Predictions For 2025, Prediction 4 – Zelensky's Regime Falls

Prediction 4 – Zelensky's Regime Falls

Within about six months of the Russia-Ukraine war commencing, western warmongers and their apologists, were talking about the demise of Putin's regime, and with it, the beginning of the end not only of Russia, but also of its ally China, on the world arena. The renegade turned imperialist war monger, Paul Mason, even set out detailed maps and charts of how this decline was to come about. There were all the stories about Russia running out of resources, that its economy could not produce the weapons and munitions required to continue the war, its economy was going to be wrecked by the war, and need to meet those requirements, alongside the effect of all the western sanctions placed on it, to stop its sales of oil and gas, of grain and so on. Putin himself was going to fall either because he was dying, or because he was going to be chucked out by a palace coup.

Of course, if the Russian working-class had organised itself, and risen up against Putin's regime, and its attacks on Russian and Ukrainian workers alike, and had thrown out that regime, replacing it with a workers state, based upon workers' democracy, organised via workers soviets, and other organs of workers' power, Marxists would have been highly delighted. It is what we desire, and call for. But, that is not what western imperialism desires, and nor what they were working towards, in their proxy war against Russia. Nor, is it what the various social-imperialists, such as the Ukraine Solidarity Committee, which act as apologists for that US/NATO imperialism, and who have tied themselves to it, were calling for, or meaning in their own hopes for the fall of Putin. What they were looking to, was not the working-class as the global agent of change, but the enemy of that working-class, the bourgeois state, and its organisation within NATO, and other international imperialist bodies.

As Trotsky put it, in almost identical conditions, in the 1930's, as social-democrats, Stalinists, and others clamoured to back the growing war mongering of the allies, against Hitler,

"Naturally, not a single German worker wants this. To throw off Hitler by revolution is one thing; to strangle Germany by an imperialist war is quite another. The howling of the “pacifist” jackals of democratic imperialism is therefore the best accompaniment to Hitler’s speeches. “You see,” he says to the German people, “even socialists and Communists of all enemy countries support their army and their diplomacy; if you will not rally around me, your leader, you are threatened with doom!” Stalin, the lackey of democratic imperialism, and all the lackeys of Stalin – Jouhaux, Toledano, and Company – are the best aides in deceiving, lulling, and intimidating the German workers."

(Phrases and Reality, in Writings 1938-9, p 21)

So too, today, with Putin. All of the actions of NATO, of the EU, G7 and so on, to impose economic sanctions on Russia, to provide Ukraine with ever greater quantities of arms, ever more sophisticated arms, to justify the use of those arms ever deeper inside Russia, and so on, simply reinforced the line put out by Putin, and his regime to the Russian workers that, once again, as in 1812, 1853, 1904, 1918, and after, and once again, in 1941, Russia was under threat from western imperialism, and its allies. And, of course it was, just as much as Russia and China threaten other countries, as they too vie for global strategic advantage. In this global phoney war, between these two imperialist blocs, for Marxists, the question of which one fired first, when that war breaks out into an actual armed conflict, here and there, is irrelevant. As Trotsky put it citing the words of Lenin in relation to WWI,

“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 declare 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?””

(Trotsky – Lenin On Imperialism)

The continued expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders, following the collapse of the USSR, and despite the promises given to Gorbachev, by NATO leaders, not to do so, wasn't just the western military machine deciding to have a nice drive out in the country! The decision of US imperialism to make its “turn to the Pacific”, was similarly not just a whim, but a recognition of the growing power of China, as its economy grew massively, in conditions where western imperialism had been more focussed, on consuming what China produced, paid for by rising amounts of debt, collateralised upon astronomically inflating prices of fictitious capital.

I have recently been watching “Guy Martin – Arctic Warrior”, in which the former motorbike racer has been training with British marines in Norway, and in which the underlying message was a growing preparation for war between NATO and Russia/China. Its part of a steady drumbeat to war, as the public are drip fed, by various sources, the line that Russia presents a near imminent threat to Western Europe, just as, in the past, we were told that Saddam Hussein posed such a threat, leading to the Iraq War. The reality is, of course, that Russia poses no military threat to Western Europe. All of the hyperbole about Russia failing in Ukraine, and so on, was quickly shown to be false, as it achieved its actual objective of occupying Eastern Ukraine, but, it did not do so easily.

The imperialists have tried to have it both ways, as they always do. On the one hand, we were told that Russia was weak, and that weakness was evident in its failure in Ukraine. On the other hand, we were told that this weak Russia that was not even capable of achieving its aims in Ukraine, and was about to be rolled back, and defeated, was planning to roll its tanks into Poland, the Baltic, and Scandinavia! So, which was it? Weak, and unable even to win in Ukraine, or a global military juggernaut able to roll across Europe? Both could not be true.

The truth was that Russia could win a limited war against Ukraine, and its huge backing from NATO, to occupy the majority ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine, which is what it did, and, despite all of the claims to the contrary, is what it actually mobilised to do, as against any idea of occupying the whole of Ukraine. But, even that has stretched it, meaning that the idea that it could pose a realistic threat to Western Europe is ludicrous. That doesn't mean it can't undertake other actions of hybrid warfare, such as using its resources and networks to promote things such as Brexit, or to engage in cyber warfare of various types, but that is far from the picture being painted of a conventional war, and the Russian tanks rolling down the Champs Elysée!

As the saying goes, every accusation is a confession. When NATO, and its propaganda arms talk about such plans by Russia, what they are really describing is their own ambitions to maintain and to extend their own strategic dominance. In “Arctic Warrior”, the narrative was set out that the Arctic is significant, because of its vast resources, and also because China could use Arctic sea routes, as global warming opens them up, to cut its shipping times of manufactures sent to Western Europe. This is a clear example of accusation being confession, because, even in setting it out, it was admitted that more than 50% of that Arctic coastline, is Russian! The Arctic does contain large resources of minerals and so on, but Russia already has legal right to the majority of them, it is Western Europe, and its US ally that is desperate to get their hands on them. Just look at the world map, and look at the vast expanse of Russia, and, in particular, Arctic Russia, in Siberia.

China has, also proposed to finance a 40 kilometre long canal in Thailand, to connect the Pacific to Indian Ocean, to facilitate faster sea routes.  Who is opposing it?  US imperialism.  And, who is it that is, currently threatening to seize control of the Panama Canal, by military force?  Donald Trump, and US imperialism, just as in the 1950's, the old colonial powers of Britain and France, alongside the Zionist state attempted to seize control of the Suez Canal.  Similarly, who was it that blew up the Russian Nordstream gas pipelines to Germany?  It was US imperialism, to prevent the EU going back to its supply of cheap Russian energy.

As for Arctic sea routes for China, for one thing they remain uncertain, for much of the year, but, for another, the whole point about China's Belt and Road Initiative is that it has built much faster and cheaper land routes for its trade across Central Asia, and into Europe. It has already run huge trains from China to London! Moreover, a large part of China's exports go to the US, and they simply travel across the Pacific to the US West Coast. The sluggish economy in Western Europe, resulting from the imposition on itself of all the costs of US imperialism and its proxy wars in Ukraine, the Middle-East and so on, means that China has far more significant growing markets for its exports than to be needing uncertain Arctic sea routes as a priority.

