The Queen Is Dead, Long Live The Workers' Socialist Republic

As human beings, let alone as socialists, we should not revel in the death or suffering of another human being, or for that matter another creature. In the words of Terence, "Nothing human is alien to me.” Of course, most of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie do not think that way. They are, frequently, to be seen, at least, acquiescing in death and suffering of others, in pursuit of their own interests, and money making, and glorying in the death and suffering of their class enemies. It is a difference between their morals and ours. So, as human beings, let alone as socialists, we should not revel in the death of Elizabeth Windsor, but nor should we be drawn into all of the sanctimonious pomp, and hypocrisy, and demeaning sycophancy either. It is the death of an old woman, who had a far more privileged life than most. As Sraid Marx wrote in a recent comment,

“Lots of old ladies died yesterday but their person will receive no media gushing.”

But, of course, this was not just the death of any old woman, but of an old woman who, for 70 years, occupied a central position within the British state, as an organ of oppression over the British working-class, and, for more than a decade, still occupied a position as head of a colonial Empire that ruled over, and oppressed, millions of slaves in Africa, before they obtained political independence, via anti-colonial struggles waged, often bitterly, against that British state, over which Elizabeth Windsor presided, as titular head, and, indeed, according to the constitution, whose personal army it was.

And, the job of the monarch, and so of Elizabeth Windsor, during all that time was to defend the interests of the ruling class against the interests of workers, whatever it took, as head of its state.  An example of that was in 1975, when in Australia, the Queen's Representative, Governor General, Sir John Kerr, on the instructions of the Queen, dismissed the Labour Government of Gough Whitlam, and commissioned the right-wing Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as Prime Minister.  It was suggested that part of the reason had also been due to CIA involvement, and pressure on the British government.

But, that was merely a constitutional coup.  Former MI5 spy, Peter Wright, in his book "Spycatcher", sets out the details of what had been known for some time that in 1968, sections of the ruling class had considered an actual military coup agaisnt Harold Wilson's Labour government.  The chosen figurehead for such a coup was the Queen's cousin and close adviser, Lord Mountbatten.  A further such coup was discussed in Wilson's second term in office (1974-6).

Of course, no such coup occurred, but Wilson, was merely, a moderately progressive social-democrat, not a socialist.  He did, of course, stand down abruptly in 1976, and was replaced by the even more right-wing James Callaghan, whose anti-working class policies led to the Winter of Discontent, and prepared the way for Thatcher and 18 years of Tory misrule.  But, can anyone doubt that, had it been even a serious-left-wing, progressive social democrat government, say, something like that of Allende in Chile, that these would have been more than just the plans of a few dozen discontented members of the ruling class, and state, and that an actual coup would have been on the cards?  And, under those conditions, a significant factor becomes the fact that the armed forces answer directly to the Crown, not the government.  What then for the "decency" of the Queen?

So, much as the social pacifists, social chauvinists and social imperialists may wish to gloss over that fact, by their sycophantic talk about what a decent person the Queen was, as against the institution she inhabited, whose functions she performed, and which she defended for 70 years, it is simply not possible to do that. In the 1970's, we used to chant at the police “only doing me job”, as their massed ranks assembled against us, whilst they defended the fascists, or the bosses, by breaking up picket lines. We did so, because, rather like the excuse of the concentration camp guards, whenever questioned about their actions, the stock response was “I'm only doing my job”, as though it was possible to separate that job from them personally, however, amiable and decent they might otherwise have been.

The position of monarch is itself thoroughly indecent, and an insult to basic civilised society.  So, how can anyone who holds and accepts that position, who defends it, promotes it and so seeks its continuance themselves be "decent".  Any decent person would refuse it, and argue for its abolition.

Its a bit like saying that public executioner's are frequently jolly decent chaps, its just that their day job is to routinely kill people they do not know. So, when for example Andrew Coates tells us that he is still a republican and that he is opposed to the institution of the Monarchy, whilst imploring us to accept his claim that the Queen herself was a decent human being, it is impossible to take that claim seriously. It amounts to social pacifism, and social chauvinism and imperialism, seen amongst those sections of the Left, evolving into social cretinism.

It also stands in contrast to the position often encountered from such liberals when it comes to the work of artists of various kinds.  So, they frequently call for the boycotting of the performances of people like Giliad Atzmon, in response to their anti-Semitism.  Here, apparently, it is not possible to separate the job/art from the individual.

Even the revolutionary bourgeoisie, in England, in the 17th century, were able to recognise the impossibility of divorcing the position of monarch from the holder of that position.  They chopped off Charles Stuart's head.  The revolutionary French bourgeoisie did the same thing, when they decapitated Louis XVI, whose predecessor Louis Xiv, had made the position clear in his statement "L'etat, c'est moi" (I am the state).

