Friday, 31 May 2024
Lessons of The Chinese Revolution, A Retreat In Full Disorder - Part 4 of 10
Lenin's characterisation of a state-capitalist economy, in Russia, rested on the fact that the workers' state had the power to plan economic development, and to act to regulate the market, and the control, in its hands, of large industrial capitals, also enabled it to intervene in the economy, in the same way that the monopolies and the state did in Europe and the US. In fact, even there, the backward nature of Russia, limited that, for the reasons described above. And Lenin notes that there is a difference between nationalising and confiscating property and socialising it.
“Yesterday, the main task of the moment was, as determinedly as possible, to nationalise, confiscate, beat down and crush the bourgeoisie, and put down sabotage. Today, only a blind man could fail to see that we have nationalised, confiscated, beaten down and put down more than we have had time to count. The difference between socialisation and simple confiscation is that confiscation can be carried out by “determination” alone, without the ability to calculate and distribute properly, whereas socialisation cannot be brought about without this ability.”
(ibid)
That also required a significant development of the economy, which remained capitalist, and predominantly small, private capitalist, or even pre-capitalist. It involved a long period of transition, even if the international revolution, came to its assistance, which was the basis of The New Economic Policy, which Lenin envisioned would have continued into the 1950's. Lenin notes that Marx and Engels had spoken of a long period of transition between Capitalism and Socialism, even in respect of already developed economies like Britain. Marx and Engels had analysed socialised capital, in the form of the cooperatives and joint stock companies as transitional forms of property, between the two, but this did not change the fact that, during this period of transition, the economy is a capitalist economy, just as Marx explained that, even with the workers cooperatives, the socialised capital, was still capital.
Workers continued to sell their labour-power, as a commodity, in exchange for wages; the large state enterprises continued to produce commodities for sale, in the market, including the global market, and in Russia, huge numbers of peasants and small commodity producers continued to produce for the market. Indeed, with NEP, the Bolsheviks increased all of these capitalist elements in the economy.
The control of the state, and of the large-scale capital, was intended to enable these forms of capital – socialised capital – to expand, and for the small capitalists and independent commodity producers to be absorbed. The large-scale, socialised capital – including the foreign corporations that Lenin sought to attract to Russia – as it already did, in the West, plans its production, and via the state, these plans are integrated, leading to an increasing planning of the economy, and replacement of the market. What becomes decisive is the extent to which these large-scale socialised capitals do prove themselves, and expand at the expense of the small capitals and the peasant, and petty-bourgeois producers. This determines the relative social weight of these different classes, and, hence, ultimately the class nature of the state.
The socialised capital (cooperatives, joint stock companies,/corporations, state enterprises) is, objectively, the collective property of the workers employed in the enterprise, as Marx sets out, in Capital III, Chapter 27. In bourgeois states, it is only in worker cooperatives that they also exercise control over that capital, but, in a workers' state, the state itself guarantees them that control. As Trotsky describes, in a period of dual power, a revolutionary proletariat might also implement workers' control, over that capital, using its strength, and would demand that any Workers Government, legitimise it.
John Stewart Nails Starmer's Blue Labour Regime
Well known, US Jewish comedian, John Stewart, did a sketch some months ago in which he mocked the way the question of Israel-Palestine could never be discussed rationally, because anyone who criticised the actions of the Zionist state was immediately assailed by an avalanche of abuse and invective, on social media (though as was seen with Corbyn, not just social media, but also the media in general), as has also been seen with the huge media (and physical) attacks on students, even for establishing peace camps, whilst, likewise, anyone who refers to the reactionary, vicious nature of Hamas, is subject to a similar barrage of abuse, and charges of being supporters of Zionist genocide.
Hardly a radical view you would think, and certainly not, in any way anti-Semitic, even setting aside the fact that Stewart is himself Jewish. Someone, on X, posted a comment noting this same phenomenon, and linked it to Stewart's sketch, as summing it up. Labour PPC, Faisa Shaheen, watched the video and liked it. In part it shows why I never use X, because, its usually used by people on small mobile devices with small screens, and invites instant responses from people who are glued to the screens, whilst they really should be concentrated on the other things they are doing at the time. Shaheen says, she did so in the middle of the night, whilst sitting up feeding her baby.
As it happens, in this case, unlike the charges made against Jeremy Corbyn in relation to the anti-Semitic mural of Jewish bankers, there was nothing wrong, or even vaguely anti-Semitic, about her liking this skit, unless, of course, as is satirised in it, you are one of those Zionists for whom any mention of the genocide being committed by the Zionist state is forbidden.
Well, despite Starmer having on many previous occasions praised Shaheen, who stood in Chingford in 2017 and 2019, and ran Iain Duncan-Smith a close race, with every chance of winning the seat this time, he has barred her from standing. He can't use the lie used in relation to Diane Abbott of trying to say "not me guv', its all an independent process", because, as with Lloyd Russell-Moyle, in Brighton, no such process is being undertaken. Both have simply been barred from standing, simply on the basis of unsubstantiated and ridiculous allegations. It is clearly the same old method of using charges of "anti-Semitism", to block left-wing candidates or sitting MP's from standing, as Blue Labour careens to the Right, and into a totalitarian nightmare.
Now, John Stewart, himself, has picked up on the story, and commented that this is the dumbest thing in Britain, since it elected Boris Johnson. Commenters on Reddit, also summarised it. One asks will Stewart now be called an anti-Semite, but, of course, the Zionists and their allies have called many Jewish people "anti-Semites", as he alludes to in the sketch, dismissing them as "self-hating Jews", or the "wrong kind of Jews". The genocidal Zionist regime in Israel, has now called pretty much the whole world outside its regime anti-Semites, from the United Nations, to even Joe Biden, whilst ridiculously, in order to continue their support for that Zionist regime, Biden, Starmer and co. are led to simply echo it!
And, of course, from the perspective of Starmer and the Blue Labour Far Right, it is not stupid at all, just as for the petty-bourgeois nationalist section of the electorate in Britain, electing Boris Johnson, and voting for Brexit was not irrational, but simply an expression of their own class interest. Starmer needs to completely silence any opposition view to that of the Far Right in Blue Labour that similarly represents that class interest of the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, upon which, he, like Johnson has built his electoral coalition. The only difference is that Johnson counted on also continuing to get the votes of middle class Conservatives - now deserting to the Liberals and Greens - whilst Starmer counts on working-class Labour voters having nowhere else to go, despite their hostility to him, and the reactionary, nationalist, racist and anti-working class agenda he is pursuing.
That is why, its wrong to claim that Starmer's approach is simply a manifestation of his racism, and the institutionalised racism and Islamophobia inside Blue Labour, to which the Far Right inside the party can simply respond by pointing to the similarly barring of the white Russell-Moyle on the one hand, and the presence on the front bench of Lammy. The racism and Islamophobia is simply layered upon this underlying, reactionary nature of Blue Labour, as it seeks to eliminate any free discussion and dissent, which is typical of every such Bonapartist and totalitarian regime.