In fact, one of the reasons that all of the predictions by NATO imperialism about Russia's economy being destroyed, as a result of western sanctions, failed is that Russia, whose economy is heavily geared to the sale of primary products, has been able to continue selling them to China, India and elsewhere, and the effect of western sanctions has simply been to raise global prices of those products, and to encourage the development of alternatives to the western controlled global systems. It has been one of the biggest encouragements for the BRICS+ imperialist bloc there could be. What is developing is not a multipolar world, but a bi-polar world of these two huge imperialist blocs butting heads against each other, with the EU being torn by different forces in both directions.

Similarly, therefore, Marxists have no reason to favour the defeat of Ukraine, and its own oligarchy at the hands of Russia, either. Just as we favour the overthrow of Putin's regime by Russia's revolutionary workers, so we favour the overthrow of Zelensky's regime by revolutionary Ukrainian workers. A fundamental requirement of such an overthrow is that those workers are not duped and deluded into the idea that they have a shared national interest with that regime, which is their immediate class enemy and oppressor.

Unfortunately, there, currently, appears little chance of the workers in either Russia or Ukraine overthrowing their respective rulers. But, contrary, to the predictions of western imperialism of the demise of Putin, the end of Zelensky's regime appears to be on the horizon. Again, it will not be at the hands of Russia, but at the hands of reactionary forces inside Ukraine, and the abandonment of him by NATO, much as Russia abandoned Assad, leaving open the door to his ouster by Islamists. It is not just the fact of the arrival of Trump that makes that likely, though as with other things, it will hasten the process. Despite all of the resources and money ploughed into Ukraine by NATO imperialism, Zelensky's regime has failed them, and has gone backwards.

It is a regime that was corrupt to begin with, on the same scale as that in Russia itself, and that corruption has seen vast amounts squirrelled away by those with the ability to do so. It is a regime that was illiberal and undemocratic to begin with that has become more illiberal and undemocratic as the war progressed. Workers parties were closed down, even greater restrictions on trades union and civic organisations imposed, nationalistic and racist ideologies were legitimised, as well as the removal of basic rights for example in relation to the Russian language. Zelensky's regime lost any democratic legitimacy by, several months ago, cancelling elections. Inside Ukraine, the toll on the economy, even with all of the NATO support has been crippling, its population has been decimated as particularly younger people have fled abroad to escape and increasingly brutal conscription and press ganging of recruits.

The latest straw being clung to by liberals and social-imperialists is that Trump will threaten Putin that if he doesn't do a deal, the US will step up its support for Ukraine.  That won't happen, because as has already been seen any such additional support will not change things.  More importantly, Trump has promised his supporters an end to the war, and that the US is removing itself from it.  He is not going to undermine that position, and the only way of ending it soon is by pulling the plug on Zelensky.

When Saddam Hussein failed his imperialist masters in their proxy war against Iran, in the 1980's, he stopped being useful to them. It opened the door to them looking for a replacement. The failure of Zelensky will have the same result. For NATO imperialism, the usefulness of Ukraine in carrying out the proxy war against Russia, was to drain Russia's economy. But, that required that the war could be sustained against it over a long period. Russia can sustain that war, but its clear that Ukraine cannot. Russia has taken most of what it sought, and simply has to defend it, with all of the advantages that brings. Ukraine, to justify the narrative given at the start of the war, has to act as though Russia intends to take the whole of Ukraine, and, at the same time, to commit itself to recapturing Eastern Ukraine. The latter is not possible, and NATO knows its not possible, and becomes less and less possible with time.

NATO, then, faces pouring money and resources into an endless pit, with little advantage from it, and the Ukrainian population turning increasingly against Zelensky with unpredictable results. NATO will ditch Zelensky, and will seek some kind of ceasefire to ensure the possibility of elections, and an orderly replacement, at least opening the possibility for them of recovering some of their lost treasure by opening up Ukraine to greater exploitation of its resources and labour-power. At this stage, its not clear that they will get their wish. As with the fall of Saddam, and now, with Assad, the potential for other, reactionary forces filling the vacuum is at least as great. In Ukraine, that could be in the form of the Azov Battalion, and the Right Sector.

Back To Prediction 3

Forward To Prediction 5

Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, V. Natural Philosophy, Time and Space - Part 6 of 6

As against Duhring's appeal to faith, as he gives up hope of being able to explain, scientifically, this process of change from one equilibrium state to another, the materialist dialectic effectively predicted the development of quantum theory, because it is obvious, on the basis of such a dialectic, that matter does not change to energy or from one state to another, spontaneously, without some such process, even if that process has not yet been identified or understood.

“In fact, we would have to see the acme of wisdom not only in the self-mutilation of our generative power, but also in blind, implicit faith, if we allowed ourselves to be put off with these really pitiable and rank subterfuges and circumlocutions. Herr Dühring admits that absolute identity cannot of itself arrive at change. Nor is there any means whereby absolute equilibrium can of itself pass into motion.” (p 67)

What Duhring provides, Engels says, is “three rotten swindles.”

Firstly, unable to provide any mechanism of transition from one steady state to another, Duhring says its also not possible to show the mechanism of transition to any of the intermediate, smaller links in the chain of causation, and yet we observe that such transitions do occur. In other words, he can't explain the process of transition on any scale, but we can observe these small transformations, so we just have to accept, as an article of faith, that it happens. Engels responds.

“The establishment of individual transitions and connections between the tiniest links in the chain of existence is precisely the content of natural science, and when there is anything amiss at some point no one, not even Herr Dühring, thinks of explaining prior motion as having arisen out of nothing, but always only out of a transmission, transformation or propagation of some previous motion. But here the issue is admittedly one of accepting motion as having arisen out of immobility, that is, out of nothing.” (p 68)

One of the reasons Fred Hoyle opposed the Big Bang theory was precisely that it implied the act of creation, of something arising out of nothing, and so implied the existence of a creator, i.e. God.

The second swindle in Duhring's argument is the “bridge of continuity”, a bridge between immobility and mobility, between one steady state to another.

“Unfortunately the continuity of immobility consists in not moving; how therefore it is to produce motion remains more mysterious than ever. And however infinitely small the parts into which Herr Dühring minces his transition from complete non-motion to universal motion, and however long the duration he assigns to it, we have not got a ten-thousandth part of a millimetre further. Without an act of creation we can never get from nothing to something, even if the something were as small as a mathematical differential. The bridge of continuity is therefore not even an asses’ bridge; it is passable only for Herr Dühring.” (p 68)

The third swindle is Duhring's claim that, on this basis, of the existing science, it was impossible to explain the transition from immobility to motion. That wasn't true, even then. It was known that heat is simply a manifestation of the movement of molecules, and the faster their movement the hotter the material. As Engels notes, this was, also, not something from nothing, because the heating of an object was the result of energy from elsewhere.

“and this, Herr Dühring shyly suggests, may possibly furnish a bridge between the strictly static (in equilibrium) and dynamic (in motion). But these processes take place “somewhat in the dark”. And that's where Herr Duhring leaves us - in the dark .” (p 69)

Back To Part 5

Forward To VI - Natural Philosophy.  Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry  

Predictions For 2025, Prediction 3 – Social-Democracy Continues To Disintegrate

Prediction 3 – Social-Democracy Continues To Disintegrate

At the start of the Ukraine-Russia War, which is simply an element of the overall, inter-imperialist war between US/NATO imperialism and Chinese/Russian imperialism, i.e. WWIII, which is currently, in the phase of “phoney war”, I wrote that it was likely to cause social-democracy itself to disintegrate.

