SNNS 41

 

The Hypocrisy of NATO's Illegal War On Iran - Part 11

Britain was drawn into the EEC/EU, precisely because of these objective laws of history and material conditions. The conditions which had enabled it to become the foremost mercantile power, replacing the Netherlands, in the 17th century, and to become the hegemonic industrial power, in the 19th century, a manifestation of that law of combined and uneven development, had dissipated by the 1970's. Indeed, for much of the twentieth century that process of relative decline was underway, and accelerating.

Although, the mythology, itself clung to by the petty-bourgeois nationalists, persists that it was Britain that won the war of 1939-45, the reality is far different. A resurgent German imperialism again sought to assert its leading role in the formation of a single European state, just as it had done in 1914-18. Indeed, despite all of the moralistic nonsense, about the 1939-45, European war, being about a fight of democracy against fascism, it was really just a continuation of the unresolved contradictions of the 1914-18 war. What is more, that resurgent German imperialism was not going to be stopped by a relatively declining British imperialism.

Sections of the British ruling-class knew it. Some sought to appease German imperialism, having already, in the 1920's, welcomed the coming to power of Mussolini in Italy, and, in the early 1930's, Hitler in Germany, as a means of quelling a rising working-class, and its bulwark, the USSR. It sought to divert the gaze of German imperialism East, towards war with the USSR, as it had done several times in the past. During the 1930's, it was just as likely that Britain might have allied with Nazi Germany against the USSR, as that it would ally with France, and later the USSR, against Germany.

Much to the chagrin of France, Britain agreed the Anglo-German, naval pact in 1935, enabling Nazi Germany to rebuild its navy beyond the limits set by the Versailles Treaty. Britain, still the dominant, but declining, power in Europe, undoubtedly saw a war between Germany and the USSR as to its advantage. That was not just for the reason set out above, especially with the prospect of Japanese imperialism nibbling at the USSR in the Pacific, following its advances in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, opening the possibility of a return to the wars of intervention that followed the 1917 Revolution. It would, also, drain German imperialism, in such a war, where it would bear the brunt of the fighting, giving British imperialism a breathing space, and the ability to continue to exploit its colonial empire for a while longer, largely unhindered.

Of course, that was not in France's interest. Nor, indeed, the longer term interest of Germany. In the era of imperialism, based on the creation of surplus value by industrial capital, as opposed to the era of colonialism, based on the realisation of profits from unequal exchange, the focus of capital shifts from the search for cheap primary products to pillage, and protected markets, to sell into, to the need to expand the size of the domestic market, to create multinational states. That was what European history had come down to in the century prior to WWII, and its necessity became all the greater, as the fundamental contradictions sharpened.

In the absence of an ability of the existing imperialist nation states in Europe being able to peacefully come together to create such a multinational European state, its creation, inevitably came down, again, to the continuation of politics by other means – the forcible creation of such a state under the dominance of the most powerful state. France, suffered from a similar weakness as Britain – a flabbiness that came from a long reliance on robbing its colonies via unequal exchange. Germany, which had few such colonies, had, from the start, to rely more on the development of its own large-scale industrial capital, and it was that which made it the most dynamic industrial power in Europe.

When World War came out of its phoney war stage, it was that, which enabled German imperialism to quickly dispose of the flabby old, colonial powers of France and Britain, rolling over France, in short order, and, likewise, expelling the British forces in the embarrassing defeat at Dunkirk, which, in turn, left Britain, isolated and effectively defeated, by 1940.

Back To Part 10

SNNS 40

 

The Hypocrisy of NATO's Illegal War On Iran - Part 10

In the post-war period, US imperialism had an incentive to encourage the dominant nation states in Europe to achieve this task of creating a multinational EU state without further wars between them. After all, US multinational corporations now operated globally, particularly in Europe, and benefited from that same level playing field of a European single-market. It similarly benefited from a creation of such a single market in the Asia-Pacific Region, under the dominance of its new ally Japan, where, again, US multinationals operated.

This was not the same as having its own single-market, because each of these large, new blocs had their own historic development, and so their own existing sets of rules and standards to be harmonised. But, at least, a US corporation operating in the EU, or in Japan, would operate on the same level playing field as every other capital operating there. In so far as the need to expand trade between these blocs, that was the role of the new international bodies set up after WWII, such as GATT/WTO, IMF, World Bank and so on.

