The Politics Of Farce

The last few days have seen the media falling over itself to be taken in by the idea that there is some kind of difference between the Tories and Liberals, as a result of comments made

by Campo and Clegg. There isn't. They are joined at the hip, as the video below of Clegg's recent comments to Cameron caught on his microphone demonstrate.



In fact, its the fact that there is no difference between the Liberals and Tories illustrated by those comments that makes this manufactured row necessary in the week or so ahead of the Local Elections, in which the Liberals look set to be annihilated, and the Tories to do not much better. On the Andrew Marr show this morning, he asked Simon Highes how the Liberals could continue working with the Tories after his leader had spoken about a "right-wing clique", and talked about the Tories telling lies. Quite easy is the answer.

Before the General Election, the Liberals were frequently talking about the Tories as a right-wing clique, and accusing them of telling lies. It didn't stop them immediately jumping into bed with them at the first sniff of an opportunity to get their grubby hands on a bit of power!

And, if we are talking about telling lies, then the Liberals with their pledge on Tuition Feees, their comments about opposing increases in VAT, their statements about opposing further changes in the NHS, and on, and on, and on have little room in any glass house to be throwing stones.

Clegg is correct, their is a tiny right-wing clique at the centre of British politics. He should know, he is a central part of it, as are the other Liberal Ministers and MP's!!

He is right that the Tories are telling lies, but the most important lies they are telling are not about an issue that is irrelevant to the majority of ordinary British people - i.e. over the rigged chocie between two undemocratic systems of electing M.P.'s, - but over the need for massive cuts in Public Spending, the need for attacks on workers pensions and so on. And, of course, on all those issues, the Liberals as a Capitalist Party, have absolutely no real disagreements with the Tories.

In fact, despite the fact that former Liberal Chief Secretary to the Treeasury, David Laws, told Sky News, last year, that the issue of the deficit had been hyped up, that introducing Cuts early on would be bad for the economy, and so on, as a right-wing, Orange Book Liberal, he was leading the charge in introducing those cuts!



The way, in which normal "democracy" works in Capitalist countries is tht every few years, voters are given the choice of voting for parties whose real political differences are minor. None of them offer any kind of real challenge to the wealth and power of the miniscule number of billionaires, and multi-millionaires who own and control the majority of productive wealth in the country - the real right-wing clique that is ultimately in control - and any Party that did would find itself being vilified and attacked on all sides by the media, and would face a Capital strike by those very same powerful Capitalists to undermine the economy - these are the same people, of course who throw up their hands in horror at the very thought that ordinary working people might strike for a few extra quid in wages or pensions - and ultimately would face the kind of opposition that other left-wing Governments have confronted. In 1973, the Government of Allende in Chile was overthrown by the Chilean Capitalists, and their State apparatus with the assistance of the CIA.

In the 1970's, even Harold Wilson's tame Labour Government provoked sections of the Capitalist establishment to consider a coup. Sections of the Military top brass, along with leading Capitalists considered the idea, and of installing Lord Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin, to act as figurehead. Of course, a look at the list of people coming to the Royal Wedding, shows that the Royal Family are not at all embarassed by the idea of dictatorship, and overriding democracy in the interests of Capital.

But, this spat between the Liberals and the Tories is to reduce that to the level of farce. No one really believes that the day after the local elections it ill not be business as usual between them as they proceed to both wreck the economy with their Cuts, and to undermine ordinary working people's living standards. It is an indication of the paucity of the British media that they act as a channel for such superficial hogwash. But, then this is the same media that is drowning in the cult of celebrity, the epitome of which will be the Royal Wedding itself, where the main topic of conversation will no doubt be whether the celebs at Buckingham Palace have wasted as much money on dresses and bling, as the celebs from Beckingham Palace!

And, of course, the only reason we should give a fuck is that both sets are only able to waste such vast amounts of money, because in one way or another they are spending OUR money. One set gets it given to them out of our taxes, the other out of an effective monopoly over aspects of the entertainment industry. Football was once considered a working man's game, but the only part of it now that fits that description, is in respect of the blokes who assemble in the local parks, and recreation grounds to compete against each other on a Sunday morning. The rest has become just another arena of big business, and profit making. By creating an effective monopoly by astronomical transfer fees, and deals with monopoly satellite TV companies, they are able to pay those fees and ridiculous wages to players - that the real working class blokes who were the founders of the game could not have dreamed of - and thereby build around it, a brand image.

