Libyan Lessons For Liberals

The death toll in Libya from the recent flooding is awful. A main cause was the collapse of dams, itself a warning to governments, elsewhere, including the UK and US, that have failed to adequately maintain infrastructure, as they preferred to spend money boosting paper asset prices, or on fighting wars in other parts of the world, to expand the influence of their own imperialist camp. Libya, of course, in 2011, was one example of such a war by “liberal interventionists”, and its consequences have been catastrophic for Libya, just as similar adventures, under the flag of “liberation from above”, as Trotsky, disparagingly, called it, in relation to the Balkans, have been catastrophic, in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and now repeated in Ukraine. Its notable that the imperialists who spent billions on bombs to rain down on Libya, in 2011, have been absent in providing funds following this disaster.

In 1912, when Balkan states engaged in liberation struggles against the Ottoman Empire, all of the same arguments used by liberals and social-imperialists, today, to justify their support for the actions of their own chosen camp of global imperialists, intervening, were rolled out. Russian liberals such as Miliukov, and Kirillovich, justified their support for Russian intervention in the Balkans, on the basis of overthrowing Ottoman rule, and oppression. Trotsky, on the ground, as a war reporter, rejected their arguments, and also their censorship of the reporting of the atrocities carried out by those interventionist forces.

The Russian liberal Ivan Kirillovich argued in the same way that social-imperialists, like those of the USC/AWL do today. He said, as they do,

“... we can't shut our eyes to the fact that what is involved here is the liberation of Slav people from Turkish rule. Not to sympathise with such a war, not to support it, would simply mean to support, indirectly if not directly, Turkish rule over Slavs.”

(The Balkan Wars, p 325)

Rejecting this idea that socialists and the working-class have the same shared goal as “liberal” or “democratic” imperialism, in overthrowing such oppression, Trotsky wrote, in response to Kirillovich,

“The emancipation of the Macedonian peasantry from feudal landlord bondage was undoubtedly something necessary and historically progressive. But this task was undertaken by forces that had in view not the interests of the Macedonian peasantry but their own covetous interests as dynastic conquerors and bourgeois predators...No, there is consequently no need to idealise the Turkish regime or the regime of Russia's village community in order to express at the same time one's uncompromising distrust of the uninvited 'liberators' and to refuse any solidarity with them.”

(ibid)

Yet, today, we hear the social-imperialists, whilst claiming to be “Trotskyists”, reject Trotsky's position, in favour of that of the liberal Kirillovic, as they tell us that imperialism, and the capitalist state, “defends workers' interests”! Trotsky noted, against such apologism, voiced by the liberal Miliukov,

“But it is not at all a matter of indifference by what methods this emancipation is being accomplished. The method of “liberation” that is being followed today means the enslavement of Macedonia to the personal regime in Bulgaria and to Bulgarian militarism; it means, moreover, the strengthening of reaction in Bulgaria itself. That positive, progressive result which history will, in the last analysis, extract from the ghastly events in the Balkans, will suffer no harm from the exposures made by Balkan and European democracy; on the contrary, only a struggle against the usurpation of history's tasks by the present masters of the situation will educate the Balkan peoples to play the role of superseding not only Turkish despotism but also those who, for their own reactionary purposes, are, by their own barbarous methods, now destroying that despotism...

Our agitation, on the contrary, against the way that history's problems are at present being solved, goes hand in hand with the work of the Balkan Social Democrats. And when we denounce the bloody deeds of the Balkan 'liberation' from above we carry forward the struggle not only against liberal deception of the Russian masses but also against enslavement of the Balkan masses.”

(ibid, p 293-4)

Today, the social-imperialists of the USC/AWL adopt the position of Miliukov, as they throw their support behind “democratic imperialism”, and its “liberation from above”, by raining down hundreds of tons of explosives on places like Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. In each case, much as in the past, as noted and criticised by Lenin and Trotsky, the so called “national liberation forces” it allies with, as the local allies of that imperialism, are themselves thoroughly reactionary, and anti-working-class. But, they, then, have to openly lie about the nature of those reactionary forces, much as the Stalinists did in relation to their alliance with the KMT, in China, prior to Chiang Kai Shek's coup, and slaughter of thousands of Chinese workers and communists. The extent of that, in the case of the AWL, in relation to Libya, was disgusting, as I set out, at the time.

But the truth did not take long to assert itself, as the true nature of those national liberation forces, actually amounting to a few thousand, Islamist rebels, massively backed by NATO, plus Special Forces troops from the feudal Gulf states, as agents of NATO, soon began to fight amongst themselves, as Libya, far from carrying out the basic tasks of the bourgeois, national revolution, collapsed into chaos, warlordism, and disintegration, much as Afghanistan had done, after 1989, and Iraq had done, after 2003. It was a repeat of what had happened in the Balkans after 1912, as described by Trotsky, in his criticism of such “liberation from above”.

But, the reality of their socialist-imperialism, conflicts with their attempts to continue to claim a connection to Trotsky, which means, in turn, not only must they lie about the class nature of the reactionary forces with which they align, but they also have to lie about the position of Lenin and Trotsky too, in a most grotesque manner, and on an industrial scale. The whole of Trotsky's position, in relation to the Balkan Wars, as I have set out in Lessons of The Balkans, was to oppose these positions of social imperialism, and liberal interventionism, and, yet, the AWL have quoted Trotsky in support of their position. As they have frequently done, however, the quote they provide is logically and physically chopped to suit their line, in a way that, plainly, makes Trotsky appear to be saying the opposite of what he actually wrote!

To justify their support for social-imperialism's wars of intervention, the AWL, quoted Trotsky, in such a way as to make it look as though he was arguing that Marxists could not sit idly by whilst tyrants committed atrocities against their populations, or those of countries under their domination – though unsurprisingly, as Zionists, they do not advocate such “liberation from above” on behalf of Palestinians suffering under the tyranny of the Israeli state. They used this quote, from his writings on the Balkan Wars,

“An individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive.”

Taken on its own, and in the context the AWL used it, of supporting liberal intervention, this appears to suggest Trotsky, also, arguing that, because we seek to end such atrocities, we should not oppose any forces that bring about such a result. But, the opposite, was the case. As already indicated, in the above quotes, Trotsky opposed vigorously any such intervention, and in order to have dug out this quote, the AWL must have known that, and yet, butchered it, to suit their current position. In fact, this quote from Trotsky, was not calling for intervention, or even being agnostic about such intervention, but was actually criticising the atrocities being committed by the interventionist forces, and their allies, and was criticising the fact that the reports, sent by him and others, describing those atrocities, were censored by the liberal media, in Russia! Trotsky was attacking those positions implemented by liberals like Miliukov, whose modern equivalents are those like the AWL.

Trotsky wrote, in response to Miliukov,

“You have frequently, both in the columns of the press and at the tribune of the Duma, assured the Balkan allies – that is to say, the dynasties and dynastic cliques ruling in the Balkans – of the unaltered sympathies of so-called Russian society for their campaign of 'liberation'.”

(ibid, p 285)

It is the same kinds of “dynastic cliques”, i.e. the Ukrainian oligarchs, that the USC/AWL is aligned with today, under cover of the same arguments about national liberation, as part of its support for imperialism. Trotsky continued, noting Miliukov's recent visit to the Balkans,

“Did you not hear during your travels – it must be supposed that this would be of interest to you – about the monstrous acts of brutality that were committed by the triumphant soldiery of the allies all along their line of march, not only on unarmed Turkish soldiers, wounded or taken prisoner, but also on the peaceful Muslim inhabitants, on old men and women, on defenceless children?” (p 285-6)

And making clear exactly who and what he is criticising, Trotsky continues,

“Would you not agree that a conspiracy of silence by all of our 'leading' papers.... that this mutual agreement to keep quiet makes all of you fellow travellers and moral participants in bestialities that will lie as a stain of dishonour on our whole epoch?

Are not, in these circumstances, your protests against Turkish atrocities – which I am not at all going to deny – like the disgusting conduct of Pharisees: resulting, it must be supposed, not from the general principles of culture and humanity but from naked calculations of imperialist greed?”

