative social democracy/(neoliberalism) was based for 30 years on the idea that share prices could rise without limit. 2008 showed they can't. For them to get increased dividends etc. requires real capital accumulation, which requires conditions/the EU that facilitate it.

    Yes, actual property owners benefited from inflating house prices, but unlike profits and thereby dividends, that is not dependent on capital accumulation, or thereby membership of the EU. So, these two groups have different interests. The elderly Tory home owners, voted massively for Brexit.

    Nor do I call Blair-rights progressive social democrats. I class them as conservative social-democrats/(neoliberals), also set out in my critique of Paul Mason's Postcapitalism. The 1850's model is impossible for the reason Lenin describes in "Imperialism", and Marx sets out in Capital. Competition drives concentration and centralisation. Trying to break up monopolies only results in them congealing into monopolies once again. But, small scale 1850's style UK companies would fail to compete with larger EU, US, Chinese, Japanese monopolies, and die, or be taken over by this foreign capital.

    I agree the battle has not been resolved yet. I also agree that Corbyn, rather like similar forces in the 1970's/80's objectively represents that trend that defends the interests of real capital accumulation, i.e. progressive social democracy. But, the trouble is that they do so, starting from the standpoint of nationalism, not international socialism - just as did, for example, Mosely/Bevan, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao - and that is doomed to failure, which results either in the collapse of the venture, or as with many of the above, a requirement to burst asunder the constraint imposed on them, by the nation state, by a policy of expansionism and war. The trouble for Britain is, in a war with the EU, such as could happen over Ireland, Gibraltar etc. (the Spanish have sent a warship in the last week, to Gibraltar, telling UK ships to leave Spanish waters) it is facing an EU economy that is 6 times that of Britain, and with that much more power to dominate it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Blissex,

    In relation to the last bit. a) He has caused the party to fracture by continually appeasing the Blair-rights, and failing to push through democratic reform and mandatory reselection b) he has also fractured the party, as Joan twelves letter shows, because he has himself gone against party democracy in his pursuance of the reactionary Brexit policy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't know where your comments are going, Boffy. They're not being deleted nor are they falling into the spambox.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Phil: This reads like a critique of *all* opponents of Brexit (not just "liberals") to me: "Yes, many remain supporters are appalled by the Theresa May's antics and the smug complacency of the Tory ultras. No doubt many wish the clock could be turned back. Still, there is a world of difference between wanting something and accepting you can't have it. Assorted commentators tend to forget this when puzzling over polling that suggests a majority of Labour members want a second referendum, but are also happy to support Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the Brexit crisis. The truth of the matter is only a minority of remain voters are obsessed with and frame their politics around a remain prospectus. Brexit is intangible to most people,"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, this is the point I had made in my comment that has gone missing.

    Firstly, its simply not true that,

    "only a minority of remain voters are obsessed with and frame their politics around a remain prospectus"

    The fact is that more voters now identify as Remain or Leave than do as Labour or Tory, and those identifying as remain now do so more solidly than at the time of the referendum, whilst those identifying as Leave are slightly less so. Its set out here.

    Polling does not just "suggest" that a majority of LP members favour a second referendum, it quite emphatically shows that around 75% favour a second referendum, and about 90% back Remain, i.e. more actually would like Labour to be committing itself to opposing Brexit, either through a second referendum, or by fighting for a GE, on the basis of Labour opposing Brexit.

    That a majority say they support Corbyn's handling of Brexit is pure party loyalty, and based on the fact that Corbyn has been formally adhering to the Conference decision though in reality has been undermining it. The reality of what is happening as far as the party rank and file is concerned, and particularly of those is shown by the letter sent by Corbyn's long time friend Joan Twelves.

    And, now as the Blair-rights take advantage of that disastrous course taken by Corbyn in divorcing himself from his support base in the party by this disastrous reactionary policy of Brexit, egged on by the likes of John Rees to ignore party democracy, and with Tom watson standing in the wings as the proto leader of the Blair-right forces, we see McDonnell backtrack and appease once more, and Angela Rayner ridiculous say that the deserters should be welcomed back if they had a change of heart.