The determinant, as I have set out, elsewhere, of where this multinational, industrial capital invested, is the stage of national economic development. Economies, such as Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan, as well as South Korea, were already adequate to support the investment of large-scale industrial capital. Similarly, imperialist capital had little reason to invest in large parts of Africa, because it lacked sufficient development of its infrastructure and so on. The role of Africa and the Middle-East, as with much of Latin America, after WWII, remained, for a long-time, solely as a source for primary products, and export market for manufactured goods. But, as Trotsky noted, the process of combined and uneven development, proceeds at an accelerated pace.

“The law of uneven development of capitalism is older than imperialism. Capitalism is developing very unevenly today in the various countries. But in the nineteenth century this unevenness was greater than in the twentieth. At that time England was lord of the world, while Japan on the other hand was a feudal state closely confined within its own limits. At the time when serfdom was abolished among us, Japan began to adapt itself to capitalist civilization. China was, however, still wrapped in the deepest slumber. And so forth. At that time the unevenness of capitalist development was greater than now. Those unevennesses were as well known to Marx and Engels as they are to us. Imperialism has developed a more “levelling tendency” than pre-imperialist capitalism, for the reason that finance capital is the most elastic form of capital.”

(Speech To The Fifteenth Congress)

In the developed, imperialist economies, this process, in the 1980's, also, in part, driven by the crisis of overproduction of capital in relation to labour, and need, therefore, to seek out new global supplies of exploitable labour-power, led to a relative decline in those economies, and rise in some of those new industrialising economies such as the Asian Tigers. In the old imperialist economies, that same process of slower capital accumulation, and falling interest rates, in the 1980's, and its attendant rise in unemployed labour, led to the void being filled by small capitals – the return of the petty-bourgeoisie.

The petty-bourgeoisie has grown by 50% since the end of the 1970's. That fact played a significant role in the transformation of the main bourgeois parties - Conservative and Labour in Britain, for example – from being conservative social-democratic parties, into being reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist parties, as well as the rise of new, overtly reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist parties, such as Reform. Trump represents the same trend in the US. The reactionary, utopian nature of that trend, in respect to Europe, is clear, that it seeks a return to the global competition between small nation states in an era in which that competition has become one of huge, continental sized, multi-national states.  It is the idiocy of Brexit.

Back To Part 9

Forward To Part 11

The Hypocrisy of NATO's Illegal War On Iran - Part 9

The state is the executive committee of the ruling-class, but, this ruling-class itself, in relation to any given state, is geographically defined. Prior to the development of the bourgeois-nation state, the ruling-class, a feudal landlord class, derived its revenues, and power, from the ownership of land. Similarly, it mobilised armies of retainers, and the greater the number of subjects it had, the greater number of retainers it could muster.

As noted earlier, it is the development of commodity production, and consequent expansion of the market that creates the dynamic in which these old geographic limits become a fetter. But, the process by which this fetter is burst asunder, is, also, one which sees competition between different fractions of the new (bourgeois) ruling class, to assert their dominance. The most obvious example, previously cited, is the role of the Prussian bourgeoisie in asserting itself, in the forging of the German state.

But, similarly, the extension of this same process, the creation of multinational states, as the expression of the objective necessity of capital, in its imperialist stage, to operate in an ever expanding single-market, with a level playing field, a single set of rules, regulations, taxes, and currency, takes the form of a struggle of existing powerful nation states for dominance within it. Frequently, that struggle breaks out from the realm of economic and political struggle, into military conflict. These conflicts are driven by the objective needs of industrial capital, and the state in each existing geographical unit continues to seek dominance.

However, as, also, noted earlier, the ruling bourgeois-class, today, is not the ruling bourgeois class of industrial capitalists it was in the 19th century. Today's ruling class is not a bourgeois class of owners of industrial capital, but of owners of fictitious-capital (shares, bonds, and their derivatives), and it is from that they derive their huge revenues, in the form, not of profits, but of interest, rent and increasingly, as this process becomes decadent, from realised speculative capital gains. The owners of industrial capital, today, (other than from the dwarfish industrial capitals, owned by the petty-bourgeoisie) are the associated producers, as Marx described them, i.e. the workers and managers within each company. They only need to realise it to assert their rightful control over each company, to demand the extension of the struggle for political freedom and democracy begun in the 18th century, to its completion, in the struggle for economic freedom, and industrial democracy.