Its impossible that, the AWL, whose leading members I know well, and who are intelligent people, having read this, simply misunderstood it. Yet, they quote this fragment, on its own, out of context, in a way that makes it say the opposite of what Trotsky was arguing, to support their line of backing liberal interventionism! A look at the remainder of the quote, makes that clear. The full quote from Trotsky, reads,

“An individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive.

“On the other hand, a party or the class that rises up against every abominable action wherever it has occurred, as vigorously and unhesitatingly as a living organism reacts to protect its eyes when they are threatened with external injury – such a party or class is sound of heart. Protest against the outrages in the Balkans cleanses the social atmosphere in our own country, heightens the level of moral awareness among our own people. The working masses of the population in every country are both a potential instrument of bloody outrages and a potential victim of such deeds. Therefore an uncompromising protest against atrocities serves not only the purpose of moral self-defence on the personal and party level but also the purpose of politically safeguarding the people against adventurism concealed under the flag of ‘liberation’.”

(ibid, p 293)

And, that position of Trotsky remained until his death. When, in the 1930's, the Stalinists adopted the same position that the AWL/USC adopt, today, of allying with “democratic imperialism”, Trotsky continued to oppose it. He wrote, in 1939, for example,

“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?”...

If revolutionary and progressive movements beyond the boundaries of ones own country could be supported by supporting ones own imperialist bourgeoisie then the policy of social patriotism was in principle correct. There was no reason, then, for the founding of the Third International.”

(Trotsky – Lenin On Imperialism)

The social-imperialist position adopted by the AWL and other liberals, to justify their support for imperialist intervention across the globe, did not even achieve the limited liberal, bourgeois goals they set for themselves. Afghanistan, where US imperialism, and its allies, sought to overthrow the soviet backed regime, did not initiate a period of bourgeois national revolution, but the reactionary rule of the Taliban, and role of Osama Bin Laden, who the US had supported. Before Bin Laden engaged in the attack on the US, in 2001, he proved useful to the US again, as a go-between with the criminal gangs of the Kosovan Liberation Army. The US used the KLA to stir up ethnic tension in Kosovo, which provoked a response from the Serbian government, to defend Kosovan Serbs, which gave the pretext for US intervention in Kosovo. But, again, that has not resolved, but intensified, conflict in Kosovo, and in the Balkans, in general.

The same was true of NATO's intervention in Iraq, in Libya and in Syria. After Bin Laden used his base in Afghanistan, to plan and execute the attack on the US, it provoked the US to again intervene in Afghanistan, but the result was not any kind of bourgeois-democratic, national revolution, and certainly no basis for any kind of proletarian revolution, via a process of permanent revolution, but simply further chaos and misery, destruction, with the inevitable withdrawal of the US, and resurgence of the Taliban. Imperialist intervention, failed to provide anything positive, for Libya, as it removed Gaddafi, and led the country into chaos, and endless civil strife. Trotsky wrote that the Balkans should have been a prosperous region, and yet was wrecked by the “liberation from above”. Libya, with its large oil reserves, and location, also had the potential to be a prosperous nation, but the removal of Gaddafi, by the “liberation from above”, instead, ruined it.

The regime of Gaddafi was awful, but, like other economies in MENA it was being drawn into the sphere of the EU, which no doubt caused some concern for US imperialism, as its European rival could steal a march on it, in an oil rich and strategically important area of the globe. Like other such economies, it had a path to economic development, but, that path has now been blocked for the foreseeable future, and even its basic infrastructure, has fallen into disrepair, as shown by the collapse of these dams, and subsequent tragedy. Its impossible to say that had Gaddafi not been removed by the “liberation from above”, such a tragedy would not have happened, and socialists have no reason to defend Gaddafi, but, what is clear is that the destruction inflicted on the country by imperialism, supported by the social imperialists and liberal interventionists, certainly has contributed to it.

There is a lesson too, there, for workers in Ukraine. In the US, Biden's political regime is, itself, now, under review for corruption. Biden has spent billions of Dollars to fight the war in Ukraine, whilst US infrastructure is in need of significant repair and renewal. At the same time, Biden has intervened to block strikes by US dockworkers and rail workers, fighting cuts in their real wages, as inflation has soared. The failure of Biden and the Democrats to protect the interests of US workers, as with the attacks on workers by other such elements, like Macron in France, has opened the door again to petty-bourgeois reaction. Biden looks set to lose the election to Trump. With Zelensky failing to make any significant progress against Russia, despite the vast amounts of weapons provided to his army, by NATO, Trump, as President, is likely to cut and run, much as the US did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, leaving the Ukrainians to deal with the mess that imperialist ambitions have left in its wake.

Predictions For 2016

Last year I set out ten predictions for 2015. Before setting out any predictions for the year ahead, therefore, it is perhaps necessary to see how last year's turned out.

The first prediction was that Syriza would win the Greek elections, and would refuse to compromise. A more than partial hit, I would say. They did win the election, and for some time did refuse to compromise, before being forced to back down faced by the mass of conservative forces ranged against them across Europe. I would say this story is not yet over, and the success of Podemos, and of the left in Portugal are just the opening chapters, rather than the conclusion.

The second prediction was that Labour would win the election in the UK, as part of the same process that led to the rise of Syriza et al. On the face of it, a big miss. However, looking beneath the surface, the reality is that a right-wing Liberal-Tory majority of around 80, was slashed to a Tory majority of just 12. You would not know it from all of the Tory media, and other pundits, but the reality is that, in England and Wales, Labour increased its number of seats by the same amount as the Tories, and increased its share of the vote by twice as much as the Tories. The real story was the collapse of the Liberals, and the rise of the SNP. In other words, the total size of the right got smaller, but within it, it became more right-wing, and more nationalistic.

The other part of the prediction was a rise of the left inside the Labour Party. At the time, and given the potential for Labour to lose, very few people, this time last year, believed that such a change was likely. Indeed, even by the middle of last year, few people would have believed that Jeremy Corbyn would become Labour Leader, on the back of such a huge increase in party membership, driven from the left. So, although the headline prediction was a miss, again, I think that the prediction, taken as a whole, was substantially correct.

The third prediction, that UKIP would fail to win any seats, is again substantially correct. All of the pundits were suggesting that they would win up to 20 seats. In fact, as suggested, the higher turnout of a General Election meant that, even whilst they increased their number of votes, they were unable to turn that into seats. They actually lost the seat of Mark Reckless, which had been gifted to them by his defection from the Tories. Farage failed to win again, and they have only held on to the seat of Douglas Carswell, due to his personal following. Even that is causing UKIP problems, as a party with just one MP looks set to suffer a split!

The fourth prediction, that the Liberals would win only six seats, was the most successful prediction. In fact, they won eight, but, even on election night, Paddy Ashdown was saying that he would eat his hat if they only won the 26 seats that the exit poll was suggesting. As with Prediction 1, it is a confirmation of the general thesis of a collapse of the political centre, and of the conservative ideas that have been dominant for the last thirty years. Ashdown failed to eat any hats, once again demonstrating that Liberal promises are worthless.

Prediction five looked to a split in the Tory Party between these conservative and essentially social democratic forces, around the question of Europe. The fault lines of that split are clear already to see. The prediction has not yet been confirmed, but the months ahead are likely to do so.

The same is true with prediction six. The actual problems facing Europe can only be solved by more Europe rather than less Europe. The decision to beef up the European Border Agency – Frontex – is an indication of that. The ECB has started outright QE to buy up the bonds of various European States, and this is the basis for issuing Eurobonds at some point. Draghi, and other bureaucrats, have indicated that monetary policy can effectively do no more, and that it will be up to fiscal policy to now take the strain in promoting growth. With the French government nominally committed to fiscal stimulus, with the rise of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and the left government in Portugal, this prediction is yet to be confirmed, rather than having been falsified.

Prediction 7 has again been partly confirmed. There was a financial markets crash, global interest rates are rising, and even the Federal Reserve has now raised official interest rates, with more to come. The Chinese Stock Market crashed by 30%, and other stock markets fell by more than 20%, taking them into bear market territory, though they recovered some of those losses later. Stock markets are finishing the year down on where they began, due to these earlier crashes. However, the crashes that have happened are not yet even close to the actual crash predicted. That is yet to come, and as global interest rates rise, the closer that crash becomes.