And, the reality is that the "hierarchy of racism" of the Starmer regime inside Blue Labour, identified in The Forde Report, is itself simply a device. Starmer and the Far Right of Blue Labour are not at all concerned about anti-Semitism - in fact, one of their previous tools, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, of Gideon Falcher, even accused Starmer of anti-Semitism - other than as a weapon against the Left, and to smash down any criticism of Zionism. Its why more Jews have been expelled from the Labour Party under Starmer's leadership than at any other time!!! The Zionists of the Jewish Labour Movement, are simply the latest tool used by the Far Right to conveniently bar or expel leftish Labour MP's. Its interesting that at the end of his sketch, Stewart having abandoned hope of a rational discussion on Israel-Palestine, said, what about a discussion on Ukraine, because, Jews are being used by the Far Right, as cannon fodder, in the same way that Ukrainians are being used as cannon fodder by US imperialism against Russia, the history of that has also not been happy, as the Lientz Cossacks can attest.
And, history should be a warning to the liberals still left inside Labour too, because, once the Far Right of Blue Labour has silenced the Left, it is coming for them. The reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist agenda of Blue Labour, which is the foundation of the electoral coalition built by Starmer, as much as by Johnson, is completely antagonistic to the interests of the ruling-class, and of the liberal ideas of social-democracy. Its why Starmer has promoted Brexit and jingoism, and why Lammy could even make soothing words in relation to Trump, as they recognise the potential of another Trump Presidency, reflecting those same reactionary petty-bourgeois ideas. Cut off from the EU, Britain is driven to recognise even more its dependence on, and subordination to US imperialism, much, indeed, as the Zionist regime is forced to do, in Israel.
All of Starmer's words about a closer arrangement and new deal with the EU, are just a delusional repeat of the cakesim of Boris Johnson, of British jingoism and exceptionalism, the idea that Britain only has to ask the EU to give it what it wants, and the EU will comply, especially as its now that nice Mr. Starmer in charge, and not that nasty boorish Johnson. Total fantasy, because the EU will pursue its own interests, irrespective of a Starmer or Johnson clone sitting in Downing Street. And, as that reality manifests itself, and Blue Labour fails from more or less Day One, just as did Johnson and then Truss, it will face attack from the ruling class, its state, from the liberal wing of Labour, and from the Liberals and Greens, as well as the trades unions.
We can see from the vicious, racist and totalitarian way that Starmer's Blue Labour has responded already to criticism how it will respond, when in government to that. It will move even more decisively on to the ground of Bonapartism, and a denial of basic rights and freedoms, as well as a further populist mobilisation of the petty-bourgeoisie, the lumpen proletariat, and backward sections of workers, much as Marx described in relation to the coup of Louis Bonaparte, in France, in 1848. Fundamental to it, will be an even more ramped up racism and Islamophobia, making the vile treatment of black members such as Abbott and Shaheen, look extremely tame by comparison.
But its not deranged, its the inevitable manifestation of the clear petty-bourgeois class interest that Blue Labour now represents, a class interest that is reactionary even compared to the class interest of the ruling class, of the liberal bourgeoisie, let alone of the working-class.
Thursday, 30 May 2024
Wage-Labour and Capital, Section IV - Part 6 of 8
Each capital seeks competitive advantage, by raising productivity, via additional division of labour, and use of technology. But, as each one does so, the initial advantage is lost, because the market value of their commodities falls. The amount of profit/profit margin on each unit of output falls, meaning that, although their total mass of profit rises, that is dependent on them selling all of their output. Output grows faster than the market, and so large profits can quickly turn into large losses, if, in order to sell all the output, prices are reduced to below the cost of production.
Ultimately, that can only be resolved by the creation of new markets, be it new markets for these commodities or the development of new industries/commodities, into which the excess capital can be accumulated, thereby creating a new market for those commodities.
“If now we picture to ourselves this feverish simultaneous agitation on the whole world market, it will be comprehensible how the growth, accumulation, and concentration of capital results in an uninterrupted division of labour, and in the application of new and the perfecting of old machinery, precipitately and on an ever more gigantic scale.” (p 41)
But, it can also be seen how this also creates the cycle for wages – nominal wages, real wages and relative wages. Starting with the period of crisis (e.g. 1910's, 1970's), it is an indication of an overproduction of capital, relative to the supply of labour/social working-day. As Marx describes, in Capital III, Chapter 15, and Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 21, the extensive accumulation of capital uses up available labour. The individual working-day cannot be extended further, and so absolute surplus value cannot be increased. The working population, also does not, now grow fast enough to enable the social-working-day to expand.
In Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 21, dealing with Hodgskin, Marx notes,
“If the population grows at the same rate as capital, then there is no reason whatsoever why I should not be able to extract from 8x workers with £800 the [same rate of] surplus labour that I can extract from x workers with £100. Eight times 100 C makes no greater demand on 8 times x workers than 100 C on x workers. Thus “Hodgskin’s” argument becomes groundless. (In reality, things turn out differently. Even if the population grows at the same rate as capital, capitalist development nevertheless results in one part of the population being made redundant, because constant capital develops at the expense of variable capital.)”
(Theories of Surplus Value, p 306)
But, Marx notes that the labour supply does not rise in proportion to this extensive accumulation of capital.
“We have seen that over 20 years, capital increased sevenfold, whereas, even according to the “most extreme” assumption of Malthus, the population can only double itself every twenty-five years. But let us assume that it doubles itself in twenty years, and therefore the working population as well. Taking one year with another, the interest would have to be 30 per cent—three times greater than it is. If one assumes, however, that the rate of exploitation remained unchanged, in 20 years the doubled population would only be able to produce twice as much labour as it did previously (and [the new generation] would be unfit for work during a considerable part of these 20 years, scarcely during half this period would it be able to work, in spite of the employment of children); it would therefore produce only twice as much surplus labour, but not three times as much.”
(Theories of Surplus Value, p 299)
Any, further accumulation of capital fails to increase absolute surplus value, as this additional capital does not act as capital – self-expanding value. It could only do so if relative surplus value increased, requiring a rise in productivity, to reduce necessary labour-time. However, at this point of the cycle that is not possible, precisely because of this relative shortage of labour. It leads to rising wages, and demands for a shorter working-day, and so on, so that, in fact, necessary labour rises, and surplus labour falls. Relative surplus value falls, and, as workers demand shorter hours, longer holidays, enhanced overtime payments, and so on, absolute surplus value also falls. Rising nominal wages feed into demand for wage goods.
Starmer's Vile, Racist Blue Labour Is A Disgrace and a Danger
Starmer's reactionary, nationalist Blue Labour is a qualitative break from the Labour Party of the past. Those past Labour Parties were always representatives of the interests of the ruling class, whilst based upon the support of the working-class, for its membership and votes. They were as Lenin described them - bourgeois workers parties. As Lenin described, for example, in relation to the Narodniks in Russia, whilst Marxists do not support bourgeois goals, or parties, we recognise them as relatively progressive, as against those of the petty-bourgeoisie, which looks backward, and seeks to hold back, or reverse historical development, which involves also pandering to all of the bigotry and reactionary ideas of the past along with it.