And, the Bolsheviks knew that even had the Tsar been a "decent human being" - he wasn't he was a vile tyrant - and no matter how decent his children might have been, the reality was that, given half a chance, they would become the figure head and rallying point of all the forces of reaction in Russia, and beyond, who had no qualms about shooting, hanging and otherwise murdering vast numbers of Russian workers who were fighting for their liberation from them.  The reality is that these petty-bourgeois socialists are not only light years away from the Bolsheviks, but they are miles away even from the positions of the revolutionary liberal bourgeoisie of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

When the police or soldiers use the excuse “I'm only doing my job”, its possible to have, at least, a small amount of sympathy for them. They are, frequently, economic conscripts into those jobs, and, for them, they are selling their labour-power as wage labour, the same as if they were selling it to any other employer. Of course, that is not the case either, which is why Marxists do not advocate trades unions for the police or armed forces, because, as the mailed fist, of the capitalist state, their labour-power is not used like that of any other wage labourer, but to directly suppress and oppress the working-class itself, and maintain in place the capitalist state, and, thereby the ruling class, whose state it is.

But, the occupier of the position of monarch is not, by any means, such an economic conscript. Far from it. We are often drowned in claims about what a good job the Queen did, how dedicated she was, and how hard working she was. Well, in that case, why not open up the job to applicants, and see what an avalanche of people put themselves forward for it? Indeed, on that kind of income, with the free houses, the foreign holidays to sunny climes and so on, I'd come out of retirement myself and apply for the job. Of course, I'd then take the several million pounds of income from the first year, and use that first year to campaign for the job itself to be scrapped, before abdicating! Now that would be a "decent" response.

A Windfall Tax On The Queen

Bloomberg's Tom Keene, today, in the midst of all the medieval broo ha ha over the Jubilee asked the question, tongue in cheek, if a windfall tax was going to be imposed on the Queen.  But, its not a bad question.

The Royals, after all, never tire of telling us how much they are really just one of us, even though all the wealth and pageantry that surrounds them tells a very different story, but, if they mean that, then why not from all their vast wealth should they have a windfall tax on them, to help pay for the costs of lockdown, the effects of the economic war against Russia and so on?

Fortunately, around me there seems very little sign of the flummery and cap doffing to an outmoded feudal regime that the media has been trying to engender, but there are one or two houses, where the residents have displayed their ignorance and continued subservience to a bunch of feudal overlords who got to where they are as a result of their ancestors being bigger butches and thieves than their competitors.  In a country that repeatedly talks about its commitment to democracy, and sometimes even equality, and sends its military all over the world to fight battles, supposedly on that basis - a military that still technically belongs to the Monarch - it is grotesque that it supports such an outdated, unelected institution.

Over the last few months, Keir Starmer and the PLP championed the idea of a windfall tax on the big energy companies.  In my earlier post, I set out why that was a bad idea, and does nothing to address the problems of British workers, of inflation, or of high energy prices.  But, if Labour is so keen on the idea, a windfall tax on the Queen, and the rest of the royal parasites seems an obvious choice.  They have plenty of our money appropriated over the centuries to be able to pay it; they are not going to reduce their productive investment in response to it, because they contribute none in the first place; they are not going to shift their operations abroad, because they can't, and although the US frequently is cited as loving them, it undertook a revolution to rid themselves of our Monarchy (George III), and have shown no desire to reinstitute the role themselves.

So, come on Sir Keir, do the decent thing, and follow the logic of your Windfall tax proposals and call for a Windfall tax on the Queen.  What better day than today to do it!? 

Now Sack The Rest

Harry Windsor, and his wife Meghan Markle have decided to step down from their Royal duties, and to finance themselves independently.  Good on them for doing so.  Of course, the difficulty of financing yourself independently is not so hard if you have all the privileges of being part of the Royal Family.  The opportunity to make large sums from writing, or just appending your name to various companies are endless.  Its not the same as trying to make yourself financially independent having just handed in your notice at McDonalds.

The decision seems in part to be down to problems the couple have had inside the Royal Family itself.  That is not surprising.  Markle faced large-scale racist abuse from sections of British society.  Of course, we are still to believe that Britain is an open and welcoming society, with only a few racists in its midst, and not at all a large component of those that voted for Brexit and so on.

The departure of Harry follows on from the sacking of Andrew Windsor following the revelations of his association with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.  That, of course, was not the first scandal to hit the Royal Family, which experiences revelations about its behaviour periodically, and yet still seems to hang on, like a scab to healthy flesh.  This parasitic undemocratic institution should have been consigned to the dustbin of history two centuries ago, when the bourgeois revolutions in other countries got rid of their old aristocracies.

We don't have to resort to the same drastic measures that our predecessors did in that respect.  There is no need to wheel out the guillotine, or the headsman's axe.  We should just invite the rest of this sorry bunch to follow the lead of Harry and Meghan, and fade away into the mists of history.  And, to give them the message, we should start by withdrawing all out financial support to them, and sending them eviction notices for all of the palaces they currently occupy.

Just Abolish The House of Lords

Last Of The Summer Whiners - Campo, Osbourne, and Clegg

All of the news coverage over the spat between the Liberals and their Tory brethren over reform of the House of Lords is hot air.  Its being used by a desperate Liberal-Tory Party to try to portray significant differences between them, and to distract attention from a cratering economy that the Liberal-Tory Government has brought about as a result of their incompetence, and illerate economic policies.

