The European Radical Left Programme
Posted by seumasach on June 3, 2010
Cailean Bochanan
3rd June, 2010
The European radical left programme is a broadly positive document. It takes a clear stand against the austerity programmes being put into effect throughout Europe, it calls for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an end to NATO and calls for a public banking system.
However, there is a notable omission: there is no call to follow the measures implemented by Angela Merkel banning derivatives trading with a view to curbing the speculative attack on the Euro and the Eurozone as a whole. It is most striking that not only leftist governments such as those of Zapatero and Papandreou but also leftist forces on the ground have failed to pick up on this historic and possibly decisive initiative. We are thus faced in Greece and Spain with the classic scenario of class struggle, but with leftists on both sides, those in government calling for austerity and those manning the barricades opposing them. But can this conflict be reduced to this?
The fact that the German right have taken the lead in this conflict shows that it isn’t a class conflict in the sense the left understands it. As I have argued elsewhere, this is essentially a conflict between Wall Street and City of London interests and the Eurozone. Of course, there are oligarchical groups within Europe which are allied to those interests: a trojan horse or a fifth column. What is at stake , however, is the survival of the European project or the absorption of a fragmented Europe into the Anglosphere.
The far left in Britain also views the British crisis in the same terms according to which the British capitalist class plans to offload the crisis onto British workers. But does the British ruling class really think it can resolve things this way? Do they really believe that the overindebted British people can bear the burden of Britain’s exorbitant debt? The cuts , of course, will go ahead and they will be vicious but the essence of British policy is not so much to make British people pay, it is to make the rest of the world pay. Currently, this policy centres on knocking out the euro as an alternative to the dollar/pound.
The empire is still alive although in its final phase. Unlike in the days of Lenin it is not characterised by export of capital but by capital inflows which stem from the role of the pound, under the wing of the dollar, as a reserve currency. The free ride that this brings keeps Britain on life support as its own real economy expires and the living standards of its people steadily fall. Unfortunately, this steady fall threatens to become an economic tsunami as the system reaches its limits. We must therefore, make explicit the connection between our opposition to imperialism and the need to rebuild industry and agriculture, a real economy, which alone can restore long-term prosperity to Britain. In other words, at the same time as ending our foreign policy of wars and interference abroad, we must start to undo thirty years of Thatcherite destruction. Reconstruction can hardly be reduced to green initiatives as this document does, whatever one’s point of view on global warming.
Ultimately Britain is completely and utterly bankrupt. The negotiation of the terms of this bankruptcy, at all levels. private, corporate and national would itself be the starting point of our programme: rehabilitating ourselves internationally through retreat from empire and constructively engaging with our international partners and creditors, breaking the power of the City of London and reorientating finance to the task of national reconstruction. Bailout funds, a considerable proportion of which have gone in boosting the dollar through the purchase of US treasuries can be recuperated. Clear lines must be drawn defending citizen’s wellbeing and very survival: no repossessions or evictions, no disconnections of gas , electricity or water and a basic food package to all by right.
The left programme draws largely from traditional demands of the socialist left, many of which have some relevance but it fails to get to the heart of the matter: what is needed is not a socialist programme but a programme for end of empire.
In These New Times 
Mekonen Haddis said
The role Of Neo-Liberalism, in widening the income gap between the rich and the poor.
June 5, 2010 by politicalsnapshots.wordpress.com
The role of Neo-Liberalism, in widening the income gap between the rich and the poor.
“One of the most pronounced effects of Neo liberalism is to create wealth inequality within national borders and between states. Within a decade of adopting free market policies, the class divide in the US and UK became significant.” Professor G. William Domhoff. UC @ Santa Cruz.
It is just another indictment of Neo liberalism and its multi-faceted destructive policies encumbered upon people of the world. It is very fascinating to note, that the income gap between the poor and the rich has more pronouncedly been evident in the US and UK, the joint creators of Neo liberalism.
This enormous income gap between the rich and the poor in the US has concentrated more power in the hands of the rich and has created a feeling of helplessness on the majority of American citizens who have been marginalized by Neo liberal policies.
Consequently, sooner or later, the question will arise, whose country is it anyway? It is obvious that the widening of the income gap in the US is close to the breaking point. It is not if, but when it breaks, no one can forecast how it might end. It is just that the Corporations are blinded by greed, and our representatives are muzzled by big business.
Writing on the subject of Neo liberalism’s impact on social cohesion, David Coburn, from the University of Toronto writes: “While it has been asserted that neo-liberalism produces a lowered sense of community it might also be argued that the rise of neo-liberalism is itself a signifier of the decline of more widespread feelings of social solidarity. The political rise of neo-liberalism is freighted with a more individualistic view of society and, perhaps, itself reflects a decline in the notion of we are all in the same boat. Not only do neo-liberal policies undermine the social infrastructure underlying social cohesion but neo-liberal movements themselves are partial causes of the decline of a sense of social cohesion.”
It is absolutely frightening, what Neo liberalism is doing to societies. It is corroding the very fiber that societies are built upon. Neo liberalism is cancerous. It is undermining our Democratic system. When a government becomes a by stander when millions are practically becoming paupers, while the few are amassing billions, then, the people have no protector. Laws, Rules and Regulations are in the books only to protect the interest of the rich.
In a wonderful article entitled, “Skewed Wealth Distribution and the Roots of the Economic Crisis”, David Barber, a Professor at the University of Tennessee, wrote:
“And what is true in the United States of the unequal distribution of wealth, and of the consequences of that unequal distribution, is true again on a world scale. This super-poor mass of humanity, from whose soil is ripped vast amounts of mineral and agricultural wealth, and out of whose labor the world’s manufactured goods increasingly come, are almost wholly excluded from participating in the world’s market economy”. So, what is to be done?
While a number of social scientists have forwarded divergent solutions for anarcho-capitalism to save itself, Professor Michael Rustin at the University of East London suggests the following points are “made necessary by the implosion of the neo-liberal system in the current financial crisis, and are needed to construct a new post-neo-liberal phase of democratic capitalism”.
The five points he has put forward are the following:
(1) A more active role for governments in regulating markets, and especially global financial markets
(2) Constitutional reforms which enhance democratic processes and civil liberties, and create more representative and pluralist systems
(3) Policies, which reduce inequalities, and give greater weight to social justice and social inclusion.
(4) The enhancement of the capacities of international institutions, and especially the EU, to maintain economic stability and growth
(5) Programmes to address the problems of climate change.
Very sensible, are they not? But Wait!!! We have to see which governments have any backbones left in them to try and regulate the market, and do away with thirty years of destruction of the people that started with Reagan and Thatcher.
As I am ready to post this article, I hear a news story that stated that “Hungary might default on its debt”. What is the world coming to. Wasn’t Hungary the darling of the West? Didn’t it do everything that it was asked to? It privatized everything. It reduced government employment. It cut welfare as it was told to do by “free Market Reform” advisors. Hungary did everything a good and obedient follower of Neo liberalism is supposed to do. Yet, it is threatening to “default” on its debt in spite of a $24 billion IMF and EU loan few months back. This is the fruit of Neo Liberalism.
Do you wonder, which devoted and submissive follower of Neo liberalism will bite the dust, next?
Professor Mekonen Haddis.