The same is true with Prediction 8. There has not yet been the property market crash in Britain. It appears that house prices in London are falling, but that does not constitute a crash. House prices elsewhere also appear to be falling or stagnant, despite the actions of the Bank of England, and the government in manipulating the market. But, household indebtedness is now back to the kinds of level that preceded the 2008 crash, and with interest rates rising, it is again only a matter of time before this prediction is verified.

Prediction 9 is also on the way to being confirmed. The US has set up the various trade deals, which tie it closer to its main trading partners. The fall in the value of the Rouble, despite massively falling oil prices, did not bring the Russian economy to its knees, but has brought inward investment and further co-operation with China and other regional partners. In fact, Russia has seen its position strengthened strategically.

Prediction ten has also been confirmed, but has further to run. Twenty years ago, the Marxist economist Michel Aglietta, predicted that the processes of post-Fordism, seen in manufacturing, would spread to service industries. That is what is being seen. The potential now exists to tailor medical treatment to the specific requirements of the individual, and thereby to prevent illnesses rather than have to cure them, which makes the old Fordist healthcare solutions, which treated all individuals as being homogeneous, so as to offer mass production healthcare, increasingly outmoded and redundant. The last year, has indeed seen a significant increase in the number of such healthcare solutions, based upon the individual genetic make up of the individual. These now offer the best hopes for prevention and cure of cancer, and a range of other diseases.

So now on to the predictions for the year ahead.

1. In line with the underlying thesis that the material conditions are changing, and are now favouring socialised productive-capital, at the expense of interest-bearing, fictitious capital, and that this favours social-democracy, I see a further move in that direction, in the year ahead. It is likely that we will see the growth of similar social democratic forces, both within the existing social-democratic parties, and also pressurising them from without, where those parties do not shift their position. The likely manifestation of that will be in France, Italy and Germany, it is also being manifest already in the US.
   
   
2. Global growth will be higher than currently predicted. The basis of that is that a new three year cycle began at the end of 2015. That means a tendency to higher growth than in the previous year, and this upward phase will last for two years. Secondly, that the rate of productivity growth achieved in the last 25 years, has started to slow down. That means that investment will tend to be increasingly extensive rather than intensive. The consequence of that is that relatively more labour-power is employed. Higher levels of employment, is already pushing wages higher, and these higher wages begin to support higher levels of workers' consumption, stimulating a need for additional investment in those industries that produce wage goods.
   
   
3. Interest rates will rise more sharply than currently predicted. All of the financial pundits, and representatives of fictitious capital, are in a process of grief. They have been shocked that the Federal Reserve did actually raise official interest rates. Now they want to disbelieve that it is happening, and come out with predictions that it will be forced to reverse those hikes next year. That is because the prices of fictitious capital depend upon low interest rates. The price of any revenue bearing asset is the capitalised value of the revenue, and as interest rates rise, so that capitalised value falls. With very low absolute levels of interest rates, even very small absolute rises of those rates, represent a large percentage rise in the rate, and correspondingly large fall in the capitalised value. Relatively small absolute rises in interest rates, will therefore cause the prices of shares, bonds, and property to fall massively.
   
   
4. The fourth prediction is then that the prices of this fictitious capital will fall dramatically. Interest rates will rise not because the central banks raise official rates, but because the material conditions mean that the demand for capital will rise relative to the supply, whatever the central banks do. The potential for that is exacerbated by the astronomical levels of household debt, and of high risk debt that is likely to default. The rise of official interest rates by central banks is actually a reflection of the rise in market rates, as they try to catch up, not a cause of higher market rates.
   
   
5. Inflation will be much higher than predicted. Over the last few decades, huge amounts of liquidity have manifested themselves as a hyper inflation of asset prices. That has sucked potential money-capital out of the real economy, causing growth to be much lower than it otherwise would have been. At the same time, it has soaked up excess liquidity, and more, so that the hyper inflation of asset prices was combined with stagnant or falling commodity prices. The latter tendency was initially caused by, and has since been exacerbated by the massive rise in productivity from the early 1980's onwards, which was also the basis of the huge moral depreciation of constant capital, rise in the rate of surplus value, and in the rate of turnover of capital, which brought about a massive rise in the annual rate of profit from the late 1980's, through to around 2012.
   
   That continued so long as speculators believed that they were more than compensated for near zero yields, by huge guaranteed capital gains, as the prices of fictitious capital zoomed. But, rising interest rates, now mean that asset prices will fall significantly, whilst yields remain low, by historical standards. This is the process Marx describes in Capital III, whereby some of the owners of this fictitious capital, unable to obtain sufficient interest on it, convert themselves into productive-capitalists, putting their own money-capital to work directly in production, where they can obtain the average rate of profit. That average rate of profit is much higher than the rate of interest.
   
   However, this process means that the demand for money-capital rises, relative to its supply, pushing interest rates higher, which acts to crash asset prices further. At the same time, the additional investment in productive-capital causes the demand for labour-power to rise, which pushes wages higher, reducing the rate of surplus value. That reduces the supply of money-capital further, pushing interest rates higher, and so on. Because, money-capital takes the form of money, all of the excess liquidity that fuelled hyper inflation of asset prices, then begins to flow into the real economy, which reverses the process. Asset prices suffer a severe depreciation, whilst commodity prices rise. A similar process to this was seen in the previous Summer phase of the long wave cycle, in 1966, when inflation spiked much higher, within a matter of months, than the authorities, and most economists, had foreseen.
   
   
6. Part of this process will again be manifest in a growth of a range of new technological industries. I predict that the growth of industries based upon genetics, bio-technology and so on will continue and increase in tempo. A recent Channel 4 documentary asked the question “How Do The Rich Live Longer?”, and looked at the ability to purchase tailored solutions for the individual. We already have a growth of not just routine screening, using the latest technologies, but also of constant body monitoring and so on. We know from Marx's concept of “The Civilising Mission of Capital”, that what is first only available to the rich, rapidly becomes available to the rest of society, as increases in productivity reduce values, and increase living standards. Many people already purchase significant elements of healthcare privately, and as the same processes of flexible specialisation that have occurred in manufacturing are applied to service production, this is likely to grow, as the value of these commodities falls significantly.
   
   In addition to a continuation of the growth of those industries, we already see a similar growth of other new technology industries. It is notable that the new space technology is now being developed by Spacex and other private sector companies. The ability to land a rocket back on the launch pad, was once the dream of science fiction, but has now been turned into reality by these companies. It would not have been possible without the growth of computing power that has occurred, just as the developments in medical technology would have been impossible without that development. The fact that these companies have been created by individuals such as Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and the creators of Google, is an indication of the process referred to previously that, at a certain point, a reliance on non-existent yields on financial assets, only offset by speculative capital gains, gives way to an incentive to invest in real productive-capital.
   
   
7. The start of the end of the car showroom. The majority of new cars sold today are not actually sold, but are leased or bought as part of a car plan. In other words, the buyer leases the car for a monthly payment. The lease runs for three years, during which time the seller covers all maintenance and repairs, as well as the insurance. At the end of the lease, the buyer can take out a lease on another new car, or may have the option of buying the car, as a used car. This has obvious advantages both for the buyer, and for the car companies who, by such means, can ensure a more or less stable level of demand over future years.
   
   One consequence is that the price of new cars, bought conventionally tends to rise, whilst a constant flood of previously leased, used cars into the market, reduces used car prices. This means the cost of buying, by conventional means, is raised again, because what you get for your own used car falls, increasing the depreciation cost.
   
   What new technology, flexible specialisation and the Internet means is that the role of the car showroom starts to become redundant. It is now already possible to order your own car directly from the manufacturer, over the Internet, by-passing the dealer. It is possible to customise the car, to suit your individual requirements. That is the revolutionising role of the Internet, both in terms of making such purchases possible, and via Internet payments systems, making the payment for such purchases possible. The ability of the manufacturer to produce a car specific to your individual requirements, is a consequence of production methods based upon flexible specialisation rather than mass production. Both are the consequence of the development of computer and communications technology.
   