Tony Blair's Labour Party, for example, was an epitome of that bourgeois workers' party, as brought to power by the votes of millions of workers, but which made no secret of its ties to the ruling class, and intention of acting in its interests, rather than those of the workers. But, in doing so, for example, in Blair's approach to the EU, that also, if unintentionally, yet inevitably, acted in workers' interests. The freer, stronger development of capital, and, necessarily, of the large-scale monopoly capital that dominates modern capitalism, also benefits workers, as Marx described in "Wage-Labour and Capital", for example. It broke down the reactionary national borders that act as a fetter on that development, creating the conditions for sweeping away the old, reactionary nation states, and facilitating the coming together of workers across borders.
But, Starmer's Blue Labour has made a qualitative break from that. One aspect of Blair's conservative, social-democratic Labour Party that began to make that possible was that it began to break the link with the working-class that was fundamental to its nature as a bourgeois workers' party. It did not actually break that link, as some Left sectarians claimed at the time. The trades unions continued to have an organic link to the party, at national and constituency level. The majority of individual members continued to be workers, many of them also trades union activists. But, Blair was able to pull in millions of pounds in funding from assorted billionaires and multi-millionaires, who recognised it as the main champion of their interests, as against a Tory Party that had been captured by a reactionary nationalist, petty-bourgeois base, and was increasingly driven to pursue those interests.
Blair, increasingly, did not need the financing of the unions, but that did not mean he could break the link with them, given the structure of the party, and role of the unions within it. Nor did Blair, increasingly, need large numbers of individual members, certainly not potentially troublesome working-class members, with their own agendas, and class interests that conflicted with the interests of the ruling class, and the agenda he sought to pursue. The days of needing collection of dues had long gone, with payment by direct debit, and the idea of physical door to door canvassing was seen as inefficient, as phone banks were used to canvass impersonally, using set scripts, and avoiding embarrassing questions and conversations with real working-class voters. The use of the Internet, social media, and targeted adverts has simply taken that to new level.
The link of Blue Labour to the working-class has not been formally broken either, but that appearance hides the developing reality. When Jeremy Corbyn became leader the link to the working-class became much stronger again. Membership rose by hundreds of thousands, making Labour the largest party in Europe. More unions affiliated or reaffiliated to Labour again, and millions of new working-class voters turned out to vote for it in 2017, giving Labour the largest increase in its vote, and vote share than at any time, since 1945. Starmer has destroyed, and reversed that.
The membership has fallen dramatically, as Starmer abandoned the social-democratic programme of Corbyn, and which he had said he would continue, as he lied his way into the Leadership. He has done that, because, captured by the Right, and needing to attack the ordinary members of the party, who overwhelmingly are to his Left, he has had to seek the external financing and support of rich donors, whilst appealing to the votes, not of workers, but that same large, reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist base, which provided the basis of Brexit, and the support for Boris Johnson.
Its interesting to note that, whilst Rachel Reeves boasted of the letter of support from over 100 UK business leaders, journalists pointed out that none of those signatories were currently leading FTSE 100 companies, and many were even just former heads of companies, no longer active. Reeves tried to claim that Labour was the natural party of business, and previous Labour Parties, actually have been precisely that, in relation to the dominant large-scale companies. But, that is not true of Blue Labour, which, like the Tories, is in its agenda, based upon Brexit and the interests of small business, actually alien to the interests of large-scale capital, and of the ruling class that derives its dividends and capital gains from it.
And, just as Lenin pointed out in relation to the Narodniks, in the same measure that Starmer has chased after the votes and support of that reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, and its attendant social layers, amongst the lumpen elements, and the backward sections of workers, concentrated in the old decayed urban areas, so too he has had to appease all of the old reactionary prejudices and bigotry that goes with it. That inevitably leads to resistance and contradiction inside the party, and in response to it, Starmer resorts to his natural type, that of the Bonapartist and authoritarian. Vicious and vengeful, as witnessed in the treatment of Diane Abbot.
But, it is not just Abbot that has suffered this mistreatment, which is, in part, a reflection of the institutional racism, ingrained into Starmer's Blue Labour, and also, in part, simply a reflection of the totalitarian nature of Starmer's regime, which cannot tolerate any, even the mildest criticism, and so seeks to bureaucratically and physically eliminate it, as with Starmer's employment of external agencies, connected to former members of the intelligence services.
The institutional racism of Starmer's Blue Labour, inevitably flows from its collapse into jingoism, and petty-bourgeois nationalism. Martin Forde KC, employed by the party to undertake an investigation into racism in the party (ironically what Abbot was accused of in her letter), found a perception of a hierarchy of racism, from the leadership and its apparatus, as the Right utilised "anti-Semitism", as a factional tool against Corbyn and his supporters, in conditions where the Right were in a small minority, but continued to exercise control over the party machinery, and continued to have free access to the bourgeois media, as a tool in that factional struggle.
Starmer and the Right have continued in that vein. Peter Mandelson used to speak about putting the Left in a sealed tomb, so that no matter whether they had a majority in a party that proclaimed itself a "broad church", they would never be able to get a proportional level of representation of MP's and so on. As someone put it, it would be a broad church, but with a very narrow doorway into it. It is the approach of the totalitarian that cannot tolerate any opposition, other than what can be used as a fig-leaf of cover. And, so it was inevitable that as the election was called, all those Labour MP's such as Diane Abbot that conflicted with that approach would have to be eliminated, along with all of those Labour PPC's already adopted, such as Faisa Shaheen, whose appearance on Newsnight, on Wednesday evening, illustrated the vicious nature of Starmer's Blue Labour, and its thoroughly racist nature.
Once again, the use of the right-wing Jewish Labour Movement, is the means by which Labour MP's, and PPC's are being bureaucratically removed without any attempt to disguise the factional nature of what is being done, using that same "hierarchy of racism", described in The Forde Report. Charges are being levelled going back ten years, often, as with Shaheen, to before those accused were even members of the Labour Party, as the basis, not even for disciplinary procedures, that is the minimum required by natural justice, but simply to block Leftish candidates from even standing, even after those candidates have been selected, and while they are already actively involved in campaigning.
Another such MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, was also blocked by this method, yesterday. When bad bosses send redundancy notices to workers by text message, Labour MP's, and even sections of the press are up in arms about it, but that is precisely the method of the vicious, anti-working-class racists and bigots, now running Blue Labour.
Of course, no Marxist should be surprised by this, as it flows inevitably from the collapse of Starmer's Blue Labour into reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalism, and jingoism. It is the kind of Bonapartism and totalitarianism that goes with it, and that is being seen elsewhere, not just with Zionism in Israel, which the likes of Starmer and Biden seek to defend, but also in the US, in Germany, France and so on.
If Starmer were on the Left, this overt and vicious racism against Black and Asian people, and rampant Islamophobia, of Blue Labour, would be resulting in screams from the Right, and from the mass media for all sort of actions and investigations by the Human Rights Commission and so on. But, of course, that doesn't happen because the Right utilise that "hierarchy of racism" to engage in their factional struggle against the Left and ordinary members of the party, and the media, which itself sees the Left as a threat they cannot control, is happy to go along with it, in alliance with a Right they think they can.