There have been a number of attempts in the last century to reform the House of Lords, all of whih came to nothing.  Part of the reason is the inability to gain a consensus over exactly what that reform should consist of, and what implication an elected second chamber would have for the power of the House of Commons.  Part, however, is due to a series of vested interests.  The Tories are still the Party of the Landed Aristocracy and Bankocracy, as well as the party of the bourgeoisie.  They will not want to attack their friends and relations that occupy the Lords, and continue to enjoy the benefits that come from it, in terms of lucrative positions on Company Boards that pay tens of thousands of pounds without the need to do any work.  The Liberals have always, and continue to have considerable over representation in the Lords.  They will want to ensure that any system adopted continues to protect that position.  For Labour, as with all the other parties, the Lords has been a retirement plan for their senior politicians.  For all of them, the Lords operates as a buffer, a human shield for that other medieval, hereditary institution that none of them will challenge - The Monarchy.

US System ensures only
most bland policies have
a chance of passing.

There are indeed real questions about how you would go about reforming the Lords.  The current proposals certainly are not very democratic.  Only 80% would be elected, with the other twenty percent being appointed, which would, of course, be a means for the Liberals to continue their over representation.  Moreover, the 80 pecent would be elected for a term of fifteen years, which is like a lifetime for a politician, many of whom would already have served terms in the Commons.  This is as close to continuing an hereditary system as you can get.  Even so, it would raise questions about the legitimacy of the House of Commons.  A look at the US, shows what is wrong with having two such chambers.  It is usually the case that in the US, one party controls the Senate, whilst the other controls the House of Representatives.  Even where the same party controls both, frequently the other party controls the Presidency, and rules over minimum majorities further constrict the ability to bring about change.  Only if both parties can agree is it usually possible to bring in new laws quickly, and even for the tweedle dee tweedle dum politics of the US, that means that only the most bland, the least radical measures can be introduced.

The simplest answer is to simply abolish the House of Lords.  There is no need for a second chamber.  One of the arguments for it has been that it can act to revise laws that have been badly drafted or thought out by the House of Commons.  That is an appalling argument!  Imagine on some car production line, where it was argued that for every assembly line worker, it was necessary to employ another worker to check that they had done their work properly, and to correct it if they hadn't!  No business could survive long on that basis.  Yet MP's and Peers get paid, many many times what assembly line workers get paid, who are expected to do their job properly first time or get the sack!  If this is the mentality of politicians, then its no wonder that every thing the Capitalist State gets involved in ends up being bureaucratic, inefficient, and hugely expensive.

And, that is the answer to incompetent MP's.  If they do a bad job, then it is up to us the electors to give them the sack, not for some of their mates to be lucratively paid to cover their backs.  If we had Annual Elections as the Chartists demanded, if we had the right to recall MP's if we thought individually they were doing a bad job - as they have the right to do in the US - then we could make sure the politicians got their finger out, and did their job properly.  And, if they can't then it clearly means we need to bring forward new, different politicians of our own who can.

Tyranny As Well As Tyrants Come To Britain

Not content with inviting a host of tyrants be they fellow Monarchs, or just the run of the mill dictatorial equivalent, all with blood on their hands, to attend the Royal Wedding of Britain's own symbol of privilege and medievalism, the same kinds of police state tyranny common in those countries also came to Britain yesterday.

Hat tip to James Bloodworth, for this story. According to RT, today a UK peace activist was also arrested in the dawn raids that the Metropolitan Police launched to round up anyone they thought might use thier democratic right to voice their disaproval of the day's events, and thereby destroy the carefully constructed consenus view of the British love of everything feudal.

RT also reported in their TV coverage that this person's girlfriend had tried to find out what had happened to him, but he seemed to have disappeared into the bowels of the Met.

According, to the Guardian,at the same time that Chris Knight and others, who were intending to stage a mock guillotining,were arrested, a Channel 4 News crew who were filming the Unofficial Royal Wedding, had some of their equipment confiscated.

RT, also interviewed a former MI5 intelligence officer, ­Annie Machon, who said she found the police action in mounting dawn raids very disturbing, and compared it with the actions of the authorities in Syria.

The reason such measures are needed is apparent. There is a lot of the Emperor's New Clothes about the British attitude to the Monarchy. No one wants to be seen to be standing out against something, which we are told is such a popular institution. Opinion polls show around 70% support for the Monarchy. Yet, opinion polls done by Newsnight prior to the wedding showed a majority of people had no interest in it. That is apparent from the lack of support despite massive prompting, for people to engage in street parties. Yesterday, I made a point of going out for a nice walk to avoid all the crass news coverage, and was pleased to find as I walked over the M6 bridge that the motorway was full of other people who had found better things to do with a Bank Holiday. Indeed, as I walked around the Park that was formerly part of the estate of the Duke of Sutherland, there was no shortage of people there enjoying the Spring sunshine.