   The only function of car dealers then becomes the selling of used cars.
   
   
8. Labour will do much better in the local elections than currently foreseen, but this will reflect the collapse of the political centre. In other words, Labour will begin to recapture chunks of its core vote that had previously gone to the Liberals, Greens and others, or simply become apathetic. Labour majorities in Labour areas will rise, and in Labour marginals, Labour will gain seats. But, in Tory marginals, Labour's performance may suffer, as the Tories and their support pushes further right. Labour should not worry about the latter, as the Blair-rights will claim they should. A good general understands that it is necessary first to strengthen your own territory, and bridgeheads before thinking of launching an assault on the enemy's territory.
   
   
9. The bloom will start to come off the SNP rose. The SNP faces a contradiction. It is first and foremost a nationalist party, whose roots were in Scottish Conservatism – much as is the case with UKIP in relation to Britain. The SNP was able to portray itself not only as anti-establishment, but also as a radical social-democratic party, because of the collapse of Labour as a social democratic party, and the ability of the SNP to blame all deficiencies on Westminster. But, the SNP in Scotland, is the Establishment; it is, and has been for some time, the governing party. Especially as the warm blanket of North Sea oil is taken away, the limited nature of nationalism is exposed.
   
   
10. Isis will be defeated in Syria, and will shift its base and operations to Libya, and surrounding states. A large part will be played by the Kurds, who will begin to demand their own state more effectively. That will cause fractures within NATO, because of open opposition, and attacks by Turkey on the Kurds. The process of the break-up of Iraq will continue. The Kurds will secure de facto control over Northern Iraq, and Syria. Iran will bolster the Shia areas of Iraq, whilst the West and the gulf states will bolster Sunnis, within the Sunni Triangle, as part of the process of undermining ISIS. This will be a temporary modus vivendi, as Russia secures the existing Syrian regime in power, and the West has to accept it.

Ukraine Becomes Libya

The Nazis of the Ukrainian Right Sector, are now focussing their attention on overthrowing the already right-wing Ukrainian government. Watching the Newsnight report from Gabriel Gatehouse, on Wednesday, it reminded me just how much the situation resembles that in Libya, and how the consequence of liberal intervention has been the same in both cases. In fact, the role of the EU in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, and now in Greece, seems to reflect a sort of death wish.

What is the commonality of all these cases? It is actually that the EU is currently dominated by conservative politicians, alongside conservative regimes in many of the member states, whose world view almost necessarily results in such a situation. Their view of bourgeois democracy is a conservative one, which is closer to the kind of liberal democracy that was dominant in the 18th and early 19th century, as opposed to the social democracy that became dominant in the latter part of the 19th century, and is the basis of all modern industrial societies.

If we look at many of the states that industrialised in the 19th century, the state played a significant role. In Germany, it was the Bonapartist regime of Bismark that modernised and industrialised the economy, and in the process created a large working-class and bourgeoisie; in France the same thing was carried through most clearly by the Bonapartist regime of Louis Bonaparte. Even in the US, its Presidential system is a sort of Bonapartism, and the industrialisation was driven forward by that State, one aspect of which was the Civil War, which established both the dominance of the central state, and of the industrial bourgeoisie.

It was this process of industrialisation, and the creation simultaneously of the dominance of big industrial capital (socialised capital in the form of the joint stock companies), together with the creation of a huge working-class, that creates the basis of the modern bourgeois social-democratic state. The process, as Marx and Engels describe, involves the separation of the private owners of productive-capital from that capital, and from their role in production. The largest of these become instead, merely the providers of loanable money-capital, owners of fictitious capital in the shape of shares, bonds and so on. As such, they continue to reflect the ideas and interests of the old oligarchies of finance and landed property.

Their place in the productive process is taken by professional managers, who themselves are increasingly drawn from the ranks of the working-class, and middle class. A separation of interest thereby develops between these latter who represent the interests of the now socialised productive-capital, and the financial and landed oligarchies, who seek to leach surplus value from capital, in the form of interest payments and rent. As this conflict develops, the owners of fictitious capital seek to defend their interests against the personification of productive-capital, by appointing tiers of management above them, in the shape of Boards of Directors, Chief Executive Officers and so on.

It becomes reflected in a political division, conservative parties being based upon and representing the interests of the old oligarchies and of this fictitious capital, and liberal parties representing the interests of big industrial capital that is increasingly in the form of socialised capital. As Engels puts it, at the start of the 19th century, the struggle had been between the bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy, but by the latter part of the century, it was a struggle waged by this big industrial capital, against the rest, and it could only win that struggle, if it carried with it, the social mass of the working-class.

“The Reform Bill of 1831 had been the victory of the whole capitalist class over the landed aristocracy. The repeal of the Corn Laws was the victory of the manufacturing capitalist not only over the landed aristocracy, but over those sections of capitalists, too, whose interests were more or less bound up with the landed interest-bankers, stockjobbers, fundholders, etc... Everything was made subordinate to one end, but that end of the utmost importance to the manufacturing capitalist: the cheapening of all raw produce, and especially of the means of living of the working class; the reduction of the cost of raw material, and the keeping down – if not as yet the bringing down - of wages... 

“Chartism was dying out. The revival of commercial prosperity, natural after the revulsion of 1847 had spent itself, was put down altogether to the credit of Free Trade. Both these circumstances had turned the English working class, politically, into the tail of the ‘great Liberal Party’, the party led by the manufacturers. This advantage, once gained, had to be perpetuated. And the manufacturing capitalists, from the Chartist opposition, not to Free Trade, but to the transformation of Free Trade into the one vital national question, had learnt, and were learning more and more, that the middle class can never obtain full social and political power over the nation except by the help of the working class.”

Engels - Condition Of The working Class

Engels goes on to describe how this leads to a change in the view of this big industrial capital, which then scraps all of the old penny-pinching means of exploitation required by small-scale capital. This is the basis of the modern bourgeois social democratic state, a compromise and modus vivendi between this socialised capital, and the working-class, which also becomes reflected in the fact that this large-working class gets the vote. The logical conclusion of that, almost everywhere, is that appearance and reality is brought into alignment. It is this large working-class that has the weight of numbers both socially and electorally. It makes up the mass of membership of the Liberal parties. In place of an openly bourgeois party comprised largely of workers, therefore, new parties, like the Labour Party, are established openly as workers parties, but ideologically committed to the same bourgeois principles as the old Liberal parties, i.e. to bourgeois social democracy.

But, this bourgeois social democracy is premised upon the fact that the workers are prepared to accept their continued exploitation provided their living standards improve more or less continuously, and provided it can be given a modicum of social protection by the welfare states created by this social democracy. If that ceases to be the case, for any length of time, the contract is broken, and so the workers increasingly abandon their side of the bargain too. Then the social democratic parties lose votes, the conservative parties are able to return.

But, similarly, unless these conditions exist, there is no basis for creating such a bourgeois social democratic state in the first place. That is what those who think that you can simply replace Bonapartist regimes, such as that of Saddam, or Gaddafi, or Assad, and miraculously have a bourgeois democracy spring up in its place fail to grasp. However, much socialists abhor such regimes and seek to replace them, we cannot simply ignore the laws of history, as Marx has described them. Those regimes, like the regimes of Bismark, or Louis Bonaparte and others have fulfilled a necessary and progressive role, in being a means of bringing about a development of capitalist production, and of the working-class that goes with it.

Consequently, socialists should not be in favour of simply calling for opposition to such regimes, unless we have practically something more progressive and achievable to put in their place. The consequence of doing so can be seen in Libya, where the destruction of the old regime, has simply led to chaos, and the domination of political power in the streets, by a series of armed militia. The same thing is now happening in Ukraine, where again, it was attempts to overthrow the regime of Yanukovitch, which led to the present chaos.

