The Brexit Nightmare (5)

One clear example of the Brexit nightmare is the cost of leaving crisis it has created, as food and energy prices have risen, at least partly due to the depreciation of the Pound following Brexit.  The other causes, as I have set out elsewhere, is the huge amounts of money tokens that central banks have injected, causing inflation, as well as NATO's boycott of Russian energy and food exports.  Yet, despite the fact that an increasing proportion of voters see that, and now want to re-join the EU, none of the main parties are even offering them that option!

The Tories are trapped by their own history, and by the fact that they need to at least maintain the support of their core, petty-bourgeois membership and voter base, to avoid a total wipe-out in the coming elections.  Starmer in typical opportunist mode is also seeking to win over the votes of any bigots and assorted reactionaries he can get, by trying to present himself as a bigger jingo than the the Tories, but why on Earth are the Liberals not utilising their own unique selling point, of their long-standing opposition to Brexit, and support for the EU.

The reason is again opportunism, and tailism.  Bourgeois politicians be it Starmer or Davey, always follow along some distance behind the cohort of voters they seek to attract.  They are called "Leaders", but its a gross misnomer.  They do not lead anything as far as promoting ideas is concerned, but only follow the herd, and at times like this, when the herd turns, they are always in danger of being caught in the stampede, and trampled under foot.

The Brexit Nightmare (4)

Brexit has been a nightmare.  What is more, those that proposed it, and lied about all the advantages it would bring are now having to admit its been a nightmare, whilst covering themselves by saying, as Farage and Widdicombe have claimed that Brexit has not happened.

As I set out, yesterday, there is truth to that, because, in fact, the Brexit they described, in which Britain would have all the same advantages it had as an EU member would continue outside the EU, but with none of the costs or responsibilities was always a lie, and impossible to achieve.  When Starmer today tells the same lies, today, in talking about renegotiating Brexit, getting a Labour Brexit, and other such cakeist nonsense, its still a lie.

Some people have compared it to communists who argue that the issue is not with communism as an ideal, but the fact that Russia was not communist.  In fact, its a fair comparison, because Marxists always said, from the beginning, that you can't have "Socialism In One Country", especially in a backward country like Russia in 1917.  Those, the Stalinists, but a similar argument is also the basis of social-democracy, as a national ideology, like the Brexiters sold a lie when they claimed that their version of Socialism/communism was possible to achieve in one country, and so, the defence of Socialism/communism on the basis that it wasn't the idea that was flawed, but its implementation in Russia, is also a crock.  As Lenin and Trotsky pointed out, you could never have implemented it within the confines of a single country.  Had Lenin and Trotsky been in charge, not Stalin, it would still have failed without an international revolution.

The problem, similarly, for the Brexiters is not as Farage and Widdicombe, or those like the Nat. C's, now argue that its failure is down to the Tory politicians implementing it, which included them too, like Boris Johnson, and more disastrously still Liz Truss, but that their concept of Brexit was never going to implemented, and never could be implemented!  What is more of a disaster, however, is that Starmer has taken over from them in selling that lie.  So, why, then, does Owen Jones, who in the video below, sets out some of the same arguments I have described above, say he agrees with Starmer in not pushing rejoining the EU?

Of course, Starmer does not argue for rejoining the EU, because not only has he become an ardent Brexiter, saying not only that he will not seek to re-join the EU or even the Single Market, but also not even free movement, but has become also an ardent petty-bourgeois nationalist, monarchist and advocate of every other reactionary idea dredged up from the depths of society imaginable.  Jones tries to justify Starmer's Brexitism, as being somehow tactically astute, avoiding the ability of the Tories to consolidate their core vote on the basis of pointing to a Labour victory opening the door to Bre-entry.  That's nonsense.

Its not only unprincipled opportunism, but even in terms of opportunism, its electorally stupid.  A clear majority now actively favour re-joining the EU, so failing to argue for it, potentially loses you their votes.  Even a sizeable proportion of Brexiters realise they were lied to, and that its been a disaster, even though the full effects of that nightmare have been hidden by the three years of lockdowns, and are yet to become manifest.  The Tories what ever Starmer says, will lie about him seeking to re-join, combined with the SNP and Liberals, and as Labour is unlikely to have a clear majority those arguments will become stronger.

But, Jones, himself starts by saying that he likes politicians to keep their promises.  In that case, if Starmer goes into the election saying he will not re-join the EU, Single market, or negotiate free movement, doesn't that mean Jones should then also want Starmer to keep to that promise, putting Jones himself into that Brexit supporting, reactionary nationalist camp?  Othewwise what he is saying is that he wants Starmer to be lying about his real intentions.  But, Starmer isn't lying.  He doesn't intend to re-join and so on, because he has himself collapsed into reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalism and jingoism.