Similarly, the ruling bourgeois class of owners of fictitious-capital, is, now, objectively, a global class. It can buy shares, bonds or property anywhere in the world, and does so, just as it can live anywhere in the world, and does so. What it cannot do, is to break the link between its own revenues (interest, rent) from its ownership of this fictitious-capital, and the source of those revenues, which continues to depend on surplus-value being produced by industrial capital, and which takes the form of profit.

It has tried to do so, by continually increasing the proportion of profits going to dividends/interest from 10% of profits in the 1970's, to 70% of profits, today. But, that simply reduced real capital accumulation accordingly, and so reduced the increase in production of surplus value, compounding the problem. So, in response, as rising interest rates, then, led to astronomically inflated asset prices crashing, every few years, starting as far back as 1987, it could only respond by inflating the currency supply to depreciate the standard of prices, and reflate the asset price bubbles. As with the old feudal landlord class, which not only became socially redundant, but also became a decadent parasitic excrescence on society, so too, today with the bourgeois ruling-class owners of fictitious-capital.

Back To Part 8

Forward To Part 10

SNNS 39

 

Anti-Duhring, Part III – Socialism, I – Historical - Part 1

The Enlightenment philosophers appealed to Pure Reason. Only the rational was real.

“A rational state, a rational society, were to be founded; everything running counter to eternal reason was to be remorselessly done away with.” (p 327)

But, what appeared to be rational was only a manifestation of the world view of the rising bourgeoisie. A premature, and inevitably confused, example of that came with the English Civil War. But, the consequence of the, as yet, immature condition of the bourgeoisie meant that, having seized power, it did not know what to do with it, and soon resorted to the Protectorate of Cromwell, as an uncrowned King. It was another 100 years before the bourgeoisie had developed enough to take control of the state, and to install its own constitutional monarch via The Glorious Revolution.

Even then, this was not a total victory for the bourgeoisie. It was a victory for the the commercial bourgeoisie and financial oligarchy, in alliance with the landed aristocracy, based on Mercantilism, and the creation of a colonial empire. As Engels points out, it was only after 1848 that the industrial bourgeoisie asserts its dominance, and, in alliance with the industrial workers, defeats that old alliance of the landed aristocracy, commercial bourgeoisie and financial oligarchy. A similar pattern emerges in France, later, but in a more condensed sequence.

“The state based upon reason completely collapsed. Rousseau’s Social Contract had found its realization in the Reign of Terror, from which the bourgeoisie, after losing faith in its own political capacity, had taken refuge first in the corruption of the Directorate, and, finally, under the wing of the Napoleonic despotism. The promised eternal peace was turned into an endless war of conquest. The society based on reason had fared no better. Instead of dissolving into general prosperity, the antagonism between rich and poor had become sharpened by the elimination of the guild and other privileges, which had bridged over it, and of the charitable institutions of the Church, which had mitigated it.” (p 327-8)

It was these birth pangs of the new bourgeois society that enabled sections of the old feudal ruling class not only to effectively snipe at their successors, but to periodically appeal to the workers and petty-bourgeoisie against them. It was what enabled the likes of Sismondi to expose in stark tones the inevitability of an overproduction of commodities, in turn, plagiarised by Malthus, to justify his calls for the parasites of the landed aristocracy, church and state to have greater revenues, for the benefit of society, to avert such overproduction. The role of the guilds formed the basis of other forms of reactionary socialism, as with William Morris and the Guild Socialists.

“As far as the small capitalists and small peasants were concerned, the “freedom of property” from feudal fetters, which had now become a reality, proved to be the freedom to sell their small property, which was being crushed under the overpowering competition of big capital and big landed property to these very lords, so that freedom of property turned into “freedom from property” for the small capitalists and peasant proprietors.” (p 328)

Back To Part II, Political Economy, X – From The Critical History