The cult of celebrity in the film and music industry performs the same fucntion. The sooner Internet piracy breaks that monopoly apart the better.

But, that Monopoly that masquerades as competition in the commercial world is precisely reflected in the political world. And just as the lack of real differences between products in the commercial world has to be compensated for by creating artifical differences via branding, and marketing, so that is the case in the political world. The vote over AV is a reflection of that. Is it any wonder no one gives a toss. If we were being offered real alternatives it would be different. Across the Middle East and North Africa tens of thousands of people are demanding a real say in how their countries are run, how they elect their Governments and so on.

Britain says it supports them, yet in Britain ordinary people are being denied that same right! If instead of a monopolised choice between FTP or AV, we had a real debate over democracy in Britain there would be a reason to get involved and take part. Why can we not have a vote on many types of voting that would provide real Proportional Representation? Why can't we have a debate and a vote on scrapping the Monarchy as the epitome of a lack of democracy, as well as on scrapping the House of Lords? Why can't we have a Constitutional Assembly to discuss and propose a written Constitution for Britain? Why Can't we have a vote on which positions such as the top Civil Servants, Military Top Brass and Judges etc. should be elected?

But, they will not open up such a debate and give us the opportunity to vote on these things that could make a real difference, because that would take the control of the political debate out of the hands of the Capitalist politicians and put in the hands of ordinary people. And should the people come up with proposals that might provide a means for curtailing the power of that right-wing clique of Capitalists that control the destiny of the country, they would then have to show the real nature of that power out in the open.

But, if the Capitalist politicians will not give us those rights that is no reason for not taking them. That was what the radical democrat Thomas paine argued.

He said, "Democratic Rights are not granted, but taken." That is what ordinary people in the Middle East and North Africa are doing. We should learn from their lesson. There is no reason that workers on Council estates and in other such communities should not create their own democratic assemblies, perhaps extending existing Tenants and Residents Associations, or even bodies such as Neighourhood Watch schemes, and begin to create their own forms of demcoracy at grass roots level that do not ask for rights to control their neighbourhood from their local Council, but take them.

That same kind of principle and action could be replicated across society, including within the workplace. It is a solid basis upon which to build opposition to, and an alternative to accepting the Cuts being introduced by the Liberal-Tories, and implemented by Local Councils of all political complexions.



Forget about the superficial politics that is hyped up by the Capitalist politicians and their media, and begin to build a real alternative politics, a real alternative democracy that we can control, and that offers real chocies not the sham that is presented at Westminster, and in the local Council Chambers.

Northern Soul Classics - I'll Never Stop Loving You - Carla Thomas

A skin tingler from the Queen of Memphis, Carla Thomas. This is the last for now in the series of gems from Stax, and what a song to finish on.

Carla was the daughter of legend Rufus Thomas, and as well as having a clutch of classic Stax songs to her credit regularly duetted with the late, great Otis Redding, notably on the King and Queen album.

This song was rediscovered back in the 90's, and we are all glad it was.

Arrest The Royal Tyrants!

Last week Paul Mason, on Newsnight, detailed some of those who next week have apparently been invited to attend the Royal Wedding. At a time when Britain is involved in yet another War to bring "Democracy" to other parts of the world, its Royal Family - itself the very antithesis of the principle of Democracy - are busy bringing their fellow Monarch's to Britain.

Whilst Britain is once again waging war against tyranny in far flung parts of the globe, Britain's Royal Family, whose ancestors made their mark by being the most vicious group of bastards amongst a generally vicious, murderous bunch of thievs and ne'er do wells that made up the Feudal Aristocracy, are busy bringing some of the world's worst tyrants to Britain.

Paul highlighted one of them. The King of Swaziland. He will be bringing around 50 of his entourage to stay at the Dorchester where a room will set you back £450 a night.