All that Jones is doing is giving left cover to Starmer's reactionary nationalism, dressing it up as some clever strategic electoral manoeuvre, which it isn't, and which will inevitably, then, result in further confusion, disillusion and demoralisation.  You do not ultimately win political arguments by running away from them on the basis of fear about how your opponents might use you them, in the short-run, for their own immediate electoral advantage.  That is to let you class enemy determine your own programme.  Its necessary to argue your position honestly, accepting that you may not immediately win majority support for it.  But, that is also where the idiocy of the opportunists lies, today, because reality itself has done the job.  A clear majority, now, do see that Brexit was the nightmare they were told it would be.

Predictions For 2022 - Prediction 2 – Populism Is Put In Retreat

Prediction 2 – Populism Is Put In Retreat

As I said in my review of 2021 predictions, this was, in fact, born out, last year. Yet, for the same reasons that other predictions were held back, even this was not as fully developed as it would have been had lockdowns and lockouts not been used to slow economic expansion. Because I expect that economic expansion in 2022 is not going to be held back by such means, I expect the processes described to now move forward much faster.

In my review of 2021 predictions, I noted, in respect of this prediction, the comments of Trotsky about the role of economic expansions in enabling the working-class to feel more confident, to raise its consciousness and rebuild its organisations.

“In other words, workers higher living standards are not a consequence of their increased militancy and trades union organisation, but the increased organisation and militancy is itself the consequence of their higher living standards, which themselves result from the economic expansion, and demand for labour. The economic revival that got underway in 2021, was the material basis for such a change, and the further undermining of populism.”

It can be seen in the US, for example, in the growth of trades union organisation, with workers at McDonalds, and elsewhere starting to get organised. Populism thrives in conditions where workers are isolated, and all of the subjective factors that encourage individualism thrive. It reduces large numbers to being an amorphous mass prone to be influenced by direct appeals from elites via charismatic leaders offering easy solutions, solutions which are to be provided from on high by such leaders via government. In conditions where such masses are encouraged to see catastrophe and crisis around every corner, it is the kind of Hobbesian world, in which they are led to abandon their own self-activity, their own self-government and control, and even their own liberty, in return for the protection of the sovereign.

In previous times, there were plenty of real such threats, be it widespread poverty, unemployment, or war - in the 20th century, two world wars, 20 years of economic crisis and stagnation in the 1920's, and 30's, lack of even basic social security.  But, in developed economies, for the large majority of society, those threats have not been present, for the last 60 years. Welfare states were created, which for all their faults, provide a minimum level of social security;  prices of staple items like food have fallen massively in real terms, continental wars have been avoided.  Even in terms of the threat from terrorism, it is grossly inflated compared to previous conditions. The Provisional IRA, in the 1970's and 80's, was able to set off effective bombs in Ireland and Britain, without requiring its own members to blow themselves up in the process. Today's terrorists are as likely to kill themselves as they are to kill anyone else, and, even then, they fail to come anywhere close to the effectiveness of the IRA. So, instead, new crises have to be fabricated, be it climate crises, COVID or whatever, and in a world in which we have 24 hour news media, where the distinction between news and entertainment has disappeared, every event has to be turned into something unprecedented, and sensational.

The reality is that the majority of people in developed countries have lives today that, in the past, would have led them to be thankful for their uneventfulness. In fact, that is so to an extent to which all past conditions which would have caused people to take some responsibility for their own lives and actions, both individually and collectively, has simply led people to believe they no longer have to take such responsibility. It is heard in the much repeated mantra of “someone should do something”, as against the idea that “I” or “We” should do something. The now perennial news stories about flooding of properties, in Britain, is a good example. We are encouraged to see such events in the framework of climate crisis, rather than in the much more obvious framework that such flooding is what naturally happens when builders are allowed, and economically encouraged, to build large numbers of houses in flood plains. But, the clue is also in the description, and it is also, then, a consequence of people who have been gradually led into a mindset that they do not have to take any responsibility for their actions, who then buy houses in places where it is fairly obvious they are likely to be flooded, and then expect others to, literally, bail them out!

Possibly, humans need such expectation of impending doom, because although prolonged stress leads to damagingly high levels of adrenalin, and cortisol, the body also requires periodic production of these hormones for its healthy functioning. There is a reason that people seek out thrills on roller-coasters, or horror movies.  However, it is this same catastrophism, and conditioning to the prospect of impending crisis that states have been encouraged to develop, as a means of controlling populations, but also which enables populists to create their own narratives, and to offer their own snake oil solutions. The idea that tens of millions of Turks were going to flood into Britain without Brexit was one such example. But, the same narrative lies behind all of the Malthusian catastrophism that climate change is going to displace millions of people from across the world, all of whom are going to flood into Northern developed countries. In fact, nothing of the kind is likely, and given that we have ageing populations, in nearly all developed economies, with birth rates failing to be sufficient to maintain population size, without immigration, any such movement, over the proposed timescale, would be beneficial rather than a cause of crisis.

