Post to the blog |
Edit your details |
Log in

Blog

When the system fails, it makes war

Marie Lynam
30th January 2010 at 22:47
0 comments

Hello comrades
I read with interest John McDonnell’s Column in the February Briefing.
There are aspects worth investigating regarding how Brown and Balls came to be represented as ‘reluctant cut merchants’, as John says.
It is interesting that the Times prints Darling’s reassurances that, yes, yes, yes, Britain is going to halve its deficit in four years, and that all concerned (Pimco etc) should rest assured that Britain will do it. Could the investors rest assured that Britain will keep its AAA gold-plated credit rating – please! All this from Darling, supported by Mandelson.
As far as I can understand, this was a way of telling finance-capital that its safest Party in Britain is New Labour - safer than the Conservatives. The interesting bit is that The Times believes it, and writes positive editorials about Darling (details on demand).
As far as Finance capitalism is concerned, the Conservatives are not so interesting. They are too tied up to national-landed interests and national-corporate interests. New Labour is not tied in that way. On the contrary, it is encouraged by Finance Capitalism to out-do the Conservatives.
Like Jesus returned, Mandelson recommended acceptance of the Cadbury takeover by Kraft. But Cadbury was created - whether one likes or not - by the British national bourgeoisie. The British capitalist class worked at making Cadbury an element of national identity at a time when it was strong and could afford to look into the future. Then, it could seek the long-term interests of the country and take pride in the health, satisfaction and loyalty of its workers.
The Kraft takeover was a kind of asset stripping. Kraft was in debt at the start of the purchase and is now £20 billion in debt after the purchase. It did not have the money to buy Cadbury. Kraft’s only superiority over rival Hershaw is that it has finance contacts that can manipulate share values in Kraft’s favor (they all share the gains in the end). Millions have entered private pockets (advisers, lawyers, banks, executives) and the workers (by being sacked) will pay back Kraft’s debts. Kraft knows how to do it : It has already closed 35 plants and sacked 7,000 workers in 4 years.

This takeover was a swipe at the