Socialists have no reason to defend the regimes of a Yanukovitch, or an Assad, but nor should we simply be led into supporting or welcoming their opponents either, unless those opponents are themselves a means of strengthening the position of the working-class. “My enemy's enemy is my friend”, is no basis upon which socialists can formulate their strategy. But, they must also be a real basis of strengthening the position of the working-class, and not simply a phantom, based on no real, substantial social forces. Libya was a good example of that, where elements blinded by bourgeois democracy, and parliamentarism, fooled themselves into believing that just because parachuted in bourgeois politicians obtained a majority vote in Libyan elections, that they actually represented some meaningful social force! Anyone who has read Trotsky's account of the Spanish Civil War, should have realised the mistake of that approach. But, the rise of the Right Sector in Ukraine, now supplemented by Russian Nazis fighting alongside them, illustrates the point once more.

In fact, as stated in the beginning, the EU seems to have some kind of death wish. It undermined the Bonapartist regimes in the Middle East, that were bringing fairly rapid industrial development; they did a similar thing in Ukraine, and other parts of Eastern Europe, whilst drawing right-wing regimes in the Baltic directly into the EU; and they have now created a situation where Greece is being thrown into chaos through austerity, which may cause the edges of the EU to fray even more rapidly. It has caused the political centre to collapse, as Ukraine is demonstrating very clearly, but that same process is happening across Europe, a process that the conservative/Blairite politicians themselves do not seem to have grasped, which is why they cannot understand the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn, and all those offering an alternative to austerity.

The reason is quite simple. Conservatism is itself based upon an illusion. The illusion is most clearly reflected in fictitious capital itself. The owners of fictitious capital believe that it produces interest out of thin air, that it is in some way an intrinsic characteristic of this capital to expand in value. Similarly, they believe that it represents real wealth, and that when the prices of this fictitious capital expands astronomically that this represents an increase in real wealth. They have no concept that real wealth can only be created by productive-capital, and that their own actions are limiting that wealth creation process.

So, they have no reason to consider that perhaps it would be a good idea to facilitate a modernisation and recapitalisation of the Greek economy, rather than simply trying to squeeze more debt repayments from them! They have no reason to believe that regimes like that of Saddam or Gaddafi, however, monstrous, were actually performing an historically progressive role in modernising and industrialising their economies, which is the precondition for a modern social democracy.

Why would they, they are not themselves social democrats.  Their ideas stem rather from the idea of liberal democracy, which is based upon the ability of small elites to rule without concern for the majority, who they simply assume will see the world in the same way that they do, or at least simply acquiesce in it. They believe that bourgeois democracy can simply exist suspended in mid-air, with no social foundations beneath it, in just the same way that their fictitious wealth exists suspended in mid air, without any productive-capital being accumulated to produce the profits out of which its interest payments and rent is paid!

So, just as with Greece, instead of a promotion of modernisation and industrialisation, they propose to provide more loans to Ukraine, so that they can repay the interest on the debts already accrued. In fact, it is the same policy of increasing private debt that these conservative regimes pursued in the US, UK, and Western Europe from the late 1980's onwards, in a belief that interest payments and rent can keep materialising out of thin air.

AWL, Mali, Libya and The Islamists

More than a week after Imperialism, headed by France, invaded Mali, the AWL got round to providing their response – here, in an article by Colin Foster, a pseudonym for Martin Thomas. Its perhaps not surprising that the AWL waited to produce a response, because the bureaucratic centrist nature of their politics, means that every new event poses them with a problem of squaring their current response with their previous positions. In particular, how are they to square their current position, in relation to Mali, with their previous positions where they justified imperialist intervention in Libya, as well as defending the allies of Imperialism in the shape of the Islamists, and the Feudal, Gulf Monarchies.

The reality is that although the AWL, with their Third Campist methodology, based on syllogistic logic, see every event as separate from any other event, reality is far more complex and interrelated than that. Reality is dialectical. So, it was obvious, when events were occurring in Libya last year, this could not, and would not, be separate from events occurring elsewhere in the world, let alone in Libya's immediate neighbours, like Mali.

That is why, when it became obvious that things in Libya were not as straightforward as they first seemed, some of us cautioned against simply providing uncritical support for the “rebels”. It soon became fairly obvious that these “rebels” did not have massive and widespread support, amongst the people in Libya. Even if they did, Marxists would have had to be circumspect about exactly what the social forces were that were involved, before giving uncritical support. But, fairly early on, it was obvious that these “rebels” were largely based in Benghazi, and that a large part of the rebellion had been pre-planned with the assistance of outside forces. The “rebels” themselves amounted to no more than about 15,000 fighters, equivalent to less than 1% of the population, or about the same level of support that the left sects are able to obtain in British elections. Hardly, a basis for a revolution!

Even with the assistance of a massive bombing campaign by Imperialism, to clear the path for them, the rebels were able to make little or no progress over a period of many months. Even after a further huge intensification of the bombing, and the intervention of British, French, Saudi and Qatari Special Forces, forced Tripoli into submission, the rebels, and their Imperialist backers, took a further two months, imposing a humanitarian disaster in the process, to take control of Sirte.

The AWL not only backed the Libyan rebels, but they also justified the Islamist nature of those rebels. Echoing the argument that the SWP have used in the past, and that the AWL have criticised, when it was used to support Hamas, and Hezbollah, the AWL argued that after years of oppression under Gaddafi, it was not surprising that the Libyan rebels should hold reactionary views. See: AWL Dig Bigger Hole. In fact, as set out in the post above, it was not the only old AWL position they ditched in justifying their support for the jihadists in Libya, as they marched forward to the position of being Sharia socialists, long ago adopted by their fellow Third Campists of the SWP.

What was even more ludicrous in that attempt was one comment they made, where they claimed that the intervention of the Feudal Gulf Monarchies in Libya, now had to be seen as one of the ways in which bourgeois democracy was now to be brought about!  These are, of course, the same feudal regimes that batter their own populations, and that are murdering protesters in Bahrain!

The total hyperbole, and so much zigging and zagging that its like a day out at Alton Towers, comes out in the AWL's latest pronouncements, then, in relation to Mali.

The AWL write,

“On 2 April an alliance of Islamist militias, well-funded from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and with bases also in Algeria and Mauretania, ousted the secular MNLA and seized Timbuktu in their turn. By late June the Islamists dominated the north-west.”

In which case you would expect on the basis of their previous positions that the AWL would welcome that development! After all, the funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is the same funding for Islamists that was provided, with the AWL's blessing, for them in Libya, and which is being provided to them in Syria. The intervention by Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, is intervention by the same feudal forces that the AWL previously explained to us, in relation to Libya, were the forces which we now had to understand were the vehicles by which bourgeois democracy was to be introduced!!!

Ever since the jihadists took control of Libya, after the fall of Gaddafi, the AWL have done all in their power to keep quiet about the consequences of their former allies assuming power. They have said next to nothing about the series of atrocities committed by the Jihadists in Libya, and their attacks against workers there. They have tried to present a picture in which the bourgeois forces of the TNC are in control, and the jihadists are being opposed by large numbers of the population e.g. here. This is rather like the reports that George Bernard Shaw sent back from Stalin's Russia, where he could see no signs of repression, or show trials.  Even by the AWL's standards it is a pretty weak, confused mish-mash of self-contradictory positions, based on bourgeois liberlaism, and constitutionalism.  Consistent with the AWL's method based on formal logic rather than dialectics it takes as real what is merely superficial i.e. the existence of an elected government, whilst then having to accept again and again that this elected government has no real control over the country!

Today, the UK Foreign Office has advised UK citizens to leave Benghazi because of a threat to them – BBC. It also comes, as its confirmed that some of the forces involved in the seizure of the Algerian Gas Plant, were the same forces that took part in the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi.  The reality of Libya is that control of the streets remains in the hands of the militias, mainly the Islamist militias.  Its on that basis that the kinds of actions we have seen in Mali and Algeria are spreading out.  Even the Imperialists recognise that, if the AWL do not want to see it.