The main weakness, in rolling back the advance of the populists, is the role of conservative social-democracy. It continues to aim its fire to its Left rather than its Right, a feature of such political forces throughout history. But, as economic expansion occurs the material basis of that conservative social-democracy is itself undermined, in the same way it was prior to its resurgence over the last period, and which enabled the rise of Corbyn, and of progressive social-democrats in the US, and elsewhere. The same material conditions that will undermine asset prices, and so the power of fictitious capital, and so of its political representatives, will strengthen the power of real, large-scale socialised capital, and so of progressive social-democracy, which is its political reflection. The same process will undermine the petty-bourgeoisie that has grown over the last 40 years, and was the basis of the growth of populism. The effects of lockdowns will accelerate that process, as we come out of them. Many of the small capitals will be crushed, and their owners driven into the ranks of the proletariat, whilst a small number will be able to grow by taking over the capital and market share of their erstwhile competitors, elevating them into the ranks of the bourgeoisie proper.

Whether this or that populist movement, in this or that country, moves forward or backwards will be a matter of the specific conditions in each country, including the role played by the various political parties themselves, but understanding that these parties are not themselves monoliths, but also coalitions. The point, being made is only that which a materialist can make, which is that, as economic activity increases, the factors which enable the advance of workers position, organisation and consciousness are strengthened, and those factors, particularly the self-organisation and collective activity of the workers, undermines the power of populism. In economies across Europe, where populists have advanced, in Hungary, Poland etc., that is already being seen, as it is amongst the working-class itself, and particularly amongst the younger workers, that opposition, from the base, begins to organise against the governments.

Back To Prediction 1

Forward To Prediction 3

Sheer Lunacy

It is being reported that up to 25% of workers could be away from work as a result of self-isolating after being pinged, or having tested positive for COVID.  The media continue to describe such absences as people being off work as a result of sickness, which is simply not true.  In a workforce of 30 million, 25% is 7.5 million workers, and there quite simply are not 7.5 million workers ill with COVID.

What there are is large numbers of people who are perfectly fit and healthy, and who could and should be in work, but who are being prevented from doing so, just because they have fallen prey to the pingdemic.  Many of those pinged, have not even been infected.  Take all of the people employed as TESCO delivery drivers, postmen, bin men, bus drivers, tube drivers, health workers and so on.  Each day, each of these workers will be in close proximity to literally hundreds, if no thousands of people, tens of millions of such interactions, in total.  Out of all of these interactions that involve nothing more than close proximity, its inevitable, especially given the widespread level of infections, that millions of pings will be activated by the ridiculous NHS app.

Very few of these interactions will, in fact, have resulted in any virus having been transmitted to those pinged.  Its already been seen that people have been pinged, even though the person they were supposedly in close proximity to was, in fact, on the other wide of an adjoining wall between houses!  But, even where such pinging was accompanied by actual infection, so what?  Again, its only of any relevance if you think that infection and infection rates have any significance, which they don't, and have even less relevance in conditions where the increasingly dominant Omicron variant is seen to be even milder in its symptoms than previous variants, and where, in any case, there is now widespread immunity either from vaccination or natural immunity from previous infection.

The other reason that people are being forced to stay away from work is that they have been tested for COVID and found positive.  But, in a way, the requirement for testing sort of proves the point.  If people need to be tested, it rather shows that they are not obviously ill!  Simply being infected, or infectious is not at all the same thing as being ill, and certainly not the same as being seriously ill.  The reason we have large numbers of people testing positive is that, firstly, we have large numbers of people being pinged, who then go and get tested, but also that we have large numbers of people who are feeling the need to get tested, almost on a daily basis in order to be able to continue with something approaching a normal life.

That people should have to do that, even though they are not at all ill, is itself totally ridiculous.  But, the consequence of all this insanity is that we now have the prospect of millions of perfectly fit and healthy workers, in vital roles, being forced to stay away from work.  The most obvious illustration of it is in the NHS.  So, we now have the idiocy of a situation in which thousands of perfectly healthy NHS workers are forced to stay away from work, with the result that thousands of people who actually are ill with cancer, heart disease, stroke and so on, now die, because an idiotic, bureaucratic system is preventing those who could save their lives from doing so!

