In These New Times

A new paradigm for a post-imperial world

The party game is over. Stand and fight

Posted by seumasach on November 4, 2010

A good article by Pilger, but he is certainly wrong about one thing: Britain is utterly bankrupt. The comparison with 1945 is facile: Britain then still had a substantial industrial base and had a powerful position internationally allied with the USA. Now both have eroded almost completely. Britain is bankrupt at every level, personal, local, corporate and national, a dire situation which it makes worse through its aggressive stand off against the rest of the world. Standing defiantly alone will get us nowhere. Thirty years of Thatcherism have wrecked the place and it will take thirty years to rebuild it, a task that can only be accomplished in collaboration with Europe, China and other  creditors. This involves a major strategic shift away from imperialism which in the form of the pound/dollar reserve currency racket has been the  basis of our prosperity in the last 20 years.  The cuts will precipitate the collapse of Britain’s parasitic “consumer economy”; not making the cuts will start a run on the pound and  hyperinflationary burn out. Pilger and the left are deluding themselves about the depth of the crisis so they can go on as ever making mindless, mock-heroic exhortations. Trying to link national reconstruction with multipolarity I have outlined a programme for the end of empire.

John Pilger

ICH

3rd November, 2010

These days, the stirring lines of Percy Shelley’s The Mask of Anarchy may seem unattainable. I don’t think so. Shelley was both a Romantic and political truth-teller. His words resonate now because only one political course is left to those who are disenfranchised and whose ruin is announced on a government spread sheet.

Born of the “never again” spirit of 1945, social democracy in Britain has surrendered to an extreme political cult of money worship. This reached its apogee when £1 trillion of public money was handed unconditionally to corrupt banks by a Labour government whose leader, Gordon Brown, had previously described “financiers” as the nation’s “great example” and his personal “inspiration”.

This is not to say Parliamentary politics is meaningless. They have one meaning now: the replacement of democracy by a business plan for every human activity, every dream, every decency, every hope, every child born. The old myths of British rectitude, imperial in origin, provided false comfort while the Blair gang, assisted by venal MPs, finished Thatcher’s work and built the foundation of the present “coalition”. This is led by a former PR man for an asset stripper and by a bagman who will inherit his knighthood and the tax-avoided fortune of his father, the 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor. David Cameron and George Osborne are essentially fossilised spivs who, in colonial times, would have been sent by their daddies to claim foreign terrain and plunder.

Today, they are claiming 21st century Britain and imposing their vicious, antique ideology, albeit served as economic snake oil. Their designs have nothing to do with a “deficit crisis”. A deficit of 10 per cent is not remotely a crisis. When Britain was officially bankrupt at the end of the second world war, the government built its greatest public institutions, such as the National Health Service and the great arts edifices of London’s South Bank.

There is no economic rationale for the assault described cravenly by the BBC as a “public spending review”. The debt is exclusively the responsibility of those who incurred it, the super-rich and the gamblers. However, that’s beside the point. What is happening in Britain is the seizure of an opportunity to destroy the tenuous humanity of the modern state. It is a coup, a “shock doctrine” as applied to Pinochet’s Chile and Yeltsin’s Russia.

In Britain, there is no need for tanks in the streets. In its managerial indifference to the freedoms it is said to hold dear, bourgeois Britain has allowed parliament to create a surveillance state with 3,000 new criminal offences and laws: more than for the whole of the previous century. Powers of arrest and detention have never been greater. The police have the impunity to kill; asylum seekers can be “restrained” to death on commercial flights and should fellow passengers object, anti-terrorism laws will deal with them. Abroad, British militarism colludes with torturers and death squads.

The playwright Athol Fugard is right. With Harold Pinter gone, no acclaimed writer or artist dare depart from their well remunerated vanity. With so much in need of saying, they have nothing to say. Liberalism, the vainest ideology, has hauled up its ladder. The chief opportunist, Nick Clegg, leader of the minority Liberal Democrats, gave no electoral hint of his odious faction’s compliance with the dismantling of much of British post-war society. The theft of £83bn in jobs and services matches almost exactly the amount of tax legally avoided by piratical corporations like Rupert Murdoch’s. Without fanfare, the super-rich have been assured they can dodge £40bn in tax payments in the secrecy of Swiss banks. The day this was sewn up, Osborne attacked those who “cheat” the welfare system. He omitted the real amount lost, a minuscule £0.5bn, and that £10.5bn in benefit payments were not claimed at all. The Labour Party is his silent partner..

The propaganda arm in the press and broadcasting dutifully presents this as unfortunate but necessary. Mark how the fire-fighters’ action is “covered”. On Channel 4 News, following an item that portrayed modest, courageous public servants as basically reckless, the presenter Jon Snow demanded that the leaders of the London Fire Authority and the Fire Brigades Union go straight from the studio and “mediate” now, this minute. “I’ll get the taxis!” he declared. Forget the thousands of jobs that are to be eliminated from the fire service and the public danger beyond Bonfire Night. Knock their jolly heads together. “Good stuff!” said the presenter.