If you are black or Asian, or Muslim this vile, racist, Bonapartist Blue Labour Party represents a clear and present danger to you. We already saw, Starmer dismiss Black Lives Matter, his racist Blue Labour systematically discriminates against, and treats in the most vile manner, Black, Asian and Muslim members of the party. But, currently, it does not form the government. That is about to change, if as seems likely, Blue labour wins the General Election. As Starmer inevitably fails even to implement the pathetic agenda he has set out, and doubles down on the jingoism, and reactionary nationalism, to blame the EU, foreigners and anyone else available for his failures, racism becomes the most obvious, and usual method for achieving that goal.
Expect, Starmer and the reactionary Blue Labour government to quickly be blaming all the same targets that the Tories have blamed for their own similar failures over the last 14 years. Expect Starmer stormtroopers on the borders to be emphasising that argument, and for those stormtroopers to be targeting black and Asian communities, with renewed use of stop and search, scare stories about terrorism, and so on, as it seeks to impose a greater authoritarian and totalitarian control over society, as it fails to contain the criticism and resistance to it. And, that will extend into its actions against workers in general, as those workers seek to resist, via their trades unions.
Back in 2008, I argued that if ever a situation arose, where the BNP, became the party that workers voted for in their majority, and to which they looked for answers, then, Marxists would have to deal with that situation, by working with those workers who were members of such a party, and who related to it. Of course, that does not at all mean supporting such a party, or calling for a vote for its candidates or programme. As Lenin wrote, in relation to our attitude to the Labour Party, we support it only in the same way that a rope supports a hanged man. We could never actively support the capitalist policies advocated by the Labour Party, or call for a vote for those policies, or the candidates standing on them, yet we do engage in activity in the Labour Party, and in its elections campaigns, using that opportunity, precisely to discuss with workers the bourgeois nature of the party, of its programme, and so, why a socialist alternative is required to it.
There is yet time to bring it back from the brink, but the Left inside Labour is divided, and has so far proved itself spineless in resisting Starmer's Rightward surge. So too have been the trades unions, which could have mobilised their resources at CLP level, and at national conference, to put a stop to the destruction of the party, as a social-democratic party. The purge of the left, and the totalitarian nature of Starmer's regime makes an equivalent of the SCLV impossible, but nor can we simply support a vote for Starmer's reactionary, racist agenda. Simply running away from the party is also not an answer. We have to organise and fight, now.
Wednesday, 29 May 2024
Starmer Lies Again To Labour Members and Voters
For months, Starmer, and other leading Labour MP's, have been asked what was happening about the disciplinary procedure against Diane Abbot. She was suspended after a rather ill-conceived letter sent to The Observer, in which she noted that whilst black people face racism every day of their lives, because of the colour of their skin, Jewish people, as with travellers and others, who are not so visibly identifiable, whilst suffering discrimination, do not suffer this same kind of incessant racism. The letter was not anti-Semitic, but especially given the climate of opinion, was crude, and inevitably invited Starmer and the Right to seize upon it as an opportunity to move against another "Left" MP.
Of course, whilst Abbot, immediately apologised and recanted, the inevitable charges of anti-Semitism came forward, and she was suspended, with a disciplinary procedure initiated. In the meantime, a string of Right-wing MP's, supporters of Starmer, were also found to have made actually anti-Semitic comments, whilst their similar apology, resulted not in them being suspended, or facing disciplinary procedure, but in them being restored to the fold, almost immediately.
A quick search of the Internet will provide a list of all those Right-wing Labour MP's that made anti-Semitic comments, but who were not subject to any action, so I will not waste time on that, here. Suffice it to say, however, that in recent months, we also saw the right-wing Labour candidate in the Rochdale By-Election, Azhar Ali, found to have made a series of anti-Semitic comments, all of which were excused, and apologised for by the party leadership, up until the point they could no longer sustain that position. Its interesting to note that the fact that a former right-wing Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, stood in that by-election, as a candidate for the rebranded Brexit Party, Reform, showing just how close Starmer's Blue Labour is, now, to the politics of the far right.
But, that convergence with the reactionary, nationalist politics of the far right was even more evidenced when Starmer, welcomed into the party with open arms, the far right Tory MP, Natalie Elphicke. He did so at the same time as Diane Abbot was still being suspended, and as Starmer was preparing to engineer the expulsion of Jeremy Corbyn. It inevitably prompted further questions from journalists about the fate of Abbot, to which Starmer and his epigones replied that it was out of their hands, and all being dealt with by an independent disciplinary procedure. Except, we now know that that was a lie.
In fact, we now know that the independent disciplinary procedure against Abbot had concluded months ago, and that as a result she had had to undergo an online anti-Semitism awareness programme, which she completed back in February. All of that was then passed to the NEC, on which Starmer sits, and was placed in the hands of the Chief Whip who is accountable directly to Starmer! So, the independent procedure had ended, and the fate of Abbot, now rested, as far back as February, with Starmer alone. Of course, in the case of Jeremy Corbyn, he was found to have no case to answer, and yet, Starmer, contrary to his claims about an independent procedure, still suspended him from the PLP.
So, in all of those press comments when Starmer said, when asked about the fate of Abbot, that it was out of his hands, and going though an independent disciplinary procedure, that was a lie. As late as last Friday, Starmer appeared in a TV interview and repeated that lie. We don't know whether he also lied to the other senior Labour MP and Shadow Ministers, sent into TV studios to repeat it, as with Jonathan Reynolds, or Louise Haig, but they repeated this line on weekend politics programmes, even when the interviewers gave them the hint, by asking, as Sophy Ridge did, "It would be a serious thing, wouldn't it if you were saying that a disciplinary procedure was still taking place, when in fact it wasn't"!
But, the fact is that Starmer lies with alacrity, and that ethos now pervade the whole of Blue Labour.
As the storm has engulfed Starmer and Blue Labour, they have again responded with lies and duplicity, claiming that Abbot has not been blocked, that it is down to her whether she stands or not. But, it seems clear that the intention of the leadership was to try to bully Abbot into standing down, in return for notionally having the whip restored in the dying days of this parliament. It is not only tupical of the authoritarian Bonpartist nature of Starmer's regime in the party, which bodes ill for the approach such a party would adopt as the government, but is also typical of the rampant racism that pervades Blue Labour, consistent with its reactionary, petit-bourgeois nationalism, and jingoism. It is seen in the approach to those like Abbot, as well as its previous expulsion of Mark Wadsworth on the basis of trumped up charges of anti-Semitism, by the right-winger Ruth Smeeth.
Yet, this reactionary, petty-bourgeois, nationalist Blue Labour, which is pervaded with racism and jingoism, and closer to the BNP than to the social-democratic Labour Parties of the past, is likely to win a large majority, and form the next government. As each day passes, the contradictions that rack it, will be further exposed, as the lies come home to roost. Socialists need to utilise that to warn the working-class of what it implies for the attacks on them the day after Starmer enters Downing Street, and to built the response to it, now.