Meanwhile, back in his country, the average person has to survive on just $2 a day! The Government has just arrested trhe country's entire Trade Union leadership, and broken up a protest of 1,000 people with tear gas and water cannon.

One of the people commenting on Paul's blog wrote, "If, thirty years ago, Gaddafi had married into the Senussis and been proclaimed King of Libya, he might well have an invitation to the Royal Wedding too.".

And, of course, the King of Swazi will not be the only Absoluet Monarch and tyrant invited to or attending the wediing. The King of Bahrain is likely to be there, as is the King of Saudi who has just sent 1,000 troops to Bahrain to put down the democracy protests there.

In fact, many of the tyrants will be from countries that are still in the 21st Century, still essentially pre-capitalist societies, still mired in feudal medievalism. Every socialist should want to see them swept away, even if the only way that could happen was as a result of a modernising Imperialism moving in, and achieving that task. But, of course as pointed out before there is little chance that will happen. Unlike Colonialism, which had an incentive to spread itself around the globe, with feudal Landlords simply extending their landholdings and Rent collecting to foreign parts, and Merchant Capitalists making profits in the normal way by unequal exchange, modern Imperialism based on industrial, productive Capital has no incentive for that.

Colonialism could operate through a version of the feudal state simply transposed on to another country. But, efficient exploitation of a modern industrial working-class requires more than that over the longer-term. That is why modern Imperialism, whilst its prepared to leave the provision of its necessary raw materials to those previuous Mercantilist arrangements, and may station outposts in strategic positions, when it comes to actually investing any serious amounts of productive Capital requries at least some minimum level of development to already have occurred. It requires a certain degree of infrastructure to be in place, even if only in selected zones near to ports etc. It requires something approaching a modern Capitalist State prepared to uphold the Rule of Law. It needs a large enough working-class that is educated and trained to at least a minimum standard. That is why this modern Imperialism has focussed its attention on a relatively small group of economies, and has no interest in modernising large areas of the world. Only the working-class as part of developing a global socialist economy will be able to carry through that task.

So for the foreseeable future there will remain many of these countries suffering this backwardness, even whilst the absolute Monarchs and other tyrants that rule over them live a life of lavish luxury and excess. For now we can show our support for the poor inhabitants of those countries by doing what we can.

When their rulers come to Britain next week, we should have our own snatch squads ready to carry out citizens arrests upon the criminals amongst them. The bosses and the worthies of the British establishment are quick to want to bring Gaddafi to trial at the International Criminal Court - and socialists should want that too - but they seem rather more reticent about bringing some of these other criminals - friends of our Royals - to book, even though some of them are even worse criminals than Gaddafi. Even they will not implement the Rule of Law in bringing them to book, we should.

Of course, we shouldn't expect the ICC to be impartial either. Like all other parts of the international Capitalist State order, its there to serve the interests of the bosses. But, for now we cannot bring these tyrnats before a Workers Court for trial, and even bringing these tyrants before a bouregois court would send a strong message to the people they oppress. We could send them a furher reminder of how to deal with those tyrants by reminding them of how we did it in the past.

What better time than on the day of the wedding than to remember Guy Ffawkes, who is remembered for trying to blow up Parliament, but was trying to blow up the King. Or they could remember the contribution made by Oliver Cromwell in removing a King's Head, or the French bourgeois revolutinaries, who consistent with Capitalist methods, industrialised the process via the Guillotine.

Marx And The Progressive Role Of Capitalism

The greatest contribution that Marx made was the Theory of Historical Materialism. With that theory arrived at as he says by himself and Engels independently, they grasped how historical change is conditioned by the material conditions in society that Man confronts in attempting to survive and produce. The limits of the productive forces that Man finds in society condition the way he is able to produce. The very limited nature of those productive forces for Primitive Man shaped the way he met his needs via Collective, Co-operative action. In turn that conditioned the type of societies he lived in, which were themselves collective and co-operative.