The other obvious instance is in education, where the same idiotic rules mean that thousands of teachers are away from work.  Our young people have already lost getting on for 20% of their education entitlement as a result of past lockouts and lockdowns, and that is education they will never get back.  Now they face that being extended, not as a result of an open lockout, but as a result of teachers being forced to stay away from work, even though they are perfectly fit and healthy!

And, the other consequences could be significant too.  There is not only the question of social care workers, who might be forced to stay away from work, but there is the potential that bin men may be off in such numbers that crews cannot function, and so refuse lies around causing a spread of disease and ill-health on a scale that would itself exceed any potential damage from COVID, let alone if basic services such as water supply, sewage, and power supplies failed, simply because perfectly healthy workers are forced to stay away from work on the basis of meaningless pings or testing!

It is as though a mass lunacy has gripped society, in which no one can even think for themselves critically.  Its like the old witch trials, in which no one dare speak out against the lunacy for fear of themselves being branded a witch.  No one dare think critically, and is forced to toe the line, and keep quiet, or else be no platformed or "cancelled".  These are the conditions that promote mass society, and the authoritarian and totalitarian systems that often accompany it.

The obvious solution to the problem of 25% of workers being prevented from working is simply to scrap the idiotic NHS pinging app, and to scrap the requirement for people who have a positive COVID test to stay away from work.  In the US, they have reduced the latter to just 5 days, but any such period, in current conditions is idiotic.  The only condition of people being away from work should be whether they are actually ill or not.

Boris Johnson, today, argued that the significance of the isolation was to prevent anyone who is infectious from spreading the virus, but again that is idiotic.  It assumes that the subsequent infection is something that we should be worried about, but as soon as you accept that infection itself is meaningless, and not important, the argument collapses.  If I am infectious, and I pass on the infection to someone else, that fact is unimportant, unless the person I pass it on to is themselves going to be seriously ill as a result.

But, the simple response to this latter condition, is not to lock me down, but is either to lock down that small minority of people who might become seriously ill from infection, or better still, to encourage all of these latter to get themselves vaccinated, so that, even if infected, they do not become ill.  Given that the vast majority of people are already either vaccinated, or else have natural immunity, the argument that people who have a positive test or who are pinged should have to self-isolate, for fear of passing on the infection is totally ludicrous.

Review of Predictions For 2021 - Prediction 6 – Trump Indicted

Prediction 6 – Trump Indicted

Again the verdict must be  - not yet. All of the arguments set out last year remain valid. The net is tightening around Trump's associates in the US, and globally. Bannon has been indicted, Christopher Steele's dossier has been published, and so on.

One factor that has slowed progress is the incompetence and timidity of Biden, which is also resulting in weakness politically for the Democrats as they approach next year's midterm elections. Biden's incompetence is only outdone by the similar opportunist idiocy of Starmer in Britain, as conservative social-democracy continues to focus on the limited threat to its Left, as against the very real, clear and present danger on its Right. That also shows the disaster that would flow from the kind of Popular Frontist politics proposed by Paul Mason, last year, which called for the Left to politically disarm itself in search of a meaningless alliance with those forces of conservative social-democracy.

The Left will, of course, fight alongside the centre against any immediate threat from the Right, but we will do so under our own banner, not that of alien class forces, and any such fight first requires that the centre is itself prepared to fight those to its Right, and not to continually seek to appease them, as both Biden and Starmer have done, including by adopting large swathes of the ideological programme of reactionary nationalism.

Back To Review of Prediction 5

Forward To Predictions For 2022

Review of Predictions For 2021 - Prediction 3 – Populism Is Put In Retreat

Prediction 3 – Populism Is Put In Retreat

The predictions in this post have been wholly borne out, along with the arguments set out as their basis. The day after the post, I reflected on the pathetic attempt at a coup, by Trump and his supporters. In the days and weeks that have followed, the various fascistic organisations involved have been subject to action by the US state that is breaking them apart. The state, through the civil courts, is pulling apart at Trump's property and financial empire, preparing the ground for legal actions against him, as well as combing through his tax affairs, and so on, which will provide the material for criminal charges against him. Investigation into all those around him, and their links to others, to Putin et al, continues to go on apace, and Congress, itself, is systematically investigating the January 6th coup attempt, to provide the basis of legal action, including charges of treason. Trump's long-time ideological mentor, and guiding light of global populism, Steve Bannon, has been indicted. In Britain, the threads of this web, are at an early stage of being unwound, but the release of papers by former MI6 operative, Christopher Steele, is indicative of the way that the state is beginning to move against the populists, and the petty-bourgeois interests they serve.