Ken Loach’s 1980s documentary series , Questions of Leadership, opens with a sequence of earnest young trade unionists on platforms, exhorting the masses. They are then shown older, florid, self-satisfied and finally adorned in the ermine of the House of Lords. Once, at a Durham Miners’ Gala, I asked Tony Woodley, now the joint general secretary of Unite, “Isn’t the problem the clockwork collaboration of the union leadership?” He almost agreed, implying that the rise of bloods like himself would change that. The British Airways’ cabin crew strike, over which Woodley presides, is said to have made gains. Has it? And why haven’t the British unions risen as one against totalitarian laws that place free trade unionism in a vice?

The BA workers, the fire-fighters, the council workers, the post office workers, the NHS workers, the London Underground staff, the teachers, the lecturers, the students can more than match the French if they are resolute and imaginative, forging, with the wider social justice movement, potentially the greatest popular resistance ever. Look at the web; and listen to the public’s support at fire stations. There is no other way now. Direct action. Civil disobedience. Unerring. Read Shelley and do it.


7 Responses to “The party game is over. Stand and fight”

  1. smeddum said

    There is an alternative to the cuts outlined by Greg Philo http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/chronicle-notices/?p=985. it is most likely wishful thinking as it is very little chance of being executed by any of the big Parties. Fighting the cuts has a parallel to dashing at windmills when there is little leadership or very little general political will to tax the very rich at all.
    Worse the official protest movement, that is not out to win but rubber stamp the cuts with token actions, is a major barrier to any real action.
    While squeezing the very rich is off the table at least in the meantime, I think it worth more than a passing mention.
    While it is important to recognise that the political trajectory of the uk needs to be shifted away from the Washington Consensus and towards the Bejing consensus.
    It has been bailouts for the oligarchy, cuts for everyone else. Bankruptcy for the State. A State that has become the impoverished or privatised servant to the oligarchy.
    We also need a banking model that precludes this type of State servitude. When it comes to paying Britains debt the oligarchy
    will be crying “poverty” as usual.

  2. inthesenewtimes said

    Who are the rich? The banks above all. But they’re bankrupt- put them through bankruptcy and in the process chase down where the bailout money went with the taxpayer as priority creditor.

  3. inthesenewtimes said

    Osbourne says Britain is on the verge of bankruptcy: he’s right. Many agree and therefore see the cuts as a reasonable response. It isn’t absolutely obvious why they won’t work: in a normal situation they would make sense. My point is that the collapse of imperial power is not a normal situation any more than fiat currencies acting as reserve currencies and economies being “consumers of last resort”. There is simply nothing in the left’s anti-capitalist narrative which equips them to deal with this. Pilger’s article could be the swan song of the left: he’s trying to build a fightback on the basis of a piece of flagrant dishonesty. Hopefully people will fight for their jobs their homes and their families but that in itself won’t get us out of this mother of all messes.

  4. inthesenewtimes said

    Philo wants to tax the richest half of the population. What does their supposed wealth consist off? Property whose value is falling, jobs which they can lose, investments in shares which lose value every year, savings at near zero per cent, pensions which will never materialise. The whole point is their wealth, our wealth is illusory. The problem is not primarily one of distribution but of an absolute decline in real wealth creation made manifest by our failure to continue to sufficiently distribute wealth from the developed world to ourselves.

  5. smeddum said

    I am confused. Philo’s statistic of £7,000 billion, is it really now at zero? I can easily accept that the banks are in deep debt but are the super rich people such as Branson and Rowling and the Queen?

  6. inthesenewtimes said

    Branson is certainly in debt according to Private Eye.

    Telegraph puts private sector debt at 6 times government debt, but this involves a massive underestimate of government debt.

    Apart from the genuine productive sector Britain is all bailout- the rich are just those feeding at trough of public money, most notably utilities, beneficiaries of PPPs etc.

    Once you stop the bailouts you’re following the money trail which is largely a criminal fraud trail. Certainly this will lead to offshore havens where hopefully quite a lot can be recuperated.

  7. inthesenewtimes said

    Anyway, where do the rich put there money? They can’t consume it all. Clients of Goldman you remember bought a whole lot of CDOs and then lost the lot while Goldman was betting against them. It’s been going into hedge funds like Madoff’s where they lost a pile. Now seemingly they are getting the idea and piling into gold. Once reverse bailout starts we can envisage all the utilities, a lot of the housing stock and real estate being in public ownership. A wealth tax is good but it doesn’t encapsulate anything like what we’re dealing with: reverse bailout is better.

Leave a comment