Lessons of The Chinese Revolution, A Retreat In Full Disorder - Part 3 of 10
So, it is important to note some important distinctions, here. A workers' state is not synonymous with a socialist state. The establishment of a workers' state is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for a socialist state. As Lenin describes, in the above, Russia was a workers' state, with bureaucratic distortions, sitting upon an economy that comprised,
“1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);3) private capitalism;4) state capitalism;5) socialism.”.(ibid)
Given the predominance of 1), as he pointed out to the “Lefts”, even a progression to state capitalism would represent a progressive development.
“Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism"? Between the fourth and the fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them. Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist. This is an absolutely unquestionable fact of reality, and the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists” is that they have failed to understand it. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of Soviet power.”
(ibid)
The same reactionary, petty-bourgeois ideas lay behind Brexit/Lexit, and behind the “anti-capitalist” calls for higher taxes and so on on large-scale companies.
Tuesday, 28 May 2024
Wage-Labour and Capital, Section IV - Part 5 of 8
The capitalists are in the same position as workers, in so far as they cannot – other than in the short-term – make up for lack of demand by increasing their demand for producer goods, but also they cannot simply compensate by increasing their own personal consumption. Firstly, as Marx describes, in Capital III, Chapter 15, the purpose is not the expansion of their personal consumption, but the accumulation of capital. Secondly, capitalists themselves may not find attractive outlets for expanding their personal consumption.
A fall in the value of luxury commodities, however, may tempt such additional consumption by capitalists. Some commodities previously out of reach of the less affluent capitalists may now become affordable to them, and new commodities may provide an outlet for all capitalists to spend their money. The fall in aeroplane prices made them affordable to some capitalists as personal possessions, as with luxury yachts, and, now, spacecraft.
The solution to all periods of overproduction comes not only from a technological revolution that raises productivity, and so reduces wage share, and raises the rate of profit, but, also, results in the creation of entirely new markets and commodities, expanding the sphere of consumption. In the post-war period, it came in the form of cars, domestic electrical appliances, foreign holidays, and so on. In such a period, capital can respond to short-term crises by increasing demand for capital goods, or via state spending, but only because the underlying conditions mean that such temporary crises are blips in an overall rising trend. Such was the case in the 1950's. But, for the same reason, they cannot be successful when the opposite conditions of crisis exit, such as in the 1920's and 1970's, which is why, in the 1970's the Keynesian policies adopted in the previous 20 years were abandoned.
The fall in wage share, relative to the profit share, is what is seen in periods of stagnation such as the 1930's and 80's, and is the result of this rise in social productivity. The rise in productivity is a consequence of the technological revolution undertaken by capital, faced with rising wage share, and squeezed profits (overproduction of capital) in the previous crisis phase. The labour-saving technology ends the labour shortage and creates a relative surplus population, pushing wages down; it raises the rate of surplus value; it brings a huge moral depreciation of existing fixed capital; it reduces the value of materials, and makes more efficient use of them. The reduction in the value composition of capital, and, thereby, a fall in the organic composition. Together with the rise in the rate of surplus value, it brings about a rise in the rate of profit.
Higher social productivity means that any rise in output requires a smaller amount of additional labour. Employment grows more slowly so that demand for wage goods, and, thereby, aggregate demand, grows more slowly, which results in the period of stagnation. As productivity rises, necessary labour-time falls, and surplus labour rises. Net output grows relative to gross output.
However, the same process of competition drives a further accumulation of capital. As capital continues to accumulate, and the previous technological revolution sinks into history, so productivity growth slows, capital accumulation becomes more extensive, and the relative surplus population is again used up, so that wages, and wage share rises, leading to a new crisis, and so on.
“We see how in this way the mode of production and the means of production are continually transformed, revolutionized, how the division of labour is necessarily followed by greater division of labour, the application of machinery by still greater application of machinery, work on a large scale work on a still larger scale.
That is the law which again and again throws bourgeois production out of its old course and which compels capital to intensify the productive forces of labour because it has intensified them, the law that gives capital no rest, and continually whispers in its ear: “Go on! Go on!”” (p 40)
Monday, 27 May 2024
Lessons of The Chinese Revolution, A Retreat In Full Disorder - Part 2 of 10
On this basis of the fusing together of the different social classes, all concept of class society is rejected, under the abstract term “national”. In addition, all class distinction, in relation to the nature of the state, and of democracy is obliterated. The Narodniks put forward such notions, in the 1890's, as polemicised against by Lenin. The Narodnik conception was of a “non-class” state that simply pursued the national interest. Victor Chernov put forward this idea, so as to justify a bourgeois-defencist position in WWI. On this basis, the defence was not of a Russian bourgeois state, or bourgeois-democracy, but simply of an abstract “democracy”, devoid of any class character.
But, for the Bolsheviks, the class character of the state, and consequently, the class character of the democracy being fought for, was of prime and determining concern. That is why they adopted a revolutionary-defeatist position, until such time that Russia became a workers' state, and what was being defended was not the sham of bourgeois-democracy, but direct, soviet democracy.
At the heart of this is the difference between the Stalinist stages theory, and the Marxist theory of permanent revolution, as well as the difference between the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, and The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The former assumes bourgeois-democracy, the latter assumes soviet democracy. The former assumes that the proletariat has not become ruling-class, and established a workers' state, the latter assumes it has, and as Trotsky sets out, there are clear distinctions between these two situations.
In 1917, Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev continued to support the position that both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had developed of The Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry. In other words, given the huge numerical strength of the peasantry, the belief was that any revolution would rest heavily upon the peasants. The workers would support the peasants, in the struggle to carry through the basic tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and the agrarian revolution that is always a fundamental part of it. The bourgeois-democratic revolution clears away all of the obstacles that stand in the way of capitalist development.
In conditions where Russia was still a largely rural economy, and still developing industrial economy, Lenin explained, for example, in Two Tactics of Social-Democracy, why its was only by such development that it could move forward towards Socialism.
“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.”
Even after the revolution, Lenin noted that Russia was still, overwhelmingly, characterised by the same backward agriculture, by the preponderance of small, independent commodity producers, and so on, so that these basic tasks of industrial development, still existed. In Left-Wing Childishness, he notes,
“At present, petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called “national accounting and control of production and distribution”.”
Sunday, 26 May 2024
Hamas Give Zionists A Boost
Just as the Zionists were being knocked on to the ropes by the rulings of the ICJ and ICC, in relation to their genocide in Gaza, Hamas has come along to give them a propaganda gift, by launching another, insane, ineffective, terroristic rocket attack on Israeli civilians. The media has, of course, been able to stop talking about the genocide and the court rulings, and instead give widespread coverage to the terrorist attacks, reinforcing the message of October 7th., which itself gave cover for the Zionist state to launch its genocide on Gaza, in the first place.
For months, now, the message has been put out of the Zionist genocide in Gaza, and the utter destruction wrought upon it. But, now, the Zionists will undoubtedly use these terrorist attacks to throw doubt on that in the minds of millions of ordinary people across the globe, who will be told, "You see, we told you that the stories of destruction were false, how could Hamas launch such attacks, if they along with the rest of the Gazans are starving and destitute?"