Of course, it is not fair to draw a straight line between Gaddafi's downfall and the coming to power of the Islamists in Mali. Nor, even if that were possible would it be justified to have opposed bringing down Gaddafi, if the forces ranged against him were genuinely revolutionary forces, even genuine revolutionary, bourgeois-democratic forces, of the kind Lenin describes, as deserving support, in the Theses on the National and Colonial Questions. But, the rebels in Libya were not even that. In many ways, like the forces now in Syria, they were merely agents of the Feudal Gulf Monarchies, and of Imperialism, engaged in a regional war of Sunnis against Shia, which itself is really a cover for a war of those same forces against Iran and its allies, and behind them Russia and China. If ever there were a situation in which a “Third Camp” position, of a plague on all your houses, was justified, it was here! But, the AWL failed even the test of its own political method. That's not surprising, because it has failed it in almost every other case too, where it was a matter of opposing Imperialism and its backers.

The situation is that the Tuareg's were utilised by Gaddafi as mercenaries. In return, Gaddafi supported the Tuareg's in their grievances against the Malian Government. The Tuareg's were also a useful support for Gaddafi in opposing the jihadists, who had for some time been trying to get a foothold in Libya, along with their attempts to win power in Algeria. Gaddafi ruled as a Bonapartist, keeping a lid on a whole series of explosive social cleavages, which as always happens when such a lid is removed, were necessarily going to explode in all directions.

After he fell, the Tuareg's took the ample supply of weapons they had been provided by Gaddafi, and turned their attention to resolving their own grievances. For a long time, the Tuareg's had opposed the jihadists, but in recent years, the jihadists have been building links with the Tuaregs, marrying themselves into important Tuareg families. When the previous corrupt Malian Government fell in yet another coup, that gave the opportunity for the Tuaregs to seize the day, but then they too were replaced by the jihadists. The jihadists have themselves a large supply of money and the latest weapons provided by the Feudal Gulf regimes, who have used them as mercenaries to overthrow regimes that might be potential support for Iran. That is why the sectarian war is being stoked again in Iraq.

But, the jihadists, as Bin Laden showed, are not simply puppets of these bigger players. They have an agenda of their own. Their operations in Mali are part of that, and sooner or later their operations against Israel will likewise be part of it. That is why Imperialism seeks to limit such rogue operations that conflict with its interests.

That some of the peoples of the region rally behind such forces is not surprising, for the reasons Trotsky condemned in the Balkans. There the Liberals, playing the same role that the AWL and other Liberal Interventionists play today, encouraged the belief that, if they rose up, even with wholly inadequate forces, and proclaimed “atrocity” Russia would come to their assistance, just as today they are encouraged to believe that Imperialism will come to their assistance. It can only lead to disaster, and given the nature of these forces it certainly can never lead to anything progressive.

Our role, as Marxists continues to be, not that of moralistic ambulance chasers, seeking to support these anti-working class forces, but to continue to argue the need for building support for the working class in opposition to them, and more importantly, to focus on where the real struggle for socialism resides – the struggle of the advanced sections of the global working class against Imperialism.

Are Israel's Days Numbered?

The Muslim Brotherhood have assumed political power in Egypt. Their figurehead President Morsi has assumed dictatorial powers greater than those of his predecessor Mubarak. Large scale protests against that have eventually led to him reversing the decree under which he assumed them, but the Muslim Brotherhood's proposed Constitution, which will enshrine their dictatorship in law, is still to be forced to a referendum, next week, leaving no real time, for a proper public debate over its contents to take place, or for political opposition to it to be mounted. In the meantime, western TV has begun to report that women who took a prominent part in the revolutionary movement – weeks before the Muslim Brotherhood began to take part – are now facing daily sexual assaults on the streets, as part of a deliberate political strategy to deprive them of a voice.

Islamists have also assumed political power in Tunisia. In both countries, even more extreme Islamist forces continue to press for the establishment of a clerical-fascist regime. In Libya, that has already effectively happened. The Liberals of the TNC may superficially form the government, but real political power rests with the Sunni Jihadists in the streets. It is they, and their militias, which exercise the monopoly of violence.

Having established themselves in Libya, the jihadists have also established themselves in Mali. Now, the weapons accrued by the Libyan jihadists, both those taken over from Gaddafi, and those provided by the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to fight Gaddafi, are being funnelled into Syria, along with even more of the latest weapons provided by those latter sources. In addition, to all of these weapons, which make the comments by the US and UK, that they are thinking about supplying the rebels with weapons, rather laughable, tens of thousands of an almost endless supply of jihadists are also entering Syria.

As I pointed out several months ago. The combination of these latest weapons, together with an almost limitless supply of money, and of jihadists means that the ultimate fate of Assad's regime is sealed. Imperialism has found in the jihadis, a ready made mercenary army that can fight their common enemy, without Imperialism, having to put boots on the ground. But, the consequence for Syria, is that the bloody Civil War that Imperialism and the Jihadis have waged, will result in tens of thousands of deaths, and the physical destruction of much of Syria. Its reminiscent of what Trotsky said in relation to such a war for freedom ion the Balkans in 1912-23.

“'Free'! And to whom, pray, are the Macedonians to pay the costs of their 'liberation'? And exactly how much do these costs amount to? How easily people operate with words, and now with living concepts, when they are not involved themselves! You, Ivan Kirillovich, say that peace is not an end in itself and so on, but you are letting your vision of reality be obscured. 'Free'! Have you any idea what the areas that were recently the theatre of war have been turned into? All through those places a terrible tornado has raged, which has torn up, broken, mangled, reduced to ashes everything that man's labour had created, has maimed and crushed man himself, and mortally laid low the young generation, down to the baby at the breast and even further to the foetus in the mother's womb. The Turks burned and massacre as they fled. The local Christians, where they had the advantage, burned and slaughtered as the allied armies drew near. The soldiers finished off the wounded, and ate up or carried off everything they could lay their hands on. The partisans, following at their heels, plundered, violated, burned. And, finally, along with the armies, epidemics of typhus and cholera advanced across the 'liberated' land.” (The War Correspondence of Leon Trotsky, The Balkan Wars 1912-13, p 330)

“To speak of the 'liberation' of Macedonia, laid waste, ravaged, infected with disease from end to end, means either to mock reality or to mock oneself. Before our eyes a splendid peninsula, richly endowed by nature, which in the last few decades has made great cultural progress, is being hurled back with blood and iron into the dark age of famine and cruel barbarism. All the accumulations of culture are perishing, the work of fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers is being reduced to dust, cities are being laid waste, villages are going up in flames, and no end can yet be seen to this frenzy of destruction...Face to face with such reversions to barbarism it is hard to believe that 'man' is a proud sounding word. But at least the 'doctrinaires' have one consolation, and it is not small: they can with a clear conscience say, 'Neither by deed nor word nor thought are we guilty of this blood'” (p 332)

The same is true today in Syria. The blame for the bloodshed, the misery and destruction rests with the Assad regime. But it also rests Imperialism, and its associates in the Feudal Gulf Monarchies, that fermented this war against the Assad regime, for their own regional, strategic interests. It rests also with those on the Left, who in the same way as was the case with the Russian Liberals during the Balkan Wars, not only failed to oppose the intervention of their own Imperialism, but encouraged the view that the uprising would bring such an intervention. The bloodshed also rests with all those jihadists, acting as agents of Imperialism, and of the Gulf States, who have hijacked the original peaceful protests of the Syrian people for their own sectarian interests.

The Assad regime, will undoubtedly, eventually fall given the forces ranged against it, but perhaps not until even more death, destruction and misery has been inflicted upon the blighted country and its people. And, given the facts, the replacement for that regime, will be, as in Libya, another group of blood thirsty, mediaevalist, clerical-fascists. That is hardly, a result that a Marxist should have desired. And, for that reason, Marxists should have been extremely circumspect in who they were acting as cheer leaders for. As Trotsky, says, those of us “doctrinaires” who saw no reason to support the ambitions of Imperialism, of the Gulf Monarchies, and of the jihadists, simply because they might have been some kind of “lesser-evil” - though that itself is unlikely – to the vile Assad regime, can at least “have one consolation, and it is not small: they can with a clear conscience say, 'Neither by deed nor word nor thought are we guilty of this blood'”. Some on the left, certainly can have no such clear conscience.