But, you would not have thought that possible had you watched some of the talking heads over the last few days like Simon Schama who came out with the most abysmal apologism for the Monarchy on Newsnight, or if you'd listened to the garbage spouted by the awful Richard Madeley and Judy Finnegan on "This Week". Its interesting that the Monarchists quickly go on to the defensive, however, especially with the favourite "But they bring in lots of money from Tourism" line. No they don't! I'm going to do a separate blog post nailing that argument, but for now I'll summarise it like this.

Most tourists, like most British people never see the Queen! So, she can't be the cause of the Tourism. But, if the argument were correct, here's a thought. When she dies, why don't we have her stuffed, and mummified and stuck in a glass case like Stalin did with Lenin.

The, like Lenin, she might really be a tourist attraction. In that way, we don't need any future Monarchs as she'd remain in that state for decades, if we got the Russians to provide us with their expertise. We could house the glass exhibit case in Buckingham Place, and make it completely open to the Public. We could then give the other Royals a job on Minimum Wage as Tour guides, and ticket sellers. In fact, if we really want the Royals to be a Tourist attraction, why don't we open Buck House completely on that basis with the Queen doing book signings and autographs for people on the door?

After all we keep being told that the main reason for their existence is as tourist attractions don't we?

Pope And Circumstance

Its not surprising that the BBC is reporting that Catholic Church leaders in the UK are arguing that it is right that British Taxpayers Should Pay For The Pope's Visit, despite the fact that only a small minority of people in Britain beleive in any kind of God, and an even smaller number than that are Catholics! After all, every Church exists by leaching off ordinary people.

At a time when we are being told that "There Is No Alterantive" but to reduce the Public Sector Deficit, £12m is to be taken out of Public Funds to cover the Pope's visit. An online poll found 80% of people had no interest in the visit, and even a majority of Catholics have little interest, as the take-up over tickets for his meeting in Birmingham demonstrates. 77% of people said that taxpayers should not pay any part of the cost. This is a Government, which also says it wants to have local referendums to veto Council spending. To be consistent, it should listen to the majority of people who oppose any money coming out of Public Funds for this visit.

One argument put forward was that it is a State visit, and that the Pope was invited by the Queen as Head of State. No one is saying he shouldn't come, though I think he should be made as unwelcome here as any other reactionary, but if the Queen has invited him, let her share the cost of his visit with him, not us. Its a bit like your neighbour inviting round some one, holding a raucous party that keeps you awake all night, and takes up all the parking places in the street, and then sending you the bill!

But, the argument about State visit is in any case a crock. He isn't coming here as the Head of State of the Vatican, but as the Pope, as the head of a religious movement, that is as reactionary as every other religious movement. The Vatican only exists as a State, because the Catholic Church did a deal with Mussolini, to provide him with backing in return for that concession. That in itself shows just what the morality of this organisation is. It is the same organisation that did deals with Hitler to feather its own nest. It is the same organisation that has engaged in, and then tried to cover up some of the worst cases of child abuse in history. If it were any other organisation its leaders would have been in gaol, and some would have faced War Crimes trials.

Demonstrate Tomorrow - Cut The Monarchy

"Tomorrow morning we'll be meeting outside Buckingham palace for a demonstration against increasing royal costs at a time of sweeping public spending cuts.

We'll meet at the corner of Buckingham Gate, across the road from the palace (if you're standing outside the gates looking at the palace the meeting point is off to the left) at 10:30am. Wear something purple/pink if you have it and feel free to bring your own placard, although some will be provided.

If you're unsure whether you can make it for 10:30 have my number to hand and give me a call to check where we are when you arrive. We may move over to Canada Gate later on. My number is 07747 608 770.

If you're coming, I'll see you there!

If you can't make it to the demo there are other things you can do, such as write to your paper in response to the annual report, or join online debates about the cost of the royals. And of course you can always make a donation to Republic at Republic"

Graham Smith
Republic

At a time when low paid Public Sector workers are being told that they will lose their jobs, and/or have their pay and pensions slashed, the Monarchy continues to cost us millions of pounds a year! The media spin the info, telling us that they cost us only 65p each. But, I wouldn't mind being given 65p by 60 million people, if the work I had to do in return was swank around in the most expensive Council House in the world, swan around sunny climes when its cold back in Britain, get invited to all the best parties, and free admittance to all the world's major events. Not content with that some of the Royals even charge half a million quid to get rich businessmen one to one chats with Prince Andrew according to the Sunday Papers. In China that kind of corruption would get you shot. It you are an MP it gets you rightly vilified by the press, media, and populace and possibly brought up in front of a Court.