The ascent of Man towards Civilisation is similarly conditioned by the way in which these productive forces are themselves developed as a consequence of the way Man himself reacts back on Nature in developing those productive forces. The ability of man to move to ever higher forms of society ultimately leading to Communism is then a reflection of this continual improvement and development of the productive forces. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels spelled out the implications of this theory for the way they understood contemporary society - Capitalist Society - and its implications for the class struggle. They spelled out how this scientific view set them aside from other types of Socialists such as the Moral Socialists like Sismondi, who criticised Capitalism for all of its cruelty and vicissitudes, but failed to see that without it, without its development of the productive forces then all of the benefits that Capitalism brings with its development of those productive forces was impossible. Not only was the development of the productive forces impossible without Capitalism, but Capitalism was impossible without all of the cruelty that went with it, because without the expropriation of the peasants a large working-class needed by the factories could not have been made available. Without the kind of exploitation of those workers by the early forms of Capitalism, via Absolute Surplus Value, the accumulation of Capital would not have been possible. But, without a working-class, Socialilism itself is impossible. That is why they concluded that what Capitalism produces most is its own gravedigger!

I had been planning to write a blog in the near future covering some of these issues in relation to the question "Progressive Imperialism?" However, in what started out as a discussion about intervention in Libya over at the Commune, two comrades led the discussion off on to a debate about these issues. To be honest, I am so shocked that anyone considering themselves a Marxist could challenge its basic assumptions, and scientific base that I wondered whether these contributors were really trolls. Whatever, some of the issues involved are important areas for discussion.

As this was a divergence from the actual thread I agreed with comrades at the Commune that I would create a discussion on these matters here. That is the purpose of this post. Anyone interested should, of course, read the series of comments over at the Commune first.

Northern Soul Classics - I Ain't Particular - Johnny Taylor

Staying with the many Northern Soul classics out of Stax. This is a brilliant oldie from Johnny Taylor, whose "Friday Night" I've featured in the past. Real gritty soul.

The Final Capitulation - Now Liberals Support An Illegal War Against Libya

The Liberals made great play about their opposition to the illegal War launched by the UK and US against Iraq. First, they gave their support to the proposals by their Liberal-Tory Government to what was bound to end up as yet another illegal War in Libya, now even the cover that was provided for it by a mealy-mouthed UN resolution has been blown away.

The Liberals are now fully involved in the attempt by the major Imperialist powers - the US, UK and France to bring about regime change in Libya and install an Imperialist friendly regime, by means of an illegal war, which can only result in massive death and destruction in the short term, and even more misery for the Libyan people in the longer term. Ironically, although some Tory MP's are calling for the recall of Parliament to discuss that illegal war, so far the Liberals have simply played their part as loyal lap dogs to their Tory masters.

When the Imperialists persuaded the UN to back their demands for a humanitarian intervention it was obvious that the idea that a No Fly Zone would be where it ended was already, obviously a non-starter. Other UN members such as Russia and China did not oppose the resolution for their own strategic reasons. Both Russia and China knew that it would end up with the Imperialists launching an all-out War to remove Gaddafi.

They knew that when the Imperialists went beyond the terms of the original motion, it would enable them to strut the world stage as some kind of moral superior, untainted by the shit that the Imperialists would cover themselves with in the eyes of many of the peoples of the Third World, peoples that Russia and China seek to curry favour with for their own political/strategic reasons.

Everyone knew that a No Fly Zone meant taking out anti-aircraft systems, which means bombing, and means putting Special Forces on the ground to laser mark those facilities etc. Even the US generals had said openly that even just a No Fly Zone would amount to an Act of War, because of the extent of these other operations that would be needed to implement it. But, it was always obvious that a No Fly Zone was not the purpose of obtaining the UN resolution. The addition of the words "all necessary means" indicated that what was really being planned was outright intervention on one side of a Civil War in order to remove Gaddafi.

And there would be no point in Imperialism intervening on one side in that Civil War, unless it WAS going to ensure by such intervention that it armed, trained and put in power its chosen agents!

Sure enough, although the resolution talked about humanitarian goals to protect civilians, it was never going to mean protecting those civilians being bombed, and shelled by the rebels. It was only ever advances by Gaddafi's tanks that were bombed and strafed, whilst the rebel tanks and artillery were provided with air cover by Imperialism in order to advance and launch attacks on towns not under their control. In fact, as many TV reports showed civilians were under if anything more danger from the rebels, who appeared to act with complete recklessness in firing off unguided rockets into towns.