Some of those, like the AWL, have all the more reason to consider that their Burnhamite-Schachtmanite method of “practical politics” has again back fired on them. That method, based on syllogistic rather than dialectical logic, sees history as made up of a series of discrete events. On this basis they believe that they can treat each such event as self contained, having no connection to other future or concurrent events. But, the events in Libya and Syria, together with the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia, and the establishment of jihadist regimes in Mali and elsewhere, and the increasing power of Turkey, as a dominant Islamist economic and military power in the region, now begins to pose a very real threat to the AWL's other cause celebre – Israel.

In the past, Israel confronted rather weak-kneed nationalist regimes in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Those regimes had no real stomach for military confrontation with Israel. Most of them were as frightened of the Palestinians, and the unrest that their struggle caused, as were the Israelis. That is no longer the case. Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The jihadists now in power in Libya, Mali, and probably soon in Syria, heavily armed, and militarily and financially supplied by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, thrive on that unrest, and unlike the old State capitalist ruling classes, they have an ideological commitment to the Palestinian struggle, and to destroying Israel.

The US, and European Imperialist powers, and their feudal Gulf allies, no doubt see the next target after Syria to be Iran. The Imperialist powers see Iran as a potential regional power, a sub-imperialist power, that threatens their unquestioned writ across the region. The Feudal Gulf Monarchies, see it as a threat for similar reasons, and because it provides support for the Shia Minorities in those Gulf States, thereby threatening their stability, and the continuation of the Monarchies. For Imperialism, Iran poses a wider strategic threat, because behind it stands Russia and China, rising economic and military powers on the global stage, that threaten the hegemony of western Imperialism already in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. For so long as Imperialism, and particularly US Imperialism, is dependent upon stable supplies of Gulf Oil, it cannot risk losing influence in that region. Not because, its unlikely to be able to continue to buy oil from whatever regime is in power, but because should some global conflict arise, it would be quickly brought to its knees, by the cutting off of its lifeblood. That happened, of course, during the 1970's.

For Imperialism, the Gulf States are now far more important than is Israel. Those States, provide it with cheap oil. Gulf money is now far more important on Wall Street, than is that which stands behind the so called Jewish Lobby. Those States, provide the gateway through which Imperialist arms are channelled to the Islamist fighters that act as the mercenaries of imperialism, in opposing those that pose a challenge to its writ, like Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. That is why they have continued to back the development, funding and arming of these jihadist forces, even though they know that ultimately those forces will turn their attention and their weapons against their main enemy – Israel.

There is another reason why Imperialism is likely to leave Israel to its fate. For several decades now, Imperialism has pressured Israel to agree to a “Two State Solution”. Its clear that Israel has never had any intention to agreeing to it, and for most of that time, Imperialism was not going to press it too much to do so, even when Israel continued to flout international law by building on Palestinian land, and so on. But, increasingly, Imperialism has needed some kind of solution to the Palestinian question in order to establish some kind of stability in the region, which is fundamental to creating the optimum conditions for maximising profits. It also needs it for meeting the demands of its Gulf Allies. But, Israel, particularly under Netanyahu, has simply thumbed its nose at Imperialism, believing that it is a very small tail that has the power to wag a very large dog. That was manifest in Netanyahu's open support for Romney during the US Presidential Election.

About 25 years ago, as a member of the WSL, I wrote opposing the organisation's support for the Two State solution. That didn't mean I supported the reactionary position of those like the SWP, who basically seek the destruction of Israel either. My position was based on the Internationalist positions developed by Lenin and the Comintern, on how to deal with the National Question, and Nation States containing different nationalities. My basic argument was for the establishment of a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, that gave the maximum possible rights, and autonomy to minorities within that State. That was the position Lenin advocated for the national minorities within Russia. Lenin and the Comintern argued that Marxists should not support the creation of any new bourgeois states, except in exceptional conditions. A Two State solution would create such a new bourgeois state, whilst also acting to divide the workers across both communities.

My argument was also that a Two State solution could not possibly work. A new Palestinian State could only be established by Imperialism, because the Palestinians are too weak to create a viable state from their own resources in the face of Israeli opposition. Consequently, any such Palestinian State would essentially be a vassal state dependent upon Imperialism for its continuance. The State apparatus in such a state would have to act as border guards for Imperialism, suppressing the continued struggle of those elements that refused to accept the existence of Israel, or who acted every time some new oppression occurred of Palestinians living in Israel itself.

In fact, there has been a Two State solution in Israel and Palestine now for some time, and all of that has come to pass. For all intents and purposes Gaza is a Palestinian State. It is a heavily constrained State, which suffers economic and military blockade, but other states, such as Cuba, or Iran have suffered the same. The consequences have been exactly as I depicted. In Gaza, the State under PLO control acted as a prison house trying to constrain the militants. The result was that its inhabitants rebelled and installed Hamas. The State was used by Hamas, to build up its military power – such as it is – the better to continue its attacks on Israel, whose existence it continues to reject. That provides the Israeli Right with the justification to continue the blockade of Gaza, and when it chooses to launch military attacks against it. The consequence is that a further wedge between Palestinian and Jewish Israeli workers is driven in.

At the same time, something along the lines of the solution I proposed, but in a bastardised form was created in the West Bank. The consequences despite its limited and bastardised form have been much better. On the West Bank the economy has been more closely integrated with that of Israel itself. The establishment of any State always begins with closer economic integration. On the back of that the West Bank economy has developed quite steadily, and that in turn creates better conditions for social stability. That can be seen in Northern Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, not an insignificant part in bringing about more stable conditions was played by improved economic conditions. Part of that was the commencement of the new Long Wave Boom that started in 1999, but another part was that inside that Boom, following the visit of Clinton, the US and others began to invest quite significantly in the Irish economy, North and South of the border. They did so, in high value, and therefore, high wage, technology production. When more and more people have jobs, especially better paying jobs, they are more likely to feel they have a vested interest in social stability than where the majority or a large percentage do not, and where even the obtaining of low paying jobs, on the basis of apparent discrimination is bound to lead to sectarian division.

It was accompanied also by significant public investment by the Blair Government, which moved Government departments there etc. That the economic crisis caused by the Liberal-Tory austerian economic policies, and especially there attacks on the Public sector, upon which Northern Ireland depended disproportionately, has been accompanied by an increase in sectarian divisions, is no coincidence.

Of course, the West Bank is not politically integrated into Israel. The Palestinians living there, do not enjoy the same political rights even of Palestinians living in Israel itself. Moreover, Israel continues to build on Palestinian land within the West Bank, and as now, imposes punishments on it, by withholding tax payments etc. whenever the PLO administration acts in a way it dislikes. But, those things could, in fact, be remedied precisely by the establishment of a single Federal State. Palestinians living in the West Bank would then be able to elect representatives to the Knesset. Unfair measures imposed by a Federal Government could be opposed on a political rather than a sectarian basis, thereby facilitating a common struggle by workers, socialists and Liberals across the national divide.

But, instead, Israel has continued to act in an arrogant and oppressive manner that cuts against any such solution. In doing so, it also creates problems for Imperialism, seeking some stable solution.

When Israel launched its attack on Gaza recently, it looked as though it was only a matter of time before it launched a ground invasion. It pulled back. The reason given for that has been the mediating role performed by Morsi. But, standing behind the not insignificant military power of Egypt – which Morsi cannot rely on – stands the much more significant military power of Turkey. Turkey has the second largest military in NATO, only behind the US. Its Islamist Government has increasingly set itself the target of becoming the representative of Muslims in the region, and to an extent recreating the Ottoman Empire in modern garb. It has gone from being an ally of Israel to an opponent. In order to fulfil its objectives Turkey will have to act as defender of the Palestinians, and other Muslims in the region, and undermine the position of Israel.

The demand by Turkey, as a member of NATO, for Patriot Missiles to be stationed on its border has nothing to do with a fear of attack by a dying Assad regime. It is to assert its right to defence, and to act as the representative of NATO in the area. Assad is unlikely to launch missiles carrying chemical weapons against Turkey, but an incoming jihadist regime in Syria, might having obtained control of those weapons decide to launch them against Israel, especially should Israel launch another attack on Gaza. Under those conditions, all the Muslim States, might feel the need to make common cause, leaving Turkey open to attack by Israel's large stock of nuclear and chemical warheads. The patriot Missiles are there to shoot them down, in that eventuality.