At a time when the Liberal-Tories are telling us that they are going to clean up politics, that we are all in this together, and that they are going to introduce greater democracy, they stand firm in defence of the most grotesque affront to democracy and fairness there could possibly be. They tell the unemployed that they must get on their bike to find rapidly diminishing jobs, as the Liberal-Tories under Prince Osborne, and His Eminence Cable, do everything in their power to bring about a return of the 1930's. But, the Royals have no such problem, they simply inherit their jobs no matter how stupid they are, no matter how insane they are, no matter how incompetent they are. And if they decide not to bother that is no problem either, because they have inherited wealth from their families who in turn got it from robbing our ancestors down through the ages. At a time when the Liberal-Tories tell us they want to do something about crime to show it doesn't pay, the Monarchy shows eactly the opposite. When the Liberal-Tories tell us they want to cut down on violence from street gangs they fawn before a Royal Family that owes its position, and its wealth to the fact that its ancestors were bigger thieves and murderers, than any of the other gangs of arsitocratic thieves and murderers. They are a living example that if you want to be rich and powerful, you do not have to learn, or train, or work hard, or be inventive, you just have to have the toughest, roughest, biggest most powerful gang in the country. And having used it you can then use the same methods to rob, rape, pillage and murder every otehr country that takes your fancy.

That is the message the Royals give to society. If they are a roll model no wonder so many of our youth are turning to the same methods on a miniature scale, as capitalism proves incapble of educating them, or providing them with anyhting to look forward to. The best piece of education, the best example the Government and the older generation can give to our youth, is to scrap the Monarchy, and everything it stands for.

Chinese Workers And The State - Part 5

Social Transformation

The 1917 Revolution in Russia, was a proletarian political revolution carried through with the support of a Peasant War. In that respect it was similar to the English Civil War. Both were premature revolutions carried through by political elites with the backing of a small, weak revolutionary class, and a large peasantry in rebellion against an oppressive autocratic regime. In both cases, the political leadership comes from a determined minority that has glimpsed the future destiny of the revolutionary class they represent.

Unfortunately, in neither case is that revolutionary class sufficiently developed, economically and socially powerful enough, or sufficiently conscious of its class interests, or historic role to be able to fulfil its destiny at that time. It can overthrow the old society, but cannot create a new one. Unable to rule politically in its own name, that function passes initially to the elite which acted as its spearhead, and then to the State itself, which rises up above the contending classes.

In China, a premature Proletarian Political Revolution is again carried through by a political elite that mobilises a large Peasantry through a Peasant War. Whereas in Russia this political elite commences the revolution in the honest belief that the forces it is setting in motion will assume the reigns of power – as did Cromwell – the experience of that revolution, and assumption of power by the bureaucratic state apparatus conveys the idea to those elites established in its image that the tasks of this revolution can only be accomplished by such an elite acting to control and manipulate the masses.

In this respect it is like the transformations carried through on behalf of the bourgeoisie in Germany, France and elsewhere by a bureaucratic state apparatus. In both these cases the lessons of the industrialisation in England are learned, and the perceived weakness of the bourgeoisie to efficiently carry through such a transformation is overcome by this bureaucratic state. In England, the Political Revolution is carried through by an elite on behalf of a revolutionary class, who subsequently lose power back to the old rulers.

The process of economic and social transformation, however, continues through a prolonged period of class struggle, during which the Capitalist forms of property have to prove their superiority over the feudal forms. Two hundred years pass between the initial Political Revolution, and the eventual economic and social domination of industrial Capital. But, once achieved the force of that dominance asserts its historical power. In the words of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto,

“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”

In fact, as Engels was to admit later at the time of this writing the only country to which this properly applied was England. But, the words here apply equally to France and Germany, and the United States, and later Japan in terms of the need to industrialise “..the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary” as Engels had put it. And this nature of the social transformation, of an economic and social transformation, from the beginning, by a bureaucratic State under the political domination of the old ruling class is what gives these transformations their specific character, and also explains the subsequent character of the Capitalist regimes established within them, regimes in which the State continued to play a more central, and directing role.

Where in England the bourgeois political revolution had given way to the restoration, and only after a long period of class struggle, and the eventual absorption of the old ruling class into the bourgeoisie, gives way once again to bourgeois political rule, in France and Germany under Louis Napoleon and Bismark there is no further restoration because the old ruling class in these countries is itself forced to carry through that transformation, via the bureaucratic state, on pain of their own extinction at the hands of British Capital.

In China as in Russia, the tasks of industrialisation are carried through by a bureaucratic State apparatus, but a bureaucratic state apparatus not of the old ruling class, but one that rests upon the social power of the revolutionary class, and the peasantry. The difference here with the transformations in France and Germany is that they sought only to effect an industrialisation as part of a bourgeois revolutionary economic and social transformation.

Both of these societies had reached a stage where such a transformation was not only possible, but overdue. Not as overdue as Engels believed, however, who mistakenly felt that the bourgeoisie was rising in Germany at the very moment when it was in the descendant in Britain! In both cases an existing exploiting class could effect a de facto alliance with the new exploiting class in order to bring that transformation about, as was happening by that time in Britain itself.

In Russia and China no such alliance between the existing ruling class, and the revolutionary class could be effected for the purpose of this transformation, precisely because the working-class is not an exploiting class. In conditions where these societies were barely capable of a bourgeois transformation, and rapid industrialisation – both societies would have likely succumbed to imperialist domination had their respective revolutions not occurred – it was not likely that the socialist transformation of these societies, which was the prospectus upon which they had been undertaken would be possible.