As I have set out, now, for more than 20 years, even before the 2008 global financial crash, which was evidence of it, conservative social-democracy had run out of road. Its model, based upon the interests, not of real capital any longer, but purely of fictitious-capital, the property of the ruling class, consisting of paper wealth in the shape of bonds, shares and property, was based on a delusion that wealth could be conjured from thin air, simply on the basis of speculative capital gains, arising from the continued rise in the prices of these assets (the delusion of the TSSI that capital gains arising from changes in the prices of the elements of constant capital constitute profit is an aspect of it), which also prompted a further delusion, the ever expanding amount of debt collateralised on the back of these inflated, fictitious assets.

In the period after 2008, the attempts to continue with that model have become ever more surreal, requiring ever greater injections of liquidity to buy up those worthless paper assets to prevent their prices crashing once more, and also requiring the capitalist state to simultaneously undermine real capital accumulation, and economic growth, the real basis of wealth creation, in order to try to prevent, or at least slow down, the continued expansion of employment, and rise in wages, and consequent rise in interest rates that spells doom for those inflated asset prices. At each stage, the measures attempted to bring that about – austerity, trade wars, lockdowns – either had limited effectiveness, in conditions of a long wave expansion, or else, ultimately, backfired, when they were ended, as with the ending of lockdowns, and the rapid growth that followed, along with rampant inflation, as the liquidity channelled to households flooded into the real economy.

Even before US/NATO imperialism began to step up its imperialist competition with China/Russia, therefore, social-democracy was on the rocks. Its progressive variant, based upon the interests of large-scale, socialised capital, and its requirement for larger single markets, greater centralised planning and regulation and so on, had reached its zenith in the 1970's, before crashing on the rocks of the crises of overproduction of capital, for which its Keynesian demand management policies were no longer adequate to deal with, as real capital expelled labour in favour of technology, to reduce costs and raise profits, leading to a period of stagnation, excess of money-capital, falling interest rates, and surging asset prices.

In the absence of mass, communist parties such as those created at the start of the 20th century, Marxists have followed the advice of Marx and Engels, and sought to gain the ear of workers by operating alongside the most advanced sections of those workers, inside the social-democratic workers' parties that exist more or less as a political wing of the trades unions. Our attitude to those social-democratic parties, is, therefore, the same as to those trades unions. We recognise them as workers organisations, but workers organisations that are themselves, in terms of their function and ideology, bourgeois. In other words, the function of a trades union is not to “abolish the wages system”, by going beyond it, and establishing Socialism, but is simply to bargain for better wages and conditions within that existing capitalist system. Its premise is the continuation of capitalism, based on the idea that the interests of capital and labour can be reconciled, and that all that is required is a better price for the commodity the workers sell – their labour-power. Social-Democracy is that ideology writ large, and the main political parties have pursued it since WWII, for example, in Britain, both Labour and Conservative, with only marginal variations between them.

In the post-war period, the long wave expansion facilitated that delusion of reconcilable interests, as real capital expanded, and real wages grew, both in money wages, and in terms of a social-wage, provided via an expanding welfare state, itself central to an expansion of state directed planning and regulation of the economy, in terms of labour supply. When that expansion ended in the 1970's, the delusion of reconcilable interests faced the shock of a return of bitter, and prolonged industrial struggles, such as the British Miners strikes of the 1970's, and early 80's. Progressive social-democracy was found wanting, and, as capital resolved the crisis by introducing labour-saving technologies, those bitter disputes, inevitably ended in favour of capital rather than labour. Along with it, social-democracy, itself moved right, in favour of conservative, rather than progressive social-democracy.

All the ideas of progressive social-democracy, of promoting further rational planning and regulation, based upon a curtailment of the power of fictitious-capital, and expansion of industrial democracy, were swept aside. The only elements of that retained were in respect of the need to establish larger single markets, such as that of the EU, but the basis of that was to reduce costs, and other frictions, thereby, raising profits without the need for additional capital accumulation, and so facilitating a rise in dividends/interest payments out of those profits. When the working-class, across the globe had gone down to defeat, the excess of money-capital, from realised profits, facilitated a continuation of the established delusion, by increasing debt to finance consumption.

But, it was, all the same, a delusion, which ultimately was bound to be shattered, as shattered it was in a series of financial crashes, the biggest of which was, so far, that of 2008. The trade war between US/NATO imperialism and Chinese/Russian imperialism, has simply sharpened the contradictions within that social-democracy. On the one hand, progressive social-democracy, as represented by the likes of Syriza, Podemos, Corbyn, Sanders itself continues to possess all of the deficiencies that progressive social-democracy has always had, as a bourgeois ideology. It is a bourgeois-ideology that represents the interests of a social relation – capital – embodied in a thing, real socialised, industrial capital, but whose personification, the workers that are, objectively, its collective owners, neither realise they own it, nor, therefore, have or demand control over it! Hence, the continued ideas presented by both trades unions, and progressive social-democrats based upon negotiating with the non-owners of that capital, the shareholders, as well as ideas about buying out those shareholders, by the capitalist state.

At least, the progressive social-democrats of the 1970's had reached a level of consciousness to demand a degree of workers control, and industrial democracy, even if it amounted to little more than an incorporation of the trades unions, and the participation of the workers in their own exploitation, by capital. Today's progressive social-democrats are nowhere near having reached such a level of class consciousness, and so its no wonder that the majority of workers are far from it too. With no real class alternative to the ideology of conservative social-democracy, and yet, in conditions where that conservative social-democracy, has itself completely failed, and been driven into ever greater levels of absurdity, as paper, fictitious wealth has expanded to grotesque levels, whilst real wealth creation has stagnated, as real capital accumulation has been held back, its no wonder that large sections of society have turned away from it, to other, reactionary, populist alternatives. The fact that those same processes, since the 1980's, led to a resurgence of the petty-bourgeoisie, which has grown by 50%, with all of its attendant, narrow-minded bigotry, and individualism, its parochialism and nationalism, facilitated that ideological and political shift to the Right as manifest in Brexit, Le Pen, Trumpism and so on.

Social-democracy, within itself, reflects the contradictory and transitional nature of imperialism, as the stage of capitalist development based upon large-scale, socialised industrial capital. Socialised capital is, objectively, the collective property of the “associated producers”, as Marx describes it, in Capital III, Chapter 27, and as he and Engels describe it in Anti-Duhring. As set out above, it is that which progressive social-democracy represents, which is one reason it is also frequently managerialist and corporatist, as well as statist, reflecting the role of the professional middle-class, as part of those associated producers. But, as Marx and Engels describe, those “associated producers”, certainly as far as the workers are concerned, do not exercise control over their collective property. That control is exercised not by the owners of that capital, but by share-owners, who are merely creditors of the company, but whose position as ruling-class, has enabled them to usurp control over property they do not own. It is their interests, the interests of fictitious-capital that conservative social-democracy represents.

For the reasons set out above, they too have failed, and yet inertia, and the failure of progressive social-democracy to reassert itself, let alone a revolutionary socialist movement, has left that conservative social-democracy to vie with the absolutely reactionary alternative of petty-bourgeois nationalism, as the two choices presented to societies. Petty-bourgeois nationalism, whose clearest ideological expression is given by the classical liberalism of Mises and Hayek, and their modern day apostles, also cannot provide any solution, as manifest with Brexit, then with Trump, and with Truss. So, where, in the post-war period, elections led to an alternation of variations of social-democratic governments, each represented only a shade within the spectrum of social-democracy from its conservative to progressive wings, today, we have alternations between two failed choices of conservative social-democracy and petty-bourgeois nationalism.