Populism is often described as being Left or Right, which is a fallacy, based upon idealism and subjectivism, wholly dependent upon the self-description of those involved. It comes down to the particular populists own verbiage, and the superficial targets of their ire, used to mobilise masses behind them. Left populists direct their ire at large-scale capital, the rich, and “imperialism”, whilst right-wing populists direct their ire at “foreigners”, organised labour and so on. Both replace class analysis with easy answers designed to unite a petty-bourgeois mass. The easy answers of both Left and Right Populists are both reactionary in nature, and the supporters of one can easily move to the other - the material basis of Red-Brown Fronts.

Lenin writing about the programme and ideology of the Russian Populists (Narodniks) described this reactionary nature, in relation to the Russian bourgeois-democrats (Narodnoye Pravo), let alone the Russian Marxists.  Lenin argues that a recognition by the group of its liberal-idealist nature and aims, in the process of breaking away from its heritage in Russian peasant socialism, was a step forward, because it brought a degree of honesty and clarity.  I have argued a similar thing in relation to the fact that the petty-bourgeois, liberal idealists of the AWL, appear also to be now on the verge of formally renouncing the Marxism within which they try to reconcile those actual politics, and which is the basis of their turmoil, and need to resort to dishonest, bureaucratic, and vulgar methods of responding to criticism both from within and from without.

Lenin discusses the unity drive launched by the bourgeois democrats of the Narodnoye Pravo group, to form an alliance to fight for political liberty against absolutism. But, this appeal had no foundation, because it ignored all the other questions, which defined the various organisations. Something similar can be seen in the way various petty-bourgeois groups have made similar appeals for the creation of organisations such as the Anti-Nazi League, Stop The War Coalition, and so on. These organisations are sometimes referred to as Popular Fronts, which is an inaccurate description, because a Popular Front actually exercises political power through government. These organisations are more properly defined as cross-class alliances, and as such they fall apart on contact with reality, when the question of political programme has to be addressed, or else to prevent that, the socialists have to subordinate their principles, so as to avoid the discussion of programme.

“But what is characteristic is that this “amalgamation” trend represents one of the last stages in the process of transformation of militant, revolutionary Narodism into politically radical democracy, a process which I have tried to outline above.”

(Lenin – What The Friends of The People Are, p 292)

The Marxists would welcome the development of a non-socialist, bourgeois-democratic party, Lenin says, but such a party would only be possible “when a durable programme of democratic demands has been drawn up that will put an end to the prejudices of the old Russian exceptionalism.” (p 292) This would, of course, facilitate the clarification of political lines, reflecting the division of society into two great class camps, because, whilst the bourgeoisie would form itself into such a democratic party, the workers would be organised under the banner of Marxism.

“The Social-Democrats, who consider essential the independent organisation of the workers into a separate workers’ party, could not, of course, “amalgamate” with such a party, but the workers would most strongly support any struggle waged by the democrats against reactionary institutions.” (p 293)

The Populists, however, were defenders of those reactionary institutions, which they saw as representing the traditional interests of “the people”, of the small producers, and barriers to capitalist development. Populists whether they describe themselves as Left or Right, seek to hold back the development of large-scale capital, in favour of small scale capital, because they are representatives of the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Brexit was a classic example of that. Even when they claim to be representatives of workers, as was the case with the Sismondists and Narodniks, and today is seen with the Lexiters, the “anti-imperialists”, and “anti-capitalists”, in their ideology, they never get beyond the ideas of the petty-bourgeoisie. And, because the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie are themselves contradictory, reflecting the fact that it is a transitional class, continually in the process of differentiation, it is impossible to present a clear programme based upon class interest. It necessitates vagueness, and the prominent role of some charismatic leader, with the prime means of change coming from the top, from the state, with the masses brought on only as foot soldiers.

Populism thrives when the two main classes are weak, but as Marx describes in Wage Labour and Capital, and elsewhere, the condition for the working-class being strong is that capital is also strong, that capital is accumulating rapidly, and driving up the demand for labour-power. The populists, and the idealists and subjectivists see things standing on their head. They believe that workers condition improves as a result of workers becoming more organised in trades unions, etc., and becoming more militant. But, that requires that this change in consciousness comes about by some switch simply being turned on in their heads, unrelated to the material conditions surrounding them. Its this which leads them to the crude belief that any form of economic crisis, leads workers into such a response, whereas, the opposite is the case.

As Marx and Engels describe, it is the more rapid accumulation of capital that lessens the competition between the workers, enables their wages to rise, and so facilitates their own educational, cultural and political development, as well as facilitating their ability to combine to further their interests, which they now see more clearly. The same process, by contrast, increases the competition between different capitals. As Trotsky put it,

“It means a growing demand for goods, expanded production, shrinking unemployment, rising prices and the possibility of higher wages. And, in the given historical circumstances, the boom will not dampen but sharpen the revolutionary struggle of the working class. This flows from all of the foregoing. In all capitalist countries the working-class movement after the war reached its peak and then ended, as we have seen, in a more or less pronounced failure and retreat, and in disunity within the working class itself. With such political and psychological premises, a prolonged crisis, although it would doubtless act to heighten the embitterment of the working masses (especially the unemployed and semi-employed), would nevertheless simultaneously tend to weaken their activity because this activity is intimately bound up with the workers’ consciousness of their irreplaceable role in production.