As Engels described this situation in his The Peasant War in Germany,

“The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost. We have seen examples of this in recent times. We need only be reminded of the position taken in the last French provisional government by the representatives of the proletariat, though they represented only a very low level of proletarian development. Whoever can still look forward to official positions after having become familiar with the experiences of the February government — not to speak of our own noble German provisional governments and imperial regencies — is either foolish beyond measure, or at best pays only lip service to the extreme revolutionary party.”

Back To Part 4

Forward To Part 6

Breathtaking!

Last night's "Newsnight" illusttrated what I feared might be the case with the "PM TV debates". Last year I wrote about The Commoditisation of Politics. For some time, Newsnight has had a "Politics Panel", made up of people who are not themselves politicians, or even Political Philosophers. They are people who would be at home in the political equivalent of the series "Mad Men", that is they are people whose job it has been to sell politicians in the same way that advertising agencies sell soap powder. And we should remember that the job of an advertising agency is to help sell the product whether it is good or bad, whether it does what it claims or not. Yet, there is wonder that there is disillusionment amongst the electorate!

In the last few months, things have got worse with the media now focussing on the "Leader's Wives" as much as on the policies of the contending parties. Of course, this kind of trivia is bound to come to hold centre stage the more actual policy differences between the parties are eroded. It is why in the US politics is almost entirely fought out on those grounds. As the Doc says to Marty McFly in the first "Back To The Future", having seen his video and realising the role that TV had assumed, "No wonder your Presideent has to be an actor". But, a dialectical process is at work here with strong positive feedback loops. In economic theory we know that large businesses use Game Theory to guide their action. It leads them to avoid taking big risks, and to increasingly converge their products around what market research shows to be a safe bet. We see the same thing amongst the main political parties, who have used similar methods of focus groups etc. to identify what messages are most popular with voters. Parties that seek to "sell" a message outside that safe ground will find themselves marginalised, confined to being "niche" players and so on. But, the more the main parties strengthen their oligopoly, the more like the makers of soap powder, they will be forced to compete not on the actual product, but on its packaging and the way it is presented.

But, Newsnight surpassed itself last night in its coverage. In addition to the "Politics Panel", we were treated to the musings of a "Body Language Expert". She declared that Cameron's decision to stand back from the lectern was "breathtaking", because it set him apart from the other two, made him appear to stand apart and above them. It was so brethtaking that I hadn't even noticed he'd done it! And that was certainly not because I was distracted from noticing such astounding and significant events, by the riveting comments that were being advanced, and which were after all supposed to be why we were watching, rather than to notice what colour tie the participants were wearing, what typue of suit, if they were sweating, or other irrelevant trivia for anytne wanting to be able to come to a decision on the politics of the contenders. No, it was boring. For anyone with a passing interest in politics there was nothing that came out of this debate that you wouldn't already have known from simply watching the news for the last year or so, or reading a paper other than a tabloid - even reading a tabloid like the mirror might have told you as much as you learned rom this debate.

In that respect, the debate of the Chancellors was perhaps more informative, though not much. The BBC have, however, been running some "Town Hall" debates in various areas, where local candidates have been questioned. To my mind they are far more significant, because for one thing the focus in these is far more on the actual debate than on the candidates, what they were wearing and so on, precisely because the candidates are not seen as "personalities" or celebrities in the way that the leaders are. As I argued last year, if the leaders debates, provoke debates amongst other politicians, including a return to the kind of hustings that used to be a feature of British elections, then that will have been a good thing. But, I doubt that will be the case. Instead we are likely to see it proceed further into the realm of being televisual spectacular.

For one thing, in last night's debate I was struck by how much Alistair Stewart sounded like the bloke who calls out the contestants names on Univesity Challenge, with increasing urgency as the contest progresses. Their was a version of the old "Clapometer" that was a feature of Hughie Green's "Opportunity Knocks", in the form of the "Worm", which apparently showed how much the audience liked what was being said by each contestant. I was almsot expeecting the programme to end with a comment like, "But, its your vote at home that counts folks" followed by an invitation to ring an ITV premium rate number to register your vote ending with "1" for Brown, "2" for Clegg, and "3" for Cameron, and with the option to eject one of the contestnts from the next debate. No doubt that will be introduced in future years when the programmes have been franchised out to Simon Cowell.

For a long time, there has been complaints that Britain was developing a political system in which the Government had too much power over Parliament, and that the Prime Minister had too much power over the Government. In short that we were developing towards a Presidential rather than Parliamentary system. Indeed, to hear the comments complaining that Gordon Brown was never elected - of course he was, he was elected by the electors of his Constitituency, and he was elected unopposed under the rules as Labour Leader, and as there is no actual position of Prime Minister in the British Constitution, it is only the title assumed by the Leader of the Governing party he was "elected" into that position too - most people seem to beleive that we already do have a presidential system. If that is what is intended then we should at least do it consistently. Labour and the Liberals are proposing continuing the bouregois revolution by scrapping the hereditary Peers, and making the House of Lords an elected Chamber. The Tories are proposing continuing the bouregois revolution by introducing elected Police Chiefs and so on. Socialists should support both, whilst pointing out that such measures still do not represent consistent democracy so long as ordinary working people are excluded from real power in society.