It was one such act of recklessness that, in fact, got them killed in a friendly fire incident when they let off anti-aircraft rounds, which led a NATO plane to think it was under attack.

It is no surprise that when the African Union DID put forward a plan for a ceasefire, and peace negotiations the rebels rejected it, whilst Gaddafi accepted it. Of course, given past experience there is no reason to put great faith in Gaddafi's acceptance of the terms. But, surely it was worth attempting to protect civilians by attempting to introduce such a ceasefire, rather than simply building up the forces on either side, and driving the country into an increasingly bloody Civil War, that has all the hallmarks of being one based at least as much upon sectarian/communalist lines like the war in Rwanda, as one resulting from a genuine social revolt.

Indeed, the fact that the regime is reported to have handed out as many as a million guns to civilians in the West of the country to defend themselves against the "rebels" suggests that it must be reasonably confident about its support in that area, or at least confident that the people there are more afraid of the rebels than of the regime.

But, of course the rebels would not accept a ceafire and peace proposal precisely because they have been led to beleive that Imperialism will provide them with whatever support is needed to put them in power, whatever level of support they actually have within the country - which does not seem to be that much, except in Benghazi and a few other Eastern towns. Last week France 24 and Aljazeera were reporting that negotiations had already been held about a "Bosnian solution". (Incidentally today the War Crimes Court today handed down sentences on some of the Croatian Generals responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the Krajina, where hundreds of Serbs were butchered, and 90,000 more ethnically cleansed.)

That is the likely scenario is that the Imperialists will allow things to get to a stage where having fermented the Civil War to a heightened level by providing military support and weapons for the rebels, they will wait until Gaddafi's forces are about to overrun the rebels, and will then argue that a direct intervention on the ground is the only possible solution. They will then put in ground troops in Benghazi and the East. Now the major imperialist powers, despite opposition, it seems from some of the minor powers within NATO, have made it clear that they will only settle for regime change.

As the Tory MP's demanding a recall of Parliament point out, that is illegal under international law, just as was the Iraq War. The line of march seems fairly clear.

Having prepared the ground for regime change, they will now wait for Gaddafi's forces to advance. They will then argue the need to put in ground troops in the East, dividing the country in two. That will ensure they can bolster their chosen agents within Libya, whilst strangling the West of the country with all of the misery and suffering that will entail for civilians in Tripoli, where the vast majority of the population live. That will create the conditions for them then removing Gaddafi and installing their chosen puppet.

It can be guaranteed that whoever that is, they will not be a friend of the Libyan workers. Any Marxist that has studied history could have foretold that this was going to be the course of events, or something very close to it that would occur. That is why they had a responsibility to oppose the intervention of Imperialism into the affairs of Libya in the first place.

It is why they should then, and should now and in the future, argue that the only progressive solution that can be guaranteed is one based upon the international solidarity and action of the working-class. Our duty is to prepare the Libyan workers for what is about to befall them, and warn them against any reliance or confidence in Imperialism or its bourgeois allies in Libya. We need to do whatever we can, even if it is not much, to facilitate the independent organisation of Libyan workers, where possible in alliance with workers in Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia to defend themselves against their enemies be they within the regime, within the "rebel" camp, and certainly within the Imperialist intervention.

It is necessary for the Libyan workers to begin to develop their own independent Defence Squads and Militia, and to create their own democratic committees within their communties and workplaces to control them.

Workers in the surrounding countries, and from the developed countries should do what they can to provide the Libyan workers with arms, and finance and other practical material support.

Egyptian Blogger Jailed For Three Years By Military Court

The New York Times, and other foreign news outlets, have reported that Egyptian blogger and activist, Maikel Nabil, has been sentenced to three years in jail by a Military Court, on Monday.