    McDonnell today on the news said he didn't understand what had led the splinterers to pursue the course they had. If that is true he has no business being in politics, because its pretty apparent to most of us! It has nothing to do with Brexit, or anti-Semitism or bullying, and everything to do with their desire to hold on to their cushy jobs, whilst retaining the right to continue pursuing the same right-wing politics, and no amount of appeasement of them is going to persuade them to do otherwise


    ReplyDelete
  14. “who base our analysis upon Marx's speech on the Question of Free Trade and upon the Communist Manifesto “

    This is so laughable and actually embarrassing!

    How Denham thinks he has linked the remain position to an insignificant little speech Marx made, which as Engels pointed out was a speech simply designed to get debate going (Engels presented the pro protectionist argument incidentally) is anyone’s guess. It is also anyone’s guess how Denham can link remain to the communist manifesto.

    We should note that Marx supported Irish independence to blow apart British domination of world trade and more importantly the strongest section of the bourgeois, this is how he articulated his support for the Irish cause.

    I am pretty sure Denham’s barmy application of Marx would have led him into the pro imperialist position, which is the default position taken by Denham on every subject.

    Marx once called capitalists insane progressivists, I think we can safely a add Denham to that list.

    For Denham the interests of the bourgeois and progressive politics are one in the same thing.

    Denham is simply a sycophant of Bourgeois interest!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "only a minority of remain voters are obsessed with and frame their politics around a remain prospectus"

    «The fact is that more voters now identify as Remain or Leave than do as Labour or Tory»

    The result of the june 2017 election seems to suggest that the majority of Labour "Remainers" are happy with the party's "soft exit" position.

    «more actually would like Labour to be committing itself to opposing Brexit, either through a second referendum, or by fighting for a GE, on the basis of Labour opposing Brexit.»

    That "would like" does not mean "I'll vote LibDem this once to revoke the A50 notice and then politics as before". I would like many things that I think are unachievable.

    «That a majority say they support Corbyn's handling of Brexit is pure party loyalty»

    That sounds very unlikely to me: my impression is similar to our bloggers, that is:

    * Most "Remain" voters would like to have won in 2016, but know they did not, and that a "second" referendum is likely lost, if even if "Remain" won it, it would win it by a small margin, and as long as the margin of either side is small, there will be always calls from the losing side to have another one.

    * Most "Remain" voters are prepared to live with "Norway", but not most "Leave" voters, and the percentage of "Remainiacs" among the 48% is much lower than the percentage of "Beleavers" among the 52%. Because in general "Remain" voters are more rational, and "Leave" voters are more sentimental.

    As a "Remainer", I think that the best achievable would be exit with "Norway", and then 10-15 years of futility and misery that would create a 60-70% majority for "Reenter", which is what is needed to archive the issue for another 40 years.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some advice to "Anonymous":

    1/ Use your own name if you want any credibility

    2/ If you think Marx's speech on free trade is "insignificant", try reading the Communist Manifesto - the ultimate anti-Brexit tract.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Blissex,

    "The result of the june 2017 election seems to suggest that the majority of Labour "Remainers" are happy with the party's "soft exit" position."

    No it suggests that they wanted to oppose Brexit, but realised that a vote for the Liberals or Greens would be a wasted vote, so a vote for Labour was the best hope of stopping a hard Brexit, with the prospect that Labour would move to oppose Brexit altogether. Hence also why Liberals and Greens moved to Labour, but also why in Scotland, where the SNP had more chance of winning than Labour, Labour actually moved backwards, behind the Tories.

    "That "would like" does not mean "I'll vote LibDem this once to revoke the A50 notice and then politics as before". I would like many things that I think are unachievable."

    True as I said above, but that was when it looked like Labour would oppose a hard Brexit, and probably stop any Brexit. Now Corbyn makes clear he is as committed to Brexit as the Tories, and that as his fantasy Brexit is impossible, he will end up pursuing a No Deal Brexit. That creates wholly different conditions in which Remainers make their choices at the ballot box, in which it becomes almost inevitable that Remainers must vote for some alternative to Corbyn's economic nationalism.

    Norway is not credible. Corbyn has resurrected his call for a Customs Union where Britain has a say in trade deals, and a right to do separate trade deals. If the EU agreed to that it would destroy itself. So Corbyn would either have to capitulate and agree to no say, which puts Britain in the "vassal state" position, or he would have to walk away, back into the No Deal position.

    The survey I linked to shows that its Remainers that are now more militantly ideologically committed to opposing Brexit, not the other way round.