All nonsense, of course, because Hamas is not the Gazan population, and the dire condition of that population does not prevent Hamas from having secreted away rocket in tunnels, or its ability to fire them at Israeli civilians, when the opportunity arises. That does not matter, millions across the globe hat were turning against Zionism, will now have their minds clouded by this action. And, what was the point of it? The rockets are ineffective, fortunately, because the Iron Dome shoots them all down. But, were they able to get through, they do not weaken the forces of the Zionist state, they only kill innocent Israeli civilians, including some Israeli Arab civilians. As with any such indiscriminate attack, they act to rally the people around the flag, solidifying the reactionary ideas of nationalism and patriotism, and the concept of defence of the fatherland. It has given Netanyahu and the Zionists a much needed boost, and will have the same effect in strengthening the Zionists in western imperialist states, and all those opposing the pro-Palestinian peace camps and so on.
This kind of terroristic tactic, often aimed, indiscriminately at civilian populations, itself flows from the reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist ideology of the groups that engage in it, such as Hamas. Their petty-bourgeois nature means that they are divorced from the masses, and so not only engage in what amount to individualistic actions rather than mass actions, but that they have no concern about their actions consequences on the masses. Their nationalist ideology means that they have no concern for the masses of other nations, let alone the concept of uniting the masses of different nations in a common goal. Of course, why would they do that, because for the masses the basis of that goal is not simply the limited one offered by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism, but is the overthrow of that same bourgeoisie!
In the same way, in the last few months, the actions of Zionism in Gaza has been the biggest recruiting sergeant for Hamas there could have been, just as the actions of British troops, after they went into Northern Ireland in 1969, became the best recruiting sergeant for the Provisional IRA, which until then had been tiny in size, but became seen as a communal defence force for the catholic community. Far from destroying Hamas, the Zionist onslaught in Gaza has recruited tens of thousands more fighters for it. And, indeed, that fact will simply be used by the Zionists to reaffirm their initial message and goal, which is to bring about a final solution in relation to the Palestinians, starting in Gaza, by raising it to the ground, and wiping out, or other wise removing the Palestinian population, there, entirely, before moving on to complete the task in the West Bank.
Wage-Labour and Capital, Section IV - Part 4 of 8
As Marx describes, in Capital III, Chapter 6, if the value of cotton falls, then the value of yarn falls, including the value of yarn produced prior to the fall in the value of cotton. It is the labour-time required for reproduction that determines value, not historic costs. However, if the yarn has just been sold, at its former, higher price, before cotton is bought to replace that consumed, a smaller proportion of that price of the yarn is now required to replace the consumed cotton. There is a release of constant capital, which may be used for additional consumption/revenue, or else additional capital accumulation.
But, even if the yarn is sold at its new, lower price, this does not change the amount of surplus value produced by the spinners. If they produced £1,000 of surplus value before, they still do now. If, previously, a kilo of cotton was £10, the £1,000 of surplus value would have bought an additional 100 kilos, but, if cotton falls to £7.50, the £1,000 buys an additional 133 kilos. In other words, there is a rise in the rate of profit, and capacity to increase the capital.
One problem that faces capital, as described in Capital III, Chapter 15, is that, even when surplus value has been pumped out of the workers, this is only the first part of the process. It is necessary to realise that surplus value embodied in the commodities by selling them at their values. It requires adequate demand for those commodities. But, as Marx describes, in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 17 and 20, if the production of knives increases, or similarly wages rise, so that more knives can be bought, it does not mean that the demand for these knives will, in fact, rise or rise enough. Knives could then be overproduced and have to be sold at reduced prices, possibly resulting in losses.
At times, when wages have risen, and workers have bought many wage goods in greater quantities, they may be harder to convince to buy even more of them at prices that realise the produced surplus value. Their marginal propensity to consume may fall, and their savings rise. It is not under-consumption, as their consumption continues to rise, but at a slower pace, and slower than the increase in supply, leading to overproduction.
The problem of realising produced surplus value can be resolved if the value of commodities, previously out of the reach of workers, falls to a level whereby they can now afford them. Instead of workers increasing savings, they, then, create demand for these new types of commodities that were previously luxuries, and now become incorporated into the basket of wage goods. As the market for these commodities expands, capital migrates from old, established spheres into these new lines of production.
But, at the time, workers may not provide the demand for these new types of production. Consumption of wage goods may not expand. Theoretically, capital can compensate by using surplus value to accumulate additional productive-capital. However, ultimately, the purpose of production remains not only the production of, but realisation of profit, which requires consumption. Simply compensating for inadequate demand for consumption goods, by increasing demand for producer goods, only exacerbates the problem of realisation.
It is one reason that Malthus proposed that under-consumption be remedied by having the landed aristocracy appropriate more in rents, so that it could spend these revenues unproductively, and so enable the capitalists to realise the profits. Keynes, basically copied Malthus' solution a century later, but used the state as the buyer rather than the landlords. In both cases, it amounts to capital resolving the problem of realisation by handing over a greater portion of profits so that others can provide additional demand, i.e. no solution at all.
Starmer Just Keeps Lying
The media has been focussing on all the really important stuff such as incessantly discussing Sunak getting drenched! Meanwhile, Stamer seems unable to just stop lying. Yesterday, asked about Michael Gove stepping down, he asked what it said about the state of the Tories, if Gove had no faith in Sunak. But, Gove had said nothing about having no faith in Sunak, in fact, the opposite. And, asked about the expulsion of Jeremy Corbyn, following his decision to stand as an independent, following Starmer's personal decision to withdraw the whip, and prevent him from even being nominated for Labour, Starmer again lied about the reasons for that, claiming it was about anti-Semitism.
But, no charges were ever brought against Corbyn for anti-Semitism, and although he was initially suspended from the Labour Party that suspension was lifted, when it was shown that there were no charges to answer. Corbyn was not suspended for anti-Semitism, but on the spurious, catch-all charge of bringing the party into disrepute, as a result of his statement, in relation to the investigation into anti-Semitism in the party. In fact, as everything subsequently has shown, he was quite right in his statement that the charges of anti-Semitism had been weaponised, and grossly exaggerated, in order to use it against the Left in the party. An instrument of hat weaponisation was the so called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, headed by Gideon Falcher, and supported at that time by the noxious Margaret Hodge, who subsequently ditched it, when, as in the nature of such things, the CAA, having secured one scalp, turned its attention to the next, in the form of Starmer, just as Netanyahu, not satisfied with the same kind of support from Biden, accuses him of being the friend of Hamas, when he doesn't do his bidding.
Starmer lied about Gove, because his whole election strategy is based upon not having to distinguish Blue Labour from the Tories, politically, but to just demand that voters vote Labour out of hatred or disgust at the Tories. Of course, the trouble for Starmer in that regard is that if voters are disgusted at the Tories, for the policies they have pursued over the last 14 years, they will soon be equally disgusted at Starmer's Blue Labour, which promises "stability", and a continuation of those same policies!