His crime? He criticised the Military! That is the same military that stood behind Mubarak for the last 30 years, and that stood behind the previous Bonapartist dictators in Egypt before him, Sadat, and Nasser. It is the same Military that has recently been detaining an increasing number of democracy activists, and which has opened fire with live ammunition on recent protests. It is the same military that is given $1 billion a year by the US. Oddly, whilst the US and its allies are bombing Libya with depleted Uranium munitions, they seem terribly quiet about the increasing repression being meted out by their allies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and elsewhere.



In my previous blogs I pointed out that the lessons of previous Democratic Revolutions are clear. In 1848, the Prussian Aristocracy absorbed the democratic movement's advance, and as soon as the Democratic forces relaxed and weakened, they began to turn it back.

Needing to rely on the numbers of the working class, and peasantry, once the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie began to fear the advance of the workers, within that movement, they turned on them, attempting to make an alliance with the Aristocracy. The end result was that the Democracy movement was defeated entirely, and a period of repression and bloodletting introduced. Ruling classes are past masters at using scape goats, and sacrifices. The whole process of bourgeois democracy is built upon it, allowing electors to periodically blame one set of bourgeois politicians, and replace them with another set of bourgeois politicians whose policies vary only superfically from those who have been replaced.

As I wrote a few weeks ago. Mubarak's demise was not really a victory of the revolution. In the weeks preceding it, the military and Mubarak had played the usual management game using the Grand Old Duke of York tactic, leading people up the hill of expectation, and then sending them back down again when those expectations are dashed.

Its aim to split away the weaker elements and to cause demoralisation and weariness. Mubarak's removal was just the latest manouevre within that tactic. The Military by organising a Coup against him held out, yet again, the possibility of some meaningful change. Now, many weeks after he has gone, nothing has changed. In fact, it is worse in some ways. During the initial protests, the Military at least stood by whilst the other State goons attacked. Now the Military is beating up, detaining and shooting at the protesters itself. Of course, some of the more moderate elements within the Movement, those tied to groups who think they might get crumbs off the table, in any arrangement worked out with the Military, will likely moderate their opposition. The Military has been holding talks with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is reportedly under pressure, as some of its youth are being won over by socialist organisations, to introduce restrictions on who can vote. Other manouvres are being organised to enable the old regime to still control the Parliament.

The good news is that sizeable numbers of people are still coming out to protest, and the military itself is starting to fracture, with some Army Officers themselves breaking ranks, and coming out to support the protesters in Tahrir Square in recent days.

The working class also appears to be continuing to strengthen its organisations. But, as I have said in previous blogs, either the Military, possibly under pressure from the US, will move towards some kind of bourgeois democracy, that satisfies the protesters, or else it will continue to resist. Bonapartist regimes are powerful and stubborn things as the experience in Libya, and elsewhere demonstrates. The economic power, the privileges, and the military and state power they can weild, via their control, makes them appear, in some instances, as though they were a Ruling Class. And, for the same reasons they have a powerful incentive to hold on to power, even when challenged by an actual ruling class.

Indeed, that is so much so, that if a powerful Bonapartist regime, such as that in Egypt, decides to fight to hold on to its power, then the only means by which it can be dislodged is if the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, enlists the support of the workers and peasants to bring it about.

But, the lessons of 1848, and the Theory of Permanent Revolution, developed by Trotsky, illustrates where that will lead. In all eventualities, the important thing for Marxists is to argue the need for the working class to focus on its own interests, to develop its own organisations, its own property, its own democracy, and its own organs of state power, such as Defence Squads, and a Militia.

March separately strike together. The workers should go so far along the road, in the fight for democratic reforms, with their class enemies - the Bourgoisie - but must not subordinate their own interests to that struggle, or be fooled by the nature of Bourgeois Democracy, which is as Lenin describes it, "The best political shell for Capitalism", its most effective means of implementing the Dictatorship of Capital, and of oppressing and exploiting the workers.

Our fight is for Socialism not Bourgeois Democracy, some of the elements of which, such as freedom of speech, freedom to organise etc. are merely means of facilitating the workers struggle for its real goal.

Politically, therefore, our attitude towards the bourgeoisie, even as we ally with them in action for those limited goals must continue to be "Extreme Revolutionary Opposition".