The petty-bourgeoisie, having grown by around 50%, and representing around 30% of society, is heterogeneous, but its strength, as it always has, comes from its overall size, and capacity to utilise those numbers when it comes to elections. The gravitational force of that is shown by the collapse of the other mainstream parties into an accommodation to it, most glaringly seen in the abandonment even of conservative social-democracy by Blue Labour, under Starmer, and the championing of its own set of reactionary, petty-bourgeois, nationalist ideas. Even more does that leave the working-class with no leadership, and no credible alternative, meaning that demoralised sections of it, fall into apathy, or themselves tag along behind the petty-bourgeoisie.

Hence we see, Macron who was the last hope for that social-democracy isolated, and having once again conned the workers, via a Popular Front, to support his candidates, to keep out Le Pen, then stabs the workers in the back, and leans upon Le Pen, and the right-wing Republicans. In Germany, a similar trajectory for the SPD, exacerbated by the subservience of the EU to US imperialism/NATO, which in its boycotts and so on of Russian energy etc., has seriously damaged the German economy. Now, Scholz too is on his way out, with the forces of the Right gaining in consequence. Starmer, in Britain, did not even manage to obtain the level of support that Corbyn obtained in 2019, let alone, in 2017, and yet, due to the corrupt electoral system, sits on a huge parliamentary majority. But, again, whilst backing US/NATO imperialism to the hilt, his government, began by inflicting further attacks on the working-class, sending its already abysmal level of support to even lower levels, even below the despised Tories.

Only the working-class itself can provide a real, progressive alternative, and that alternative, now, must be built in the day to day struggles in the workplace, where the long wave uptrend continues to favour workers, as labour shortages grow, but the mistake made in the 1950's and 60's, of believing that an adequate solution can come solely from such economistic struggles must be avoided. Political struggles are required, based upon a real class struggle, a political struggle to secure for workers their rightful control over their collective property, and to do that requires the building of a mass communist party.

Back To Prediction 2

Forward To Prediction 4

Michael Roberts Fundamental Errors, VI – Inflation and Roberts' Confusion of Money With Money Tokens, and New Value With Total Value - Part 1 of 7

In a further article, in the Weekly Worker, Michael Roberts deals with money and inflation. He confuses money with money tokens/currency/standard of prices, and new value/GDP with the total value of commodities. He says,

“as in Marxist theory aggregate values equal prices of production and money is a representation of that value, so ceteris paribus, if value grows, money supply will rise to match that value growth and so there will be no inflation in prices.”

Its necessary to take this apart, and to be more specific on terms. In A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy, Marx does, indeed, set out a similar argument. In other words, money is the universal equivalent form of value. Value is labour, and is measured by labour-time, and so the total value of commodities to be circulated is equal to the total amount of labour-time required for their production. It is equal to the total social labour-time, and, as described in his Letter To Kugelmann, explaining The Law of Value, each commodity is, then, equal to a proportionate amount of this total social labour-time, determined by the labour-time required for its own production.

Money arises, naturally, out of the process of commodity exchange, as some given commodity is separated out, and used as a general measure of the value of other commodities. As a commodity itself, its own value is determined, as with all other commodities, by the labour-time required for its production, a value that, thereby, inevitably changes, as a result of changes in productivity. The total value of commodities, is tautologically equal to the total value of money – its equivalent form. If the total value of commodities rises, the total value of money, automatically rises, because it is their equivalent form.

However, as Marx sets out, when talking about money in its physical form as a money commodity, this does not at all mean that the physical amount of this given commodity must increase. For example, a country might choose, gold as its money commodity, and, so measures the value of commodities against it. But, if the value of any commodity is assessed, it does not require that this assessment be done physically, against an equivalent amount of gold. The assessment of equivalence occurs only in the mind, it is an equivalence with “imaginary” gold, as Marx puts it. Similarly, if the total value of commodities in an economy is equal to 1 million grams of gold, this does not at all require that there be 1 million grams of gold, physically present in that economy. The assessment of value is again, only in relation to “imaginary” gold. Indeed, its for this very reason, as Marx sets out, that actual physical gold (or any other money commodity) can be replaced, when it comes to currency, the means of circulation of commodities, by mere tokens.

Back To V - The Tendency For The Rate of Profit To Fall Is Not The Cause of Crises

Forward To Part 2

Northern Soul Classics - G'Wan - Mark III Trio

 

Friday Night Disco - Way Back Home - The Jazz Crusaders

 

Predictions For 2025, Prediction 2 – Europe Draws Away From US Imperialism

Prediction 2 – Europe Draws Away From US Imperialism

EU imperialism has been, and remains, fatally subordinated to US imperialism, via NATO. NATO is the means by which US imperialism channels and resources its global strategic ambition, under the pretext of a defence of Europe – originally against the USSR, and now against Russia. In reality, the EU and Britain, has always paid for its own defence, with money much of which went, directly, into the coffers of US multinational military corporations, and via which US imperialism also exerted control over the EU. 62% of EU military spending on equipment goes to US corporations. NATO provides US weapons manufacturers with the scale required to produce efficiently. NATO spends much of its time not in any defence of Europe, which the EU, largely made unnecessary for most of the post-war period, but in promoting the global strategic interests of US imperialism across the globe, in the Middle East, the Pacific etc.

The interests of EU imperialism are not the same as those of US imperialism, and yet, at almost every stage, the interests of EU imperialism have been subordinated to those of US imperialism, and often to the distinct disadvantage of EU imperialism, as with the Iraq War, Libya, and, now, in relation to Ukraine, and with the growing trade war with China. Britain, as the representative of US imperialism within the EU, facilitated that subordination, and, although it is now outside the EU, it still seeks to fulfil that role. Hence Starmer's cakeist comment about not choosing between the US and the EU. In reality, that is not possible, and the contradiction is already tearing Britain apart.

But, as tensions rise, and as Trump asserts a more clear cut, America First set of petty-bourgeois nationalist interests, so the forces pushing the EU away from US imperialism, and on to a separate imperialist path of its own will sharpen, and even more will Britain be either rent asunder by the contradiction, or will be forced to choose between a rapprochement and subordination to the EU, or else an even more craven and vassal status vis a vis the US. The latter is ultimately unviable.

A look at the map of the world shows the problem for Western Europe, but also, the potential. History shows that trade develops first, and most, between near neighbours. Its that which leads to the creation of the bourgeois nation state, and, almost immediately after, to the increasing trade between those states, leading, in the age of imperialism, to the development of the multinational state, as the minimum efficient structure for the operation of imperialist capital, i.e. large-scale, socialised, monopoly capital. Large nation states, such as the United States, China, Russia, India, and increasingly Brazil and so on, avoid the need to establish new multinational states, such as the EU. Partly, that is because they are, in practice, already multinational states, masquerading as nation states. They all comprise a number of nations, and their regions and regional economies are often the size of small nation states, in their own right. The economy of California, for example, would rank as the world's fifth largest national economy. Yet, even these large national economies have been led to form regional blocs with their neighbours for the purpose of trade and cooperation. Its why Brexit was, and remains, such a supremely absurd idea, and act of self-harm.