The potential for such a development will not have escaped the US and other Imperialist powers, who would then be placed in a difficult position having to defend NATO member Turkey against Israel. It is under those conditions that Hilary Clinton no doubt made the position clear to Israel, which then led to Israel stopping its attacks on Gaza.

But, as happened in the past, when Imperialism created Bin Laden to do its fighting against the USSR in Afghanistan, having opened the Pandora's Box, of Islamic Jihad in Libya and Syria, Imperialism is likely to find it is not so easy to close it. In the same way that the advanced weapons supplied to the jihadists in Libya have found their way to Syria, so once Assad is removed, will they find their way to Jihadists attacking Israel. The strategy developed in Libya and Syria is just as likely to be effective in Israel. Asymmetrical warfare with chemical weapons deployed by suicide bombers is going to be difficult for Israel to respond to. Any attempt to do so, by some kind of widespread strike against neighbouring states, will lead to a bloodbath, and almost inevitably the involvement of Turkey, as well as the Gulf States. It would spell the death knell of Israel.

The Sound Of Imperialist Chickens Returning To Roost

It seems that both bourgeois commentators, and Imperialist politicians have been taken aback by the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya, and by the growing Islamist mobilisation, against a US film, across the region. On Channel 4 News, last night, Jon Snow, talked about the Libyan Government, being in danger of losing control, whilst Kirsty Walk, on Newsnight, said that the events threatened to undo the promise that the Libyan Revolution had held out. But, any rational observer would have to ask, “What Control, what promise?” The simple fact is that the Libyan “Government” never has had control. That does, and always has rested with the Islamist militias on the streets. Nor did the Libyan “Revolution” ever hold out any promise, other than the promise of chaos, civil war, and the dominance of Political Islamists, other than in the minds of woolly minded Liberals, and apologists for Imperialism like the AWL and other Third Campists.

Hilary Clinton apparently bemoaned, “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a town we helped save?” If she was being honest in asking this question, it merely demonstrates how hopeless US foreign policy itself is! For an answer to the question she only needed to look to the recent past. It was the US, which created Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The same Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which then flew planes into the Twin Towers. It was the US which overthrew Iran's enemy, Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, which financed and armed his Shia opponents in the country. Meanwhile, those Shia forces, were also being supported, financed and armed by their Iranian brethren to attack US forces, in Shia dominated areas. Iraq, is now little more than an Iranian satellite. As last night's Newsnight, depicted, the Iraqi State, now openly murders Gays and Lesbians in a way that Saddam's regime never did. And, as one Iraqi said, its Gays and Lesbians now, but, which minority will that State turn its attention to next – Sunnis, Christians, Jews, Trades Unionists, Socialists? We have seen this film before.

But, its likely that Hilary Clinton is not actually that naïve, and certainly the US State is not. Already, the US is sending a large number of “anti-terrorist” marines to Libya. I pointed out many months ago, that precisely because there is essentially no Libyan Government, Libya would either be taken over by the Islamists, or else the Government would call in Imperialist forces, to maintain it. The US still has forces in Iraq, and elsewhere in the region. As I argued a few weeks ago, the US seems to have decided that the Gulf Monarchies are a more important ally to it, than Israel. Its not just Obama's poor relations with Netanyahu, which lie behind that. In fact, Republicans, like John McCain, have been far more vociferous in calling for intervention, and support for Al Qaeda linked rebel forces in Libya, and Syria than has Obama. Rather, it comes down to the fact that the Gulf Monarchies now represent the main bulwark of opposition to Iran/Iraq, in the region, and, those regimes also provide the US with the majority of its oil.    Of course, opposition to those regimes continues, such as the daily demonstrtaions of thousands in Bahrain, that are suppressed by the regime, but which get no coverage, by the British media and no condemnation by western governments.

US military strategy has returned to the kind of approach it used in Latin America and in Afghanistan against the USSR. That is, rather than get directly involved itself as it did in Vietnam, with dire consequences, it has found it more effective to destabilise countries, and to support opposition “rebel” forces, either directly or through proxies. Even if, the US is unable then to exert direct control, the destabilisation caused in the country, prevents any rival power from exerting itself. In the Middle East and North Africa, the US supports the feudal Gulf Monarchies, who in turn provide the fighting forces via various Islamist militias, financed, and trained through the Madrassas established throughout the globe, which act like Medieval mercenaries, ready to go to fight for the cause anywhere in the world. Given the nature of those regimes, it also fuels the growing sectarian war between Sunnis and Shia across the region, which itself acts as a proxy for global strategic power politics.

Its inevitable that with such a strategy there will be what the US euphemistically calls “collateral damage”. The US Ambassador in Libya, is just from that perspective collateral damage, and if at some point, those Islamist forces turn their attention to attacking Israel, which seems inevitable, that too seems to be an element of collateral damage that the US is happy to accept to meet its larger, longer term strategic goals in the region. The US hopes that it can use these Islamist forces to remove Assad in Syria, as they removed Gaddafi, and having done so, that will open the door to undermining Hezbollah, and Hamas, and then Iran, and of course, with it, the role of Russia and China in the region. But, experience in Afghanistan, and Iraq suggests that the chance of the US being able to rein in those forces when they have done its dirty work, is remote. Far more likely, it will simply stimulate further support for these groups, and Political Islam across the globe.

Marxism explains the existence of Bonapartist
regimes like that of Gaddafi, and of Assad in
terms of the material conditions in society.  The
point had been made much earlier by Thomas Hobbes. 
A stable society requires a dominant and cohesive ruling group.

The reality of Libya, always was that Gaddafi was in power, because the objective conditions in the country necessitated some kind of Bonapartist regime. If it hadn't been Gaddafi it would have been someone else. Those objective conditions in the country have not changed. In fact, after the country was devastated by around 30,000 bombing runs by Imperialism, with about 40,000 people being killed, and with the stimulation of further ethnic, tribal and other divisions in the country as a result of the civil war, and grabs for power, they have been exacerbated. The US, and other Imperialist countries, can quickly use their military power to overthrow regimes in small countries like Libya, but they cannot, and have no real interest in, changing the basic material conditions in those countries, to provide the necessary level of industrialisation, and modernisation required to sustain even bourgeois democracy.

The same is true, on a larger scale, because it is a much larger country, with Syria. The almost inevitable outcome in Syria will be a prolonged period of Civil War, with the regime gradually eroded because of the superior firepower and resources that Imperialism, and the Gulf Monarchies can provide for an almost endless stream of jihadists. It will bring untold misery to the people of Syria on all sides, and a devastation of the country. It will create the perfect breeding ground for the Islamist forces that thrive on such backwardness and poverty, just like every other form of fascism. Those forces are already dominant in Syria, as they are in Libya, in Mali and other countries in the area. More significantly, those forces are pushing against a rotten door in Egypt too, the largest country in the region.

Its reported that when the demonstrations in Cairo, against the film, took place, the Salafist forces, who are growing in strength in Egypt, chanted, “Where is Morsi?” As I argued some months ago, whenever a clerical regime is established, the dynamic is always for it to be pushed to become more strident in its clericalism. It is based on a form of populism, and its base, and that populism ensure that it is forced to continue to travel ever further down that road. The Muslim Brotherhood will be forced to become more Islamist, more authoritarian, more strident, or else it will quickly lose support to the Salafists and other more extreme Islamist groups. The Gulf regimes, have lots of money and weapons, they have direct access to the jihadists, but what they lack are large populations. Egypt has a large population.  Until now, the most likely outcome was that the Brotherhood would be isolated in Egypt, and the Military would retain control, removing the Brotherhood when the time was right.  That is still most likely, but if the jihadists continue to gather support across the region that may change.

Imperialist strategists almost certainly understand this. But, they will fight that war when they come to it. Its the woolly minded Liberals, and their co-thinkers on the left, like the AWL, who continually stumble from one misguided adventure to another, believing that this time it will be different. The Left should learn the lessons against that kind of lesser evilism, and popular frontism that repeatedly results in socialists tying themselves to the interests of our class enemies. Our primary task is to fight for and defend the interests of workers, not of bourgeois democracy.