Prolonged unemployment following an epoch of revolutionary political assaults and retreats does not at all work in favour of the Communist Party. On the contrary the longer the crisis lasts the more it threatens to nourish anarchist moods on one wing and reformist moods on the other. This fact found its expression in the split of the anarcho-syndicalist groupings from the Third International, in a certain consolidation of the Amsterdam International and the Two-and-a-Half International, in the temporary conglomeration of the Serrati-ites, the split of Levi’s group, and so on. In contrast, the industrial revival is bound, first of all, to raise the self-confidence of the working class, undermined by failures and by the disunity in its own ranks; it is bound to fuse the working class together in the factories and plants and heighten the desire for unanimity in militant actions.”

(Flood Tide)

In other words, workers higher living standards are not a consequence of their increased militancy and trades union organisation, but the increased organisation and militancy is itself the consequence of their higher living standards, which themselves result from the economic expansion, and demand for labour. The economic revival that got underway in 2021, was the material basis for such a change, and the further undermining of populism. But, the same limitations of that economic revival, resulting from the physical constraints on economies, brought about by lockouts and lockdowns, has necessarily limited that process also.

The main challenge for the ruling-class (the main owners of fictitious-capital) comes today not from the working-class, but from that reactionary petty-bourgeoisie whose economic and social weight has been significantly increased over the last 40 years, and whose political reflection is found in their control over traditional conservative parties such as the Tories in Britain, and Republicans in the US. Its in that sphere that the danger of fascism resides, but it is a fascism aimed directly at the ruling class, in the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, not on behalf of the ruling class directed at workers.

But, here, too, the ruling class faces a dilemma, because, as set out in yesterday's post, the potential for the ruling class to avoid a cataclysmic crash in asset prices has run its course. The best it might hope for is that it minimises such a crash, by having central banks buy up even more worthless paper, and also having workers pension schemes buy up worthless assets, with large numbers of gullible retail speculators picking up other assets before their prices crash. The development of phone apps, and commission free platforms, and proliferation of meme stocks, cryptocurrency etc. is the front runner of that.

It would then focus on driving up the rate of profit, and capital accumulation, so as to finance its interest payments and rents, but could only do so as a result of a high level of inflation, whilst wages were held down, causing a sharp fall in living standards. For the reasons set out above, in conditions of a rapidly expanding economy that could only be achieved by the use of draconian measures by a Bonapartist National Government of the kind that is being de facto created by Johnson and Starmer.  Covid restrictions have been a good preparation for such an eventuality.

The comparison of the responses to COVID with the measures during war is apt. In 1939, when war broke out, my father was just 20, and working as an engineer at Rolls Royce in Crewe, making engines for Spitfires. In the next five years, he worked at nearly every other car factory in the Midlands, and the reason was that he was continually moved from one to another as a result of him acting to organise and represent the grievances of his fellow workers. In the end, he had his cards literally filled with black ink, so that he could not get another job, at which point he went into the army. In fact, during the war, all such opposition was made almost impossible, even without resort to the use of the bodies of armed men to prevent it.

The Stalinists, who had originally opposed the war, during the Hitler-Stalin Pact, came out to argue that it was now the class conscious worker who would strike-break in favour of the war effort. Labour, which had made Churchill Prime Minister, in the face of opposition from many on his own Tory benches, formed a National Government, with him, and so prevented any effective political challenge, via parliament. When elections did take place, it was National candidates that fought the election, thereby, removing any competition between Tory and Labour. Only the candidates from the Commonwealth Party of Tom Whittingham and J.B. Priestley offered workers a socialist alternative.

Today, we are seeing Covid used in a similar manner to create a National Government, backed by totalitarian methods of propaganda, by a 24 hour, war to wall, media that bombards homes directly sending the views of an elite, unchallengeable into the heads of the masses. Undoubtedly, this apparatus is going to be central to the requirements of the ruling class in rescuing itself from the inevitable financial crash to come.