But, the most obvious continuation of the bourgeois revolution if we are to move towards a Ppresidentiail system, would be to scrap that most grotesque remnant of feudl society, that greatest afrront to the principle of democracy, that greatest example of an expenses scandal - the Monarchy. Yet, not only have the press and media in all of the furore of the expenses scandal said nothing about the vast sums wasted on supporting an already rich coterie of people who scrounge off the rest of society, but none of them or the political parties have even so much as raised the question of if we are indeed "all in this together", if low paid Public sector workers are to lose their jobs, if they are to have their wages cut, their pensions reduced and so on, isn't it time to sack the most expensive Public sector "workers", the Queen and her Family. Could they not at least show some community spirit by agreeing to no longer leach off the taxpayer, and instead pay their own way? After all in Presidential systems the President holds the position that the Monarch holds in Britain, not the Prime Minister. Instead of cutting the number of MP's by 10% - MP's who for whatever we might think of them, do actually perform a function in dealing with Constituents problems - and thereby cutting the service provided to Constituents, the Tories would be far more consistent in what they say if they made the most obvious saving on waste, by promising to abolish the Monarchy as soon as they were elected. Of course, none of them will propose any such thing.

Of course, what the Worm actually showed was that Clegg got most support, and got the best ratings when he was slagging off the other two parties - ironically slagging them off for slagging off each other - which only means that the frustration that voters feel at the two main parties for being identical, and offering them no real solutions led them to react sympathetically when that was voiced for them. Clegg was just their feelings being expressed vicariously. It doesn't mean that they actually support Clegg, because anyone wwith a brain, anyone who has witnessed the activities of the LibDems when they have been in ppower at a local level knows that, however, much they try to present themselves as "new" or different, they are far from it.

What it does show IS the need for a new politics. Anyone trying to fight on the old basis of simply presenting a set of ideas at election times that are outside that safe centre ground around which the "market" for ideas has been shaped by the existing oligopolies will fail. New ideas can only win traction in practice, in providing real solutions for ordinary working people as and when they need them, to deal with immediate situations. That is the case on the shopfloor, and in the local communities. But, that can't be done on an ad hoc basis. The kind of individualistic political activities then many have sunk their energies into as an alternative to involvement in mainstream politics can never provide a sustainable solution. As an environmental activist, you might stop a new road - but chances are you won't - but, only to see another road proosed elsewhere. You might have a succesful campaign to stop your local school closing, but only to see another school closed instead, or to see the proposal raised again later. More importantly, success in any one of these areas does not carry over into strength and success in other areas. In order for that to happen more generalised bases of power for ordinary working people are required, and within those more generalised structures, a coherent programme has to be fought for by socialists.

The Door Opens a Crack

As a result of a Freedom of Information request, the BBC is to publish the salaries and expenses of its top 100 executives. BBC Expenses . That is a start. But, why only the top 100 executives, why only the BBC. Over the last few weeks there has been a feeding frenzy in the newspapers and TV about MP's expenses, but in reality those expenses claims, disgusting as they are, are small fry compared to the millions of pounds in expenses that go to the really rich and powerful in British Society.

As I reported in my blog Greed Is Not The Problem , according the the Financial Times,

“The UK parliament has been humiliated by an expenses scandal of Augean stench, prompting Martin Bell, an anti-sleaze campaigner, to suggest such abuses could never occur in the business world. “If our cabinet ministers worked for a private company or public corporation, half of them would be out of a job this morning,” he said. “They would have been shown the door. Their employers might then call in the police.” Sadly, he is wrong. Shareholders are taken for a far bigger ride by their C-suites than UK taxpayers are by their MPs.

Shareholders have little insight into the perquisites enjoyed by executives: the jets, country club memberships and season tickets are never disclosed in remuneration reports. Every so often, daylight reveals shocking shareholder-funded extravagance. Ex-Tyco boss Dennis Kozlowski, for example, supplied himself with a $15,000 umbrella stand, a $17,000 “travelling toilette box” and $2,200 wastebasket. More recently, opponents of John Thain leaked to the media that the one-time chief executive of Merrill Lynch had treated himself to a $1.2m office makeover, with $87,000 rugs, $25,000 pedestal table and $68,000 credenza. But for every case that makes headlines, thousands do not. Which accounts department queries the spa treatment in the boss’s hotel bill or questions helicopter trips to far-off golf courses?

C-suites around the world are, with few exceptions, hypocritical in the extreme, demanding austerity from workforces while living high on the hog themselves.”

Last week, we saw that the expenses for Prince of Wales had risen last year by a whacking 25%. The defence given for that is that it was for travel abroad he had been asked to undertake by the Government. But, does that travel require all the undoubted trimmings that go with it??? I hear that you can get to most places in the world quite reasonably on Easy Jet, and other similar airlines!