Starmer talks about "change", but not in the way politicians usually refer to it. Usually, the reference to "change", as with Obama in 2008, means that they are promising to come into office with a set of policies that are different to those of the previous government, that they are going to change the society. Of course, its always bullshit, and they simply continue much in the same way as the previous lot, and the ones before them. But, Starmer isn't even promising that. He doesn't mean change in that usual way. No what Starmer means by "change" is that, having seen that there is a sizeable group of reactionary, petty-bourgeois voters that backed Brexit, and formed the basis of the Tories election victories, rather than seeking to change the nation for the better, he is instead promising to "change" the Labour Party for the worse!
Instead of the Labour Party having a set of progressive ideas that it seeks to win support for, so as to change society for the better, Starmer, has, instead, decided to simply change the Labour party to reflect the views of the worst, most backward, bigoted and reactionary sections of the electorate. What is even more absurd, is that as he is doing that, a large portion of those that held those views, in relation to Brexit, aside from those that have died in the intervening period, have themselves realised that that reactionary nationalist agenda of Brexit was a huge mistake, a catastrophic decision! Not only is Starmer's Blue Labour tailing the worst elements of society, but it is not even doing that effectively, as its still headed in that reactionary direction long after many of those it was tailing have changed direction.
Similarly, Starmer needs to lie about the reasons that Corbyn was suspended, and then prevented from standing as a labour candidate, because otherwise the real nature of the use of anti-Semitism as a weapon against the left would itself be exposed, which is extremely damaging to Starmer and the Right, given the current genocide in Gaza, and Starmer's complicity in it.
Saturday, 25 May 2024
Bourgeois-Democracy Crumbles As It Defends Its Genocide - Part 19 of 19
The Middle-East, as with other parts of the global economy, requires a large single market, in order that capital operating in the region can produce on the same scale as the capital that operates in North America, Western Europe an so on. The ruling class, and its dominant faction, based in the US, along with its states, seeks that as a location for its speculative activities, obtaining revenues and capital gains without equivalent capital investment. The increasing influence of China, in that region, especially when combined with China's growing alliance with Russia, which has historic links into the area, as well as with Türkiye, and the Balkans, poses a global strategic threat to US imperialism, and its European subordinates, given the region's control of huge oil reserves, as well as control over the Suez Canal. The latter was enough for a declining British and French imperialism to go to war with Egypt in 1956.
To counter that, the US and its European subordinates had been seeking to achieve a normalisation of relations between Israel and the surrounding Arab states in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states, all of whom, currently are clients of the West, but that being a situation that could change with growing Chinese influence. In the 1980's, as the USSR was in terminal decline, Saudi Arabia assisted the US in hastening its demise by increasing the supply of oil, driving its global price down, and so undermining Russian oil revenues. It has been notable that, in the current climate, Saudi Arabia has resisted any similar moves, despite huge US arms sales to it, and has cooperated with Russia in OPEC+ to curtail oil supplies, and keep prices up.
A normalisation of relations between Israel, and these surrounding Arab states, would be the basis of a new politico-economic bloc, and creation of a large, single market. The existing influence of the US, UK and EU in that region would be a powerful force in securing the region in the sphere of western imperialism, against the encroachment of China and BRICS+, to which Saudi Arabia has already been admitted. The ruling class might have had globalisation frustrated, but, its western component could, at least, look to an opening of borders, in this region, and a securing of its own interests, for increased profits, and out of which increased payments of interest/dividends, and so a basis for its asset prices being sustained.
But, the genocide being committed, for all the world to see, by the Zionist state in Gaza, makes that currently impossible. Its not that the ruling class in these states does not want to normalise relations despite that genocide, but that, its own masses would be led into revolt were it to do so. Those states have done nothing to assist the Palestinians, and, when the Houthis, in Yemen, have taken action, in line with the provisional ICJ ruling, to deny supplies to the Zionist state, those states have been complicit in NATO's military actions against them. When Iran sent missiles into Israel, in response to the Zionist state's attack on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, the Arab states supported NATO's actions in shooting down those missiles.
The current genocide shows that the Two State Solution was no solution at all. The UN General Council voted overwhelmingly to recognise the reality that Palestine is a state. But, the US, the main proponent of two states, on paper, voted against it, and Britain abstained. The reality is, of course, that, even if the US, Britain and every other country had voted to recognise a Palestinian state it would have made no difference. It is mere formalism. Would the Zionist state have stopped bombing Gaza, invading and occupying the West Bank, and so on? Of course, not, any more than the fact that Syria is a state, and yet, is occupied, in the Golan Heights, or that Iran and Iraq are states, and yet are attacked. Ukraine is a state, but that hasn't stopped Russia attacking it, and occupying parts of Eastern Ukraine!
A continuation of the delusion of two states, would simply mean that the gradual extermination of the Palestinians by Zionism, going on for over 75 years, would drag on, with sporadic clashes like that which erupted after October 7th, and would continually get in the way of the normalisation of relations. For Zionism, and so, also, for its US and EU sponsors, it needs a final solution to the problem, much as with the eradication of the Native Americans, or Australasian aborigines by European settlers. That is what Zionism is doing in Gaza. Once the Palestinians have been wiped out, or reduced to such numbers as can be contained in reservations, incapable of any kind of resistance, then the Zionist state can resume the normalisation of relations with the surrounding Arab states, and the process of creating that wider economic bloc undertaken.
US and European imperialism is not going to stand in the way of that, even if the ICJ rules that a genocide has been committed, a genocide we all know has been, and is being committed. Owen Jones, is correct that the size of this genocide, and its blatant nature cannot be hidden, and yet, the western media and politicians are attempting to hide it, and all opposition to it, in western countries is being savagely attacked. But Owen Jones is wrong in thinking that this means that Zionism/Imperialism has lost. Once normalisation of relations is established, the current protests at the genocide will eventually subside. The fact that, we are going to see continued protest at that genocide, at the same time that western governments continue to support it, arm it and act as attorney for it, means that those states will resort to ever more Bonapartist methods to oppose it. The sham that is bourgeois-democracy will continue to crumble as it defends its genocide, but without the working-class overthrowing capitalism, and that bourgeois democracy, it will itself stabilise and continue.
Friday, 24 May 2024
ICJ Rules Against Zionist State
The ICJ has ruled in favour of South Africa, and against the Zionist state in Israel, engaged in genocide in Gaza. Its important to distinguish between the Zionist state in Israel, and Israel itself, just as its important to distinguish between every capitalist state, and the people over which such a state presides, and the masses of which it oppresses. The people of Israel are not identical to the Zionist state. For one thing, 20% of them are Israeli Arabs, and not all of the Israeli Jews are themselves Zionists. The ruling, however, is not just a ruling against the Zionist state, but against Zionists and apologists for Zionism everywhere, the majority of whom are themselves, also, not Jews. In the US, for example, the majority are reactionary, Christian Zionists.