Back To Review of Prediction 2 

Forward To Review of Prediction 4

Predictions For 2021 - Prediction 6 – Trump Indicted

Prediction 6 – Trump Indicted 

With Trump out of the White House, the Empire Strikes Back at him and the petty-bourgeois, rebel insurgency he helped lead in the US, and across the globe. The ruling class, which represents only 0.01% of the population, has to rely on the working-class, in elections, to put in office social-democratic governments, to keep at bay its enemies amongst the remnants of the old ruling classes. When that fails, its first recourse is to its state, just as it is, should that working-class begin to press its own interests too effectively upon it. Trump, or at least his more savvy advisors, understand that. Its why, the representatives of that petty-bourgeoisie, be it Hayek and Mises, or Rothbard and Rand, favour a “Minarchist” state, i.e. one as small as possible. Where they can get it, they favour a “benevolent despot” over democracy. Trump and his entourage attempted to undermine their opposition inside the existing state, just as Johnson has tried to do in Britain, Orban has done in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, Modi in India and so on. Now that state will make itself felt. 

There are already many charges lined up to bring against Trump, once he no longer has the protections of office, and now that he has no one who is going to pardon him. Biden should certainly reject the calls that some are making for him to do so, as a means of bringing about some kind of peace and reconciliation commission. Any such weakness will simply encourage the reactionaries to rebuild their organisations, and prepare for the next strike. Trump is likely to face charges in New York, but he is also likely to face charges coming out of a return of the investigations by the FBI. There are suggestions that Trump might set up his own media corporation, now that he has parted ways with Fox. But, Trump is apparently bankrupt once more. He is thought to have debts of around $1 billion. 

The ruling class has reasons to press ahead with these charges not just because of Trump, but because of the connections of Trump to this whole international network of right-wing populists that has set out to disrupt the global order. When Trump is brought to court on a series of charges, he is likely to be indicted only after a large number of others of his ilk have been thrown to the wolves also. That is no doubt why Trump has tried to cling to office. Its no doubt why many others who are looking over the precipice will have been urging him to do so, as they ponder their own fate. 

Back To Prediction 5

Predictions For 2021 - Prediction 3 – Populism Is Put In Retreat

Prediction 3 – Populism Is Put In Retreat 

Populism is merely the political reflection of a rise in the social weight of the petty-bourgeoisie. That process began in the 1980's, as a consequence of de-industrialisation in developed economies. On the one hand, a lot of large-scale industrial capital moved into developing economies, which also saw a growth of small businesses on the back of it. At the same time, the undermining of large-scale industrial capital in developed economies, saw a consequent increase in the relative social weight of the petty-bourgeoisie. Thatcher was a classic manifestation of it. From the 1980's onwards there has been a constant battle between a rising petty-bourgeoisie, and the interests of large-scale industrial capital, and of the owners of fictitious-capital dependent on it for their wealth and power. Thatcher, herself, mirrored the evolution of that battle, during the 1980's, starting out as a pro-European, and steadily shifting further to the nationalist Right, as the 80's progressed. 

I forecast, several years ago, that, as the new long wave upswing got underway, large-scale industrial capital would be strengthened, and, along with it, also, the working-class. The social weight of the petty-bourgeoisie would be relatively weakened. The 2008 financial crash intervened in that process, and governments everywhere introduced austerity to slow economic growth, so as to restrain the demand for capital, and thereby interest rates, in order to reflate asset prices. The lengths they have been prepared to go to do that, including printing money tokens solely to buy up worthless paper assets, to bail out the top 0.01%, to an extent that central banks now own about a third of such paper, whilst having pushed yields on it so low that a large portion of it is now producing negative yields, has been incredible. 

That only means that, when they can no longer plug the holes in the dyke, the resultant deluge will be that much greater. Despite all the measures taken to slow economic growth, and divert money into financial and property speculation, the laws of economics have continued to operate, and have resulted in continued economic growth, and a continued growth of the working-class. But, the global responses to COVID19, and the astronomical level of borrowing to fund unproductive consumption, let alone the borrowing required to cover for falling tax revenues, not to mention to fund the bail-out of core and strategic industries yet to come, which will dwarf the borrowing already undertaken, simply puts rocket boosters under the economic processes already occurring. 

Borrowing on this scale cannot avoid causing interest rates to rise. The idea that that can be avoided by resort to the Magic Money Tree is absurd. That caused hyperinflation of asset prices when the money was being used only to buy assets, whilst money was diverted away from the real economy. Printing money tokens to pay for consumption, would simply result in a hyperinflation of commodity prices, and that would prompt sharp rises in interest rates, and require central banks to sharply contract money-supply to rein it in. Those rises in interest rates will cause asset prices to crash. For some of those petty-bourgeois elements, that would be catastrophic. Whilst the main beneficiaries of the hyperinflation of asset prices has been the top 0.01%, the inflation of property prices created a new class of petty-bourgeois, buy-to-let landlords. The large number of elderly, Tory, homeowners, also deluded themselves into the idea that the rising price of their house, somehow gave them access to the upper ranks of society. A collapse in asset prices, including property prices will shatter those illusions, and undermine that section of the petty-bourgeoisie. 