So, back to the map of the world, it can be seen that the US, in addition to its own vast internal market and economy, also has on its border the potentially huge market of Canada, and also of Mexico, both of whom it is partnered with in the Mexico-Canada-America bloc. In addition, these economies, and primarily the US, has a large part of Central and South America as trading partners. The fact that Britain and Europe are more than 3,000 miles away – 6,000 miles away from the West Coast – and only via the Atlantic Ocean, means that its interests are more naturally, focused on its own backyard, rather than Europe. Hence the Monroe Doctrine, for example. When Britain was still the dominant economy, and an infant US was still in a colonial relation with it, the US, still looked East to Europe, and that continued so long as Britain and Europe remained the most developed economies. But, that has long since ceased to be the case.

The EU is the world's largest economy, and world's largest single market, but it satisfies most of its own needs internally, and its single market and customs union, requires US imperialism, as with any other economy to conform to its its rules and regulations if they want to sell into it, and trade with it. Not surprisingly, therefore, Canada and Mexico account for most of US trade, amounting to around a quarter of its total trade, and China is the third largest trading partner, mostly as a result of China, producing a large quantity of US manufactured imports. It also shows that the US, and its vast Californian economy, looks across the Pacific Ocean to China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, more than it looks across the Atlantic to Britain and Europe.

And, on the other side of the Pacific, not only does China and Japan look back across the Pacific to the US, Mexico, Canada, and Brazil, etc., but they have their own near abroad to trade with and into, and, increasingly, for China, that includes into the vast territory of Russia, Central Asia and India. These are huge, natural, geographical economic blocs. Initially, as with the development of the nation state, it is specific, historically determined factors that account for economic growth, development and capital accumulation, but, in the end, in the age of imperialism, as capital itself becomes a commodity that can be bought on world markets, it is the size of the country, and access to resources that become determinant. Even population size is not determinant, because, as the development of the US, Canada, and Australia showed, population can be grown by immigration and colonisation. That is why China, and its expansion into Eurasia looks unstoppable, whatever stumbles it may suffer along the road.

If these material conditions and economic realities are considered, and for a Marxist, they must be considered as primary, rather than the superficialities of morals, and political regimes, then the economic alliances that flow from that become fairly obvious to identify, and from those economic alliances, also flow the politico-strategic formations. So, for example, the EU is the largest single market, and economy in the world, but it is growing more slowly than China, and many other developing economies, many of which are seeking to ally themselves with the BRICS. The EU is also growing more slowly than the US, and one reason for that is that the EU has subordinated itself to US imperialism in relation to the latter's geo-strategic ambitions in the Middle-East, and in Ukraine, and China.

The EU is the world's largest economy, in terms of value, but it is not the largest in terms of geographical size, or population. It comprises only 450 million people, compared to 1.4 billion in China, and slightly more in India. The US has a population of around 330 million, and combined with that of Mexico, 129 million, and Canada, 37 million, puts the MCA on a par with the EU, but it also has all of Central and South America as its near abroad, of around 450 million people.

Again this shows what an idiotic idea Brexit is, because Britain's 60 million population has a trading partner of 450 million people, and long established trading relations just 25 miles away across the channel, and yet was sold the ludicrous idea of, instead turning its gaze to the US 3,000 miles away across the Atlantic Ocean, or even further away to the other side of the globe! In terms of analysis, therefore, we should ignore the idiocy of Brexit, and consider Britain, economically a part of the EU, and increasingly that will tear it away from its long-time political-military allegiance to the US. What then of the EU itself.

As an entire trading bloc, not surprisingly, the majority of EU trade is with what amount to other similar trading blocs, i.e. the US, and China, and ASEAN. Again, showing the idiocy of Brexit, Britain remains the EU's second largest trading partner, showing the continued trading relation, and importance of geographical proximity. The same is true in relation to the EU's trade with Switzerland (4th largest), and Norway (8th largest). But, until recently, when US imperialism/NATO pressed the EU into boycotting Russian energy, and imposing sanctions on the rest of its trade, Russia provided the EU, and particularly the countries of its Eastern flank, with large quantities of oil and gas, and at prices much lower than those it has now imposed on itself as a result of those boycotts and sanctions.

The growing Eurasian economic bloc of China~Russia means that the obvious further trading relationship is of the EU with that bloc, rather than with the US, and its Continental bloc. As I have pointed out before, a look even at Ukraine, shows that the majority of its trade, until recently, continued to be with Russia, and even in 2017 Russia accounted for 9% of Ukrainian exports, and 14.5% of its imports. As Russia declined as tensions between the two grew, it was replaced by China, which became the largest single nation trading partner of Ukraine.

Similarly, Georgia, where similar pro-EU, demonstrations to those that took place in Kiev, in 2014, are taking place, continues to have as its main trading partners China, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, as well as its growing trade with the EU. For Western Europe, the EU was the rational development of capitalism, in its imperialist phase, but the further East in Europe, or Central Asia you go, the less is that true.

Imperialism, is the stage of capitalism in which it is dominated by socialised, industrial capital, and is tied to the state, which plans and regulates the economy on its behalf. Indeed, as Marx and Engels set out, in Anti-Duhring, the state, in so far as it takes over production itself, via nationalised industries and so on, becomes the state capitalist. But, in the age of imperialism, the minimum scale of capital becomes so large that the nation state, becomes a fetter on its further development. The nation state, and the associated ideas of national independence etc., become absolutely reactionary. The size of the single market, required as a minimum, expands and the state, correspondingly, must become a multinational state.

If we ignore the fascination of liberals and moralists with the ephemeral, and superficialities of questions of individual and political liberty, and the power of free markets, the rational development of capital in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses and Central Asia, is not towards the EU, but to the development of their own single market, and enhancement of the development of capital within it. Given the proximity, and land borders between those countries, and the EU, as against the separation of the EU from the Americas by several thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean, it is obvious that the rational development, and so progressive development, is for the EU to establish closer ties, and trading relations with such a Eurasian bloc, as against with the US.

In short, the rational development of the EU is towards, Eurasia, which forms, for it, a near abroad, rather than the US, which sits isolated from it, across 3,000 miles of ocean. The interests of the EU are the development of economic relations with the developing Eurasian bloc, irrespective of the superficialities of the nature of political regime, loosely framed by liberals and moralists as “democratic” or “totalitarian”. Inevitably, the development of those economic and trading relations, lead to a closer alignment of geo-strategic interests too. That does not mean that the EU has to align itself with the China~Russia bloc, but it does mean an increasing separation from the US/NATO imperialist bloc, in pursuit of the separate interests of EU imperialism.

Back To Prediction 1

Forward To Prediction 3

Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, V. Natural Philosophy, Time and Space - Part 5 of 6

Duhring conceives of a state of the world as existing in a self-identical state that is unchanging. But, the problem with this, as with a concept of a Big Bang, before which nothing exists, including time, just as with the concept of a black hole, in which time ceases to exist, is how, then, this turns into a situation where something does exist, and where change occurs. For the Big Bang to occur requires that everything existed in a singularity, but it also requires quantum fluctuations, i.e. change at a quantum level. A black hole is conceived as a place where time stands still, and yet, for space-time to cease to exist, i.e. the heat death of the universe, black holes must also cease to exist, and the process by which that occurs is explained by Hawking Radiation.