    A Labour government certainly under Corbyn could not settle for Norway with no say. Moreover, it would simply fuel the Tory Right, and the Far Right to scream betrayal as they would point to the vassal state position that Labour had placed the country in.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jim, its not the fact that he doesn't choose a name to troll under - he's had endless number of those to fit the persona he wants to adopt for any argument - that makes him lack credibility. Its the fact he knows nothing. Best ignore him, and hope he goes away.

    But, on the general question of the EU, and reactionary economic nationalist opposition to it. Here is what actual Marxists have to say.

    Engels Preface on Marx and Free Trade

    “And because Free Trade is the natural, the normal atmosphere for this historical evolution, the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created -- for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favor of Free Trade.”

    “Protection is at best an endless screw, and you never know when you have done with it. By protecting one industry, you directly or indirectly hurt all others, and have therefore to protect them too. By so doing you again damage the industry that you first protected, and have to compensate it; but this compensation reacts, as before, on all other trades, and entitles them to redress, and so on ad infinitum. America, in this respect, offers us a striking example of the best way to kill an important industry by protectionism.”


    “Whether you try the Protectionist or the Free Trade will make no difference in the end, and hardly any in the length of the respite left to you until the day when that end will come. For long before that day will protection have become an unbearable shackle to any country aspiring, with a chance of success, to hold its own in the world market.”

    Marx - Wage Labour and Capital

    "“The more quickly the capital destined for production – the productive capital – increases, the more prosperous industry is, the more the bourgeoisie enriches itself, the better business gets, so many more workers does the capitalist need, so much the dearer does the worker sell himself. The fastest possible growth of productive capital is, therefore, the indispensable condition for a tolerable life to the labourer.”

    Lenin (Two Tactics of Social Democracy)

    “And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class.”

    Cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lenin (Two Tactics of Social Democracy)

    “And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class.”

    Trotsky (The programme of Peace)

    “We tried to prove in the foregoing that the economic and political unification of Europe is the necessary prerequisite for the very possibility of national self-determination. Just as the slogan of national independence of Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and others remains an empty abstraction without the supplementary slogan Federative Balkan Republic, which played such an important role in the whole policy of the Balkan Social Democracy; so, on the all-European scale, the principle of the “right” to self-determination can he invested with flesh and blood only under the conditions of a European Federative Republic...

     Let us for a moment grant that German militarism succeeds in actually carrying out the compulsory half-union of Europe, just as Prussian militarism once achieved the half-union of Germany, what would then be the central slogan of the European proletariat? Would it be the dissolution of the forced European coalition and the return of all peoples under the roof of isolated national states? Or the restoration of “autonomous” tariffs, “national” currencies, “national” social legislation, and so forth? Certainly not. The programme of the European revolutionary movement would then be: The destruction of the compulsory anti-democratic form of the coalition, with the preservation and furtherance of its foundations, in the form of compete annihilation of tariff barriers, the unification of legislation, above all of labour laws, etc. In other words, the slogan of the United States of Europe – without monarchies and standing armies – would under the indicated circumstances become the unifying and guiding slogan of the European revolution.”

    Trotsky's position was based on the idea that European ruling classes would not voluntarily and peacefully create a United States of Europe, but that is precisely what they have done after WWI, with the Treaty of Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If comrades want to understand a truly Marxist position on free trade/protectionism they could do no better than reading Anwar Shaikh's "The economic mythology of neoliberalism", which is the perfect antidote to the utter debasement of Marxism by the likes of Denham and Boffy and is widely accepted within the academic Marxian economic literature.

    If you can't be bothered to read The economic mythology of neoliberalism try looking on youtube at lecture 13 of Shaikh's seminal work "Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises". It really is essential viewing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0JejeZRtcs&list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go&index=13

    The other point to make is that protectionism is an absolutely essential feature of the capitalist system and any belief that protectionism can be eradicated under capitalism is Utopian and actually idiotic.

    Those who pretend to argue against Protectionism are actually arguing for their form of it. Ha Joon Chang made this point in his work, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. Again well worth a read!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Deviation From The Mean21 February 2019 at 17:26

    I think it is the anonymous above who Denham asked to give his real name. Well whatever his real name I fully endorse the comments.

    Anwar Shaikh is indeed the perfect antidote to the drivel of Boffy and Denham re free trade and protectionism.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are under moderation.