But, such a collapse in asset prices, whilst inevitably having a short-term knock on effect to the real economy, will create a sharp reversal of conditions that have existed for the last 8 years, and which existed from around 1980 until 2000. In 2008, governments were forced to engage in Keynesian fiscal stimulus, to stabilise the economy, alongside the monetary stimulus introduced to end the credit crunch, and to bail-out the speculators who saw the prices of their assets collapse. Having stabilised the global economy, by 2010, conservative governments across the globe introduced austerity to prevent economic growth from causing asset prices crashing again. But, those measures have already reached a level of absurdity, with widespread negative yields on assets, alongside austerity that has dragged on for a decade. Even the Tories were led to promote the idea of introducing fiscal stimulus, and now, with the debt to GDP ratio over 100% and rising, they are also led to admit that they cannot rein it in, by introducing tax rises or fiscal tightening. 

The coming crash in asset prices is not going to be quickly reversed, as it was in 2008, because central banks are already the owners of much of the worthless paper, whilst, unlike the last ten years, when austerity meant that additional debt supply was constrained, and companies bought back shares, rather than issuing new ones, the amount of new debt issuance is going to rise sharply and massively, causing the prices of all these assets to fall hard. Yet, with herd immunity likely to have arisen by the middle of next year – with or without a vaccine – economies are going to reopen. Demand from consumers is going to be high. A look at what has happened with US consumers buying online, causing shipments from China to rise sharply, to an extent that shipping rates have risen sharply, shows how quickly a rebound in the real economy can happen. With share prices crashed, and staying down, the current preoccupation with using profits to buy back shares will be reversed, with profits being used to ramp up production, so as to avoid losing market share to competitors will take its place. 

In short, big industrial capital will be in a position to use money left on its balance sheet to ramp up production; it will be able to borrow in capital markets, or else to go cap in hand to the government for funds to get production started, in a way that small business cannot. Indeed, given the large number of zombie businesses, the sharp rise in interest rates will kill off many of those that do not just go bust as a result of lockdowns or Brexit anyway. In the 1980's, many workers who lost their jobs, were pushed into self-employment, as a result of not being able to get permanent employment as workers. Now, that process will be reversed. As large scale capital expands, the demand for labour will draw in many of those formerly self employed and the other small capitalists, whose businesses go bust. The social weight of the petty-bourgeoisie will decline, and their political influence will decline along with it. 

But, other short-term factors are at play. Brexit has shown itself as a delusion leading to disaster. All of the lies of the Brexiters, and other populists and nationalists have been exposed. Support for the EU, even in Britain, has never been at such high levels. With the 27 countries of the EU standing clearly, now, against an external opponent – Britain – it has had a uniquely unifying effect on the components of the EU itself. The economic consequences of lockdowns has also had a unifying effect on the EU. Not only has the ECB as the EU's central bank had a role to play in printing money tokens for the benefit of the whole of the EU, but, for the first time, the EU has been led towards fiscal integration, by the creation of a €750 billion fund to respond to the economic consequences of lockdowns across the whole EU. It is undoubtedly only the first such response, as the EU has to bail-out core and strategic industries such as airlines, aerospace, and so on. It is the start of fiscal integration, and centralised debt issuance, which means an increasing centralisation, and development of the EU as a state. 

The other short-term factor is the election of Biden and the Democrats in the US. They will seek to undo the damage done by Trump, who acted as the charismatic leader for global populism, even if he was being worked like a puppet, with Putin's hand up his backside. US and EU interests are steadily diverging, which means that the EU will increasingly seek to develop its own European Army, for example, though, no doubt, initially, still inside NATO. But, Biden and the Democrats, for now, will want to draw back old allies that Trump alienated, as both the US and Europe confront a rising Chinese superpower. They will also want to squash all of those populist forces such as Farage, le Pen, Wilders, Orban and co. that were a thorn in the side of those allies, as they allied with Putin et al. 

In the US, Trump will undoubtedly face criminal charges soon after leaving the White House. It will open a Pandora's Box of revelations not just about him, and his close associates in the US, but about their international collaborators; the links to Russia, the role of organisations like Breitbart, of Cambridge Analytica, and so on, some of which also lead back into the heart of the Tory Party and its Brexit supporters, itself. Many big names will be pulled down by these revelations in a climate much like that which engulfed the Tory party sleaze scandals of the early 1960's (Christine Keeler), and the 1990's (Neil Hamilton et al), but now on an international scale.

Back To Prediction 2

Forward To Prediction 4