The MP's are nonentities in all this, they are in reality like the bloke down the line in a company who gets the blame that should go to the top bosses! That a Freedom of Information request has been made to the BBC to open the books on their affairs is a start. But, the only reason this has happened is because the BBC is Public Corporation. Private companies are protected against such disclosure by the laws on commercial confidentiality. The law should be changed so that we can see what these executives get and claim - indeed even the ordinary shareholders ought to want this information too! - and what links they have to otehr organisations that affect our lives, and frame our ideas.

After all, one of the BBC's newsreaders, when challenged by an MP, admitted she was paid £92,000 a year, or half as much again as an MP!! Actually, we ought to question for doing what. £92,000 a year seems a hell of a lot of money to sit and read an autocue of questions, and statements - especially when for some reason nowadays it takes two people at the same time to read thee News! - especially when they are the same bits of news repeated ad nauseum every 15 minutes! We know that the BBC screens its journalists before they are employed to make sure tht the vast majority are acceptable to the status quo, could it be one reason for such high salaries is to ensure that these important information formers know which side of the bread is buttered? But, I don't want to pick on the BBC, the connections of journalists in the Capitalist media with big business is also well-known.

Most people are pushed o know who their own MP is let alone other MP's, fewer still actually understand what they stand for in detail. Yet most people know the newsreaders who are on our screens everyday, for many hours of the day. They are "celebrities". And these people, day in day out provide us with the information on which we judge those lower paid politicians! Should we not know their affairs in at least as much detail as those of the MP's. We should have a register of interets for the top journalists like that for politicians. Like politicians every time there is something they are speaking on, in which they have some connection, they should have to declare an interest, and we should have a full list of their salaries and expenses, as well as details of what companies they and their close family have any connection with.

Kick Out The Monarchy

The anti-Monarchist organisation Republic has an online petition for the abolition of the Monarchy. I’d recommend every socialist sign it. Here: Take Action .

I don’t agree with all of the politics presented by Republic; I don’t think there is a need for an elected Head of State, for instance, any more than an elected House of Lords. Bourgeois democracy would be just as well served by an elected House of Commons unrestricted by the blocking powers of other Chambers. But, even within the restricted confines of bourgeois democracy, much more would be required. In the US, Senators can be recalled as happened a few years ago in California. It is also a basic element of democracy in Venezuela, so there is no reason not to have such accountability written into the British political system. In the US, the top Civil Servants are brought in by the elected politicians. Although, given the right-wing nature of all elected US politicians this means a right-wing bureaucracy to go with it – that is no different that the political complexion of the bourgeois state in every country. What it does mean, though, is that, if an when some Left-wing government were elected it would have the Constitutional right to bring in its own staff, thereby helping to overcome the natural opposition such a Government would face from the full-time permanent staff of the bourgeois state.

The same thing applies to all those other state officials – the Judges, the Police Chiefs, the Military Top Brass should all be subject to election, as well as there being far greater democracy within the armed forces and Police forces. In fact, in the US the bourgeois Constitution sets down the right to bear arms of all Citizens as part of a properly constituted Citizen Militia. Given the current economic situation it would be far more effective to scrap the standing army, and all the other paraphernalia of Imperial ambitions, and to set up and train the whole population to defend itself.

Alan Johnson has called for a referendum on electoral reform in relation to Proportional Representation. Good, the current First past the Post system amounts to nothing more than ballot-rigging and fraud. The argument that it ensures the election of a strong government has nothing to do with democracy. On that basis you could justify a one party state, or a Dictatorship! But, simply introducing PR is no good on its own, and some of the other suggestions like introducing US style “Primaries”, would be a step backwards. IN the US the system of Primaries is a farce, with supporters of one party registering as supporters of the other simply in order to vote to get the least electable candidate selected!!! However, the underlying principle that there should be a huge increase in the democratic base of those participating in the selection process cannot be gainsaid. It will mean that the Left will have to abandon its sectarian fantasies, and begin the job that Marx set out – to win the battle of democracy within the working class, by relating to and providing practical and immediate solutions to workers problems as opposed to fantastic visions of some far off socialist society or socialist revolution.

On “Question Time” this week, Ben Bradshaw spoke out against the House of lords, saying that there is no place in the 21st Century, for the Hereditary Principle. He restricted that to just the House of Lords, but if it applies to the Lords it applies to the Monarchy even more so. We should simply abolish both. The left, once again looking to its own narrow interests is looking to milk the MP’s expenses scandal to the utmost. That is most marked by the attitude of No2EU. In doing so it is missing a huge opportunity. The majority of the population are furious over that scandal, but it comes on top of the even bigger scandal of the Banker’s Bonuses. As I said in my recent blog, Greed Is Not The problem even that is small beer compared to the millions of pounds leached away by the top bosses in their own expenses scandals, expenses that drain the profits of the companies we work for, the companies whose profits should go as dividends to our pension funds, and whose profits should also finance the taxes for the Capitalist State. The Torygraph have opened a Pandora’s Box on the corruption that is endemic and inherent in the way the Capitalist system works, socialists should be throwing the lid of that box wide open not allowing workers to only glimpse into it so far as the issue of MP’s expenses.