The ruling, coming on top of the ruling by the ICC, calling for arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, makes it a bad week not just for the Zionists, but also their imperialist sponsors in the US, such as Genocide Joe Biden. Rather than demanding that the Zionists stop their genocide, Biden and the other leading lights of US imperialism doubled down on their support for the Zionist butchers, and instead turned their attack on the judges and staff at the ICC, more or less echoing Netanyahu's ridiculous claim that the ICC prosecutor and judges were guilty of "anti-semitism", the catch-all response to all criticism of Zionism, used by the Right from Margaret Hodge against Corbyn, to Gideon Falcher against the Metropolitan Police, and even Netanyahu against Biden, who was described by the Zionists as Hamas' friend!!!!
The ICJ is the instrument of the UN Security Council. It has no power to enforce its rulings, and largely, those rulings have been ignored by the Zionist state, and will be again in this instance. Only when rulings of the ICJ and the Security Council are against enemies of US imperialism is it ever likely that military force will be mobilised behind them to enforce them. Numerous Security Council resolutions against the Zionist state have been ignored, even when the US has not vetoed them, because the Zionists state knows that the US will do nothing to enforce them, and were anyone else to seek to do so, as with the Houthis action to prevent war supplies through the Red Sea, the US would be quick to take action against them, irrespective of the resolutions and court rulings.
Its likely that Algeria, currently on the Security Council, will put a simple motion to it, demanding that the Zionist state comply with the ICJ ruling. It should be difficult for the US to logically oppose or veto such a resolution. But, it will likely do so, anyway. It will first of all obfuscate, and seek to put numerous amendments to any such motion. Even if it passes, and is not vetoed, the US will do nothing to enforce it.
The Zionist state will continue with its final solution against the Palestinians, and these rulings and resolutions will again demonstrate both the sham nature of bourgeois-democracy, its rule of law and international rules based system for what it is.
Lessons of The Chinese Revolution, A Retreat In Full Disorder - Part 1 of 10
A Retreat In Full Disorder
The Stalinists argued that imperialism welded together the classes of Chinese society into a single “bloc of four classes”, to fight against it. The social imperialists argue the same, today, in relation to the war in Ukraine. One camp, the pro-NATO/Ukraine camp, argue that the war is one of “national independence” against Russia. Their mirror image, the pro-Putin/Xi camp, argue that Russia is also engaged in a war of “national independence” against US/NATO imperialism, which has expanded up to Russian and Chinese borders, and provoked a pre-emptive, but defensive response.
Such conditions had been considered by Lenin, as Trotsky also describes.
“Imperialism camouflages its own peculiar aims – seizure of colonies, markets, sources of raw material, spheres of influence – with such ideas as “safeguarding peace against the aggressors,” “defence of the fatherland,” “defence of democracy,” etc. These ideas are false through and through. It is the duty of every socialist not to support them but, on the contrary, to unmask them before the people. “The question of which group delivered the first military blow or first declared war,” wrote Lenin in March 1915, “has no importance whatever in determining the tactics of socialists. Phrases about the defence of the fatherland, repelling invasion by the enemy, conducting a defensive war, etc., are on both sides a complete deception of the people.” “For decades,” explained Lenin, “three bandits (the bourgeoisie and governments of England, Russia, and France) armed themselves to despoil Germany. Is it surprising that the two bandits (Germany and Austria-Hungary) launched an attack before the three bandits succeeded in obtaining the new knives they had ordered?””
Note that, whilst Lenin states, here, that although Germany's pre-emptive response to the build up of the other bandits was not “surprising”, it, in no way, implied a justification for that response, or support for it. On the contrary, the whole point, of Lenin's argument, here, is to reject the moralistic ideas about defensive wars, on the basis of defence of the fatherland, justified on the basis of “who shot first and so on”. These are simply diversions from the real question of the class nature of the wars themselves. The pro-NATO social-imperialists, are simply lying, when they claim that its build up around Russia and China, provided no basis or justification for Russia's war. From a capitalist/imperialist basis, as Lenin and Trotsky set out, it clearly did. Indeed, the social-imperialists, themselves are forced, by reality, to have to admit it, even as they simultaneously try to deny it!
Martin Thomas, of the social-imperialist and Zionist AWL, which supports the USC, wrote a while ago, following the BRICS Summit in South Africa,
“China’s Belt and Road Initiative, its action in Hong Kong and East Turkestan, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc. show that BRICS vs the US-led bloc G7 is not an anti-imperialist vs imperialist line-up, but a jousting between two (loose) imperialist blocs.”
Thursday, 23 May 2024
Wage-Labour and Capital, Section IV - Part 3 of 8
If nominal or money wages remain the same, but the price of wage goods falls, then, real wages will rise.
“But neither the nominal wages, that is, the sum of money for which the worker sells himself to the capitalist, nor the real wages, that is, the sum of commodities which he can buy for this money, exhausts the relations which are comprehended in the term wages.
Wages are above all, also determined by their relation to the gain, to the profit, of the capitalist – comparative, relative wages.” (p 34)
In other words, both nominal and real wages (living standards) may rise, and yet relative wages (wage share) may fall. It only requires that productivity rises by an extent greater than the workers' share of the additional product.
“Real wages express the price of labour in relation to the price of other commodities; relative wages, on the other hand, express the share of direct labour in the new value it has created, in relation to the share which falls to accumulated labour, to capital.” (p 34)
Suppose we have:
c 1,000 + v 500 + s 500 = 2,000 hours of labour.
This 2,000 hours of labour/value is embodied in 2,000 use values/standard commodity units (scu), each with a value of 1 hour. If productivity doubles, the 1,000 of c, now, represents 2,000 scu, and the 1,000 hours of current labour produces 2,000 scu. However, the workers still require only the same 500 scu for the reproduction of their labour-power. The amount of necessary labour falls to 250 hours, meaning surplus labour rises to 750 hours. Even if wages rise to 375 hours, giving the workers a 50% rise in real wages, surplus labour rises to 625 hours, so relative wages/wage share falls, and the rate of surplus value rises.
But, as Marx explains, this rise in productivity and fall in commodity values has further consequences and advantages for capital, for the reasons previously set out, and also detailed by Marx, in Capital III, and Theories of Surplus Value.
- A fall in the value of commodities means also a fall in the value of fixed and circulating constant capital. That means
- A release of capital.
- A rise in the rate of profit
- A fall in the value composition of capital
- The ability to accumulate additional capital, and, therefore, additional labour and surplus value
- A fall in the value of commodities means the value of the commodities consumed by capitalists for personal consumption, is reduced, leaving more of their revenue for capital accumulation
- A fall in the value of commodities means a fall in the value of commodities previously unaffordable, so that the market expands, as the range of use-values expands, as described by The Civilising Mission of Capital.
“For the capitalist the selling price of the commodities produced by the worker is divided into three parts: first, replacement of the price of the raw materials advanced by him, together with replacement of the depreciation of the tools, machinery, and other means of labour also advanced by him; secondly, the replacement of the wages advanced by him; and thirdly, the surplus left over, the capitalist's profit. While the first part only replaces previously existing values, it is clear that both the replacement of the wages and the surplus profit of the capitalist are, on the whole, taken from the new value, created by the worker's labour and added to the raw materials. And in this sense, in order to compare them with one another, we can regard both wages and profit, as shares in the product of the worker.” (p 34-5)