“The absolutely unchanging, especially when it has been in this state from eternity, cannot possibly get out of such a state by itself and pass over into a state of motion and change. An initial impulse must have therefore come from outside, from outside the universe, an impulse which set it in motion. But as everyone knows, the “initial impulse” is only another expression for God. God and the beyond, which Herr Dühring pretended to have so beautifully unrigged in his world schematism, are both introduced again by him here, sharpened and deepened, into natural philosophy itself.” (p 65-6)

Duhring says,

“Where magnitude is attributed to a constant element of being, it will remain unchanged in its determinateness. This holds good ... of matter and mechanical energy”. (p 66)

This, as Engels notes, is puffed up tautology. Descartes had already stated it 300 years earlier. Thermodynamics, also, set out the principles of conservation of energy. But, again, Einstein in theory, and Rutherford in practice, showed that there was, also, no absolute distinction between energy and matter. In splitting the atom, Rutherford proved the theory set out in Einstein's equation E = MC2. Engels asks where was the mechanical energy at the time of Duhring's unchanging state of the universe, and what did it do? The answer, according to Duhring is,

“The original state of the universe, or more plainly, of an unchanging existence of matter which comprised no accumulation of changes in time, is a question which can be spurned only by a mind that sees the acme of wisdom in the self-mutilation of its own generative potency.” (p 66)

In other words, he had no answer, and, like many of today's confessional sects, could only respond to being questioned with invective and insult, an appeal to faith.

“But we, who have already seen some examples of Herr Dühring's potency, can permit ourselves to leave this elegant abuse unanswered for the moment, and ask once again: But Herr Dühring, if you please, what about that mechanical energy?” (p 66-7)

Duhring says,

“the absolute identity of that initial boundary state does not in itself provide any principle of transition. But we must remember that at bottom the same holds for every new link, however small, in the chain of existence with which we are familiar.” (p 67)

That still does not answer the question. The whole point is about the process of transition from one state to another, and the real answer to the question resides in the transformation of quantity into quality, in the accumulation of numerous, small quantitative changes, resulting in a large qualitative change, as also detailed in chaos theory, and “the butterfly effect”.

Duhring continues,

“But if we had conceived the so to speak” (!) “motionless equilibrium on the model of the concepts which are accepted without any particular objection” (!) “in our present-day mechanics, there would be no way of explaining how matter could have arrived at the process of change.” But, apart from the mechanics of masses there is, also, we are told, a transformation of mass movement into the movement of extremely small particles, but as to how this takes place — “ we have no general principle for this at our disposal up to the present and consequently we should not be surprised if these processes end somewhat in the dark”” (p 67)

Back To Part 4

Forward To Part 6

Predictions For 2025, Prediction 1 – The Theatre of War Moves To Syria

Prediction 1 – The Theatre of War Moves To Syria

Last year, I noted that the Zionist state, having flattened Gaza and Lebanon, would move its attention to Syria, which it, also, has long occupied, in The Golan Heights, and into which it regularly undertakes military raids, with impunity, under the umbrella of US/NATO imperialism. The talk, amongst some on the Left, about the Zionist state having lost in Gaza, and facing defeat against Hezbollah, were shown to be, as I had predicted, just petty-bourgeois, moralistic, self-defeating bullshit.

The Zionist state never had as its goals defeating Hamas or retrieving hostages, but of exterminating the Palestinians as a people, which it has largely achieved in Gaza, and is in the process of doing in the West Bank. It had no goal of defeating Hezbollah, as such, but, again, of simply smashing to the ground, the Lebanese state, (which itself shows the formalistic idiocy of the bourgeois-nationalist panacea of a two-state solution), so as to free its hands for its wider goal, backed by US/NATO imperialism, of creating a Zionist state “from the river to the sea”, as the basis of a new pro-US alliance in the region, as set out in the Abraham Accords.

The stepping up of Islamist attacks in Syria, resulting in their taking over of Aleppo, is no coincidence, arising within days of Lebanon being smashed, and signing what amounts to a surrender to the Zionist state. In Gaza, the Zionist state did deals with ISIS to exercise control after the Hamas run, state structures had been destroyed.

US imperialism, since 2011, has been financing and arming jihadists in Syria, just as it did in arming Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980's, and, then used Bin Laden as go between with the KLA, in Kosovo, in the 90's. Now, with Hezbollah decapitated, and Russia having its attention focused on Ukraine, it has taken the opportunity to open or, more correctly, to intensify, a new front line against Russia~China, and their allies. This is not some speculative assertion, but is admitted by the military planners of western imperialism, who say openly that NATO is at war with Russia, as described in this Sky News interview with Sir Richard Dearlove.

In that interview, if anyone doubted that western imperialism sees itself above the law, and able to break the law with impunity, they should be quickly disabused of it, along with any remaining delusions in the sham of bourgeois democracy, and the so called international rules based system. He opposes even arresting the war criminals in the Zionist state, to stand trial for the charges brought against them by the ICC. Dearlove, of course, supported Brexit, no doubt as he seeks to tie British imperialism inseparably to US imperialism. The fact that he has let his war mania get the better of him, in his prognostications about Putin, and his defeat, should not detract us from the fact that his overall world view is that of US/NATO imperialism.

There are, of course, vying interests amongst the ruling class, and its permanent representatives within the state apparatus, in Britain, as in the US, and both Brexit and Trump, are minority positions, associated with the petty-bourgeoisie, rather than the ruling class, but which have been imposed upon it. With a Trump Presidency imminent, it was no surprise that Biden, speeded up the supply of weapons to Zelensky, as much to pressure the incoming Trump team as to have any reasonable chance of making any difference on the battlefield. Trump will not bring a ceasefire in 24 hours in Ukraine, but he will bring forward the inevitable, a ceasefire based upon a freezing of the front lines, probably with Russia taking the rest of Eastern Ukraine.

But, that means that US imperialism can focus on what it and Trump agree on, which is the need for the Zionist state to roll over the remaining territory of “Greater Israel”, meaning, in the first instance a war in Syria. The fact that the Syrian government, and its Russian backers have had to engage in renewed carpet bombing of Aleppo, itself attacked by Türkiye, which also, finances and arms the Islamists in Syria, whilst the US retains its own forces in Syria, and in Iraq, means that an easy pretext for an intensified campaign by the Zionist state, with NATO at its back, can be found, in the coming weeks and months, as its forces are freed from Gaza and Lebanon.

With Iran cowed as a result of the alacrity with which the Zionist state was able to bomb it, backed and actively shielded by NATO military resources in the region, which have been stepped up hugely over the last months, and with Hezbollah smashed, the Zionist state will feel free to work alongside its new found friends in ISIS, to run terrorist attacks against the Assad regime, and its Russian backers. Something like the campaign run by NATO, and its Islamist allies in Libya is likely, with the Zionist state taking on the role of providing the air campaign. It runs increasing risk of a direct confrontation with Russian military forces, so, as in Ukraine, the use of the Zionist state as a proxy comes in useful for NATO.

This probably means a drawing of new, harder front lines between US/NATO imperialism, and Russian~Chinese imperialism. Russia and China are likely to pump greater resources, both economic and military into Iran, and by extension Iraq. Russia, in particular, will continue to support Assad, but mainly via an air campaign against the Islamists. New air defence, and naval defence systems are likely to be provided to Iran, as the new redoubt. What so far cannot be determined is exactly what role the Arab Street will play in these developments over the next year, and the fact that Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf States, continue to try to keep a foot in both camps, and their application for membership of BRICS+, indicates they do not know the answer to that question either.

(Addenda – I wrote this towards the end of November, ready to be posted at the end of the year. Even before it was posted, therefore, its content has been confirmed, much sooner than I expected. The rotten Assad regime blew away, like a straw house, the Islamists have swarmed in, and much as happened with the Balkan Wars, or as happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, that has opened up, even greater conflict, chaos and reaction. Within 24 hours, the Zionist regime, annexed additional Syrian territory beyond the Golan Heights, and is likely to extend that further. It has also declared its intention to establish further settler communities on the Golan Heights.  Some Zionists, with their tanks just 20 miles outside Damascus, have talked in biblical term, about occupying everything up to and including Damascus itself.  Syria is likely to fall apart into warring regions, with the Zionist state already throwing its weight behind the Kurds, who are likely to be attacked by Türkiye and its proxies. The Zionist state has bombed chemical weapons storage facilities in Damascus, and is likely to use the same kind of air power to further devastate Syria that it has used in Gaza and Lebanon.  It has already bombed and destroyed the Syrian Navy).

Forward To Prediction 2

Michael Roberts' Fundamental Errors, V - The Tendency For The Rate of Profit To Fall Is Not The Cause of Crises - Part 8 of 8

The logic of Roberts position, is indeed, catastrophist and implies that we should see a permanent state of crisis. Anyone who has read his blog – with the telling URL “thenextrecession” - will indeed, be familiar with his perennial claims that this “next recession” is at hand, always, when it fails to materialise, as with the predictions of the Endtimers, with their sandwich boards around Hyde Park Corner, to be simply rolled forward to the next year. It was seen in his prediction a few years ago, about the inevitability of a “post-Covid Slump”, resulting from the fall in the rate of profit, just as the ending of lockdowns led to a massive boom.

The reality is that, Marx, nowhere attributes the crisis of overproduction of capital to the tendential law. In Theories of Surplus Value, he sets out that the overproduction of commodities is most clearly associated with periods not of falling rates of profit, but of rising rates and masses of profit, which stimulates investment to meet the needs of a rapidly expanding market, but, which, then, expands that production even faster than the market demand. Again, I've set out, Marx's explanation shows why this has a number of different aspects, such as disproportions arising in the expansion of supply in one sphere, relative to that in another. Marx also, notes, that, similarly, higher profits mean at least a relatively smaller proportion of the total social product consumed by workers, leaving a larger proportion of surplus product. The Ricardian author of the “Inquiry” says,

“... and if it be said that this, by diminishing consumption, increases glut, I can only answer, that glut […] is synonymous with high profits…” (op. cit., p. 59).”

Marx responds,

“This is indeed the secret basis of glut.”

(Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 20)

That is the condition in periods of stagnation such as the 1870's/80's, and 1920's/30's, and 1980's/90's, but it also continues into the subsequent periods of prosperity and boom, as real wages expand, whilst relative wages fall, as in the period of the 1950's, for example. This cannot be described as a crisis of overproduction of capital during such periods, as the rate and mass of profit rises, often significantly. This rapidly increased mass of profit, such as in the 1930's, and 1980's, cannot be applied to accumulate capital, for various reasons that I have described in my book, and elsewhere. For example, these periods are associated with new technological revolutions whose aim is to resolve the problems of a previous, actual overproduction of capital, and squeeze on profits arising from labour shortages, and rising wages. So, not only are workers laid off, as a result of these machines replacing them, in a period of intensive accumulation, but even as the economy expands, any given increase in output can be accomplished with relatively fewer workers.

The amount of labour employed, thereby falls relative to output, i.e. the conditions described by Marx as leading to the long run tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which comes about not as the cause of the crisis, but as part of the means of its resolution! What does this long-run tendency mean, then, given that such a period is characterised not by a fall in the rate of profit, but a significant rise? It means only, if anything at all, that taking one long wave cycle as against another, the average rate of profit, over the cycle, will tend to fall. It most certainly does not mean that the rate of profit falls, and, thereby, causes the crisis. The crisis is caused by a shortage of labour, rising wages and, thereby squeezed profits – a fall in the rate of surplus value. It is resolved by a technological revolution that replaces labour, raises productivity, lowers wages, and the value of constant capital, increasing the rate of surplus value, and rate of profit.

As the workforce grows more slowly, during such a period, therefore, the demand for wage goods grows more slowly, with a consequent effect on aggregate demand. There is no point in accumulating additional capital, if there is no demand for any great increase in the supply of consumer goods. This was the condition recognised by Sismondi, as Marx notes, in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 9, and was subsequently plagiarised by Malthus, and forms the basis of the under-consumptionist theory of Keynes a century later. The excess supply of realised profits, brings about a fall in the rate of interest, as described by Marx in Capital III, Chapter 30. This fall in the rate of interest creates a rise in asset prices that also encourages financial speculation, and bubbles, as seen in the 1980's.

That is, the, the basis of subsequent financial, as against economic crises, such as the global financial crisis of 2008. But, that, as they, say, is another story.

Back To Part 7

Forward To VI - Inflation, and Roberts' Confusion of Money With Money Tokens and New Value With Total Value of Commodities

Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, V. Natural Philosophy, Time and Space - Part 4 of 6

Infinity is a concept full of contradictions, such as that it is, itself, composed of purely finite terms. But, these finite terms are, themselves, mathematical constructs, which, in reality, are only approximations, required for purposes of categorisation and delineation, in order to calculate. In the real world, there is no such clear delineation, but rather fuzziness at the boundaries, where quantity turns into quality, and where uncertainty and probability reign supreme.  One test of whether we live in a computer simulation, it has been suggested, is that, any such simulation, based upon mathematics, would require, at the most minute scale, to be comprised of discrete segments, rather than being continuous.  At the boundary of these discrete segments, there would be detectable breaks, and jumps.

“The limited nature of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimited nature, and every attempt to eliminate these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. Hegel already understood this quite correctly, and for that reason treated the gentlemen who chop logic over this contradiction with well-merited contempt.” (p 63-4)

In Duhring's argument, time has a beginning, the equivalent to 1 in a numerical sequence, and as noted, our current space-time, likewise, has a beginning, the Big Bang. However,

“The subject at issue is not the concept of time, but real time, which Herr Dühring will by no means rid himself of so cheaply. In the second place, however much the concept of time may be converted into the more general idea of being, this takes us not one step further. For the basic forms of all being are space and time, and being out of time is just as gross an absurdity as being out of space.” (p 64)

The only modification that the concepts of space-time, which is itself incorporated in Engels' statement, here, long before it was theorised by Einstein, necessitates, is this distinction between our current space-time, i.e. post Big Bang, as against what preceded it, and what follows it. Engels is wrong when he says of our present space-time,

“time, does not in itself consist of real parts” (p 64)

After Einstein, we know that time, as space-time, can be stretched like a fabric, along with space. But, this does not undermine the substance and significance of Engels argument.

“According to Herr Dühring time exists only through change; and change does not exist in and through time. Just because time is different from change, is independent it is possible to measure it by change, for measuring always requires something different what is to be measured. And time in which no recognisable changes occur is very far removed from not being time at all; rather it is pure time, untouched by any foreign admixtures, that is, real time, time as such. In fact, if we want to grasp the idea of time in all its purity, divorced from all foreign and improper admixtures, we are compelled to put aside, as not being relevant here, all the various events which occur simultaneously or successively in time, and in this way to imagine a time in which nothing happens. In this way, we have not let the concept of time be submerged in the general idea of being, but have thereby for the first time arrived at the pure concept of time.” (p 65)

In other words, it is time as an abstraction from any specific manifestation, such as our current space-time, just as Marx, in arriving at the concept of labour, as the essence of value, sets out that it is labour in the abstract, not any specific manifestation of labour, such as wage-labour, slave-labour, or corvee-labour, and so on.

Back To Part 3

Forward To Part 5

Far Right Supporter of AfD, Trump, Farage et al Slaughters Five in Magdeburg

When a car ploughed into a crowd at a German Xmas Market, in Magdeburg, killing five people, including a young child, and injuring more than 200, the media immediately assumed the perpetrator was an Islamic terrorist, though they never openly claimed that to be the case.  The various right-wing populists, were even more overt in their presumptions on social media, and that was amplified when the new came out that the driver was a Saudi doctor.  But, they were all wrong, as Owen Jones has set out in this video.

Yet, even more than a day after the slaughter undertaken by this far-right fanatic, the mainstream media have failed to elaborate these details, despite extensive coverage.  On the day of the attack, Sky News, maintained almost blanket coverage, even though nothing was happening, but, now, when its clear that the attacker was a far right, anti-Muslim extremist, who supports the likes of the AfD, Trump, Musk, Farage and co., they have suddenly reduced their coverage.

Yet, the coverage they and the BBC have provided, has not only failed to set out the political nature of the attacker, as a supporter of the far-right, but has positively hidden and obfuscated those facts, which flatly contradict the line it was pursuing initially.  Now they talk about the aims and beliefs of this right-wing terrorist being "unclear", whilst they attach this to repeated statements about him being a Saudi, and being "unhappy with the treatment of Saudi migrants to Germany", again for the casual listener, suggesting some kind of Islamist pro-migrant basis for his actions, whereas the opposite is the case, as his repeated social media statements attest.  To the extent they have noted that he is an ex-Muslim, they have also worded his views in terms of him being "Islamophobic", which in the welter of other comments and obfuscation, can be misheard, or misunderstood by the general viewer.

If this had actually been an attack by some Islamist terrorist, as they first assumed, then, we would have been treated to an endless stream of his previous social media comments in the most graphic detail.  But, this is now symptomatic of the outright distortions and even lying of the mainstream media, in the West, when it comes to reporting on what is happening in the Middle-East, to an even greater extent than in relation to his biased reporting when it comes to the war in Ukraine and elsewhere, as western imperialism gears up for WWIII.

The extent of that in relation to the biased reporting of the BBC in relation to the Middle East, has again, been set out by Owen Jones.  The existence of a "free press", in western societies, is still a benefit for workers and socialists compared to the lack of such rights in various authoritarian states in Eastern Europe, and in The Middle East.  It means, for now, that we can write about these activities without the threat of a midnight knock from the secret police.  But, a "free press" does not at all mean a truthful press, nor an accountable press, let alone any kind of equality.  The mass media is owned by billionaires as a plaything, but they also own and control the platforms upon which social media exists.  They can control the algorithms to direct readers to or away from certain ideas, or remove and ban content altogether.

In the analogue age socialists used to insist on using the freedom of the press to create our own workers press; we needed to have updated that with the demand for a workers broadcast media in the age of the TV, but, now, in the digital age, we have the opportunity to step over that and demand that we create our own workers digital platforms, our own search engines and so on, with algorithms designed to direct readers to socialist ideas that expose the reality of the exploitation of workers across the globe, of our common interests as a global working-class, and particularly, now, our interest in resisting the steady march to war that imperialism is, once more, engaged upon.

Review of Predictions For 2024 - Prediction 5 – Labour Wins The Election and Attacks Workers

Prediction 5 – Labour Wins The Election and Attacks Workers

The prediction that the Tories would not go until the end of 2024, or into 2025, before calling the election was confirmed. The reasons set out as to why they would not do that were also confirmed, and have been further confirmed, since the election. As the UK debt crisis grows, inflation is ticking up, and growth, is flat to negative, all of which are inseparable from the effects of Brexit, which become starker by the day, and for which the Tories bear responsibility, but one that Blue Labour has now lifted from their shoulders, to bear itself.

In the prediction, I noted,

“The purpose of announcing a March Budget is to front-run a series of proposed tax give-aways, but without actually having to introduce them. They hold out the promise to voters, if they vote Tory, whilst putting Labour on the spot to say whether they would reverse them etc. Labour is already in a bind of its own making when it comes to tax and spending, as its sums don't add up, and the vague “aspirations” and “values” do not fill the gap in hard cash.”

That seemed pretty obvious to everyone, other than Blue Labour, and its Treasury team led by Reeves, who seemed blind to the existence of the £20 billion gap in the Tories budget that I, the IFS and many others wrote about on many occasions. Only after the election, did Blue Labour “discover” this “black hole”. But, as the prediction noted, having boxed themselves in, even to be able to fund their own meagre spending plans, having to, then, cover this additional £20 billion would, inevitably mean attacking workers, which they have done.

Even before they won the election, the nature of Blue Labour, as a reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist party, antagonistic to the interests of both workers and large-scale capital was clear. They represented a continuation of the worst aspects of the Tories, just in a different coloured set of clothes, most obviously symbolised by their continued adherence to the idea of Brexit. 

The Tories have, of course, attacked Blue Labour for having “given” inflation-busting pay rises to “the unions”, nearly every word of which is untrue. First of all, the pay rises the government agreed to were those recommended by independent pay review bodies, which the Tories were failing to implement in order to cover their deficits at workers' expense. The actual cost of that, in the longer-term, was greater than paying up, because of the losses due to strikes and so on. Secondly, with a labour shortage, and workers simply leaving those jobs for higher paid jobs, elsewhere, Blue Labour was left with little alternative, as the pay rises simply amounted to rubber-stamping what was happening in reality. Thirdly, the idea that the pay rises were “inflation-busting” was also untrue, because they are multi-year agreements, which do not even, as an average, cover the inflation over the period involved, let alone make up for the fall in real wages of those workers over many previous years. Fourthly, the pay rises were not given to “unions”, but to workers doing those jobs.

So, the idea that this was Blue Labour, in some way, operating on behalf of workers, rather than attacking them, is false, and simply opportunism from the Tories, in line with the traps they had set for them. That Blue Labour allowed those traps to be set, by refusing to acknowledge, prior to the election, the existence of huge deficits, is just its own opportunism, in trying to avoid the question of the need to raise taxes, for fear of losing votes. Of course, the other option to that, was to address the question of Brexit, and the £40 billion cost to the Exchequer from it, but that would have gone to the heart of the petty-bourgeois nationalist nature of Blue Labour itself.

So, instead, we have had the removal of pensioners Winter Fuel Payments, which hits the poorest pensioners hardest, and we have the disgraceful betrayal of WASPI women that Blue Labour lyingly stood side by side with before the election, much as the Liberals did with Student Fees, prior to the 2010 election. We have also had the continuation of the two-child benefit cap. In addition, we have a continued freeze on income tax thresholds, which have fallen in real terms, significantly, as a result of the high levels of inflation over recent years. That means that income tax on workers wages rises as a result of fiscal drag. Yet, its clear that, even now, the sums do not add up, and Blue Labour will have to come back for further tax rises, and/or cuts in spending, which will result in further attacks on workers.

Back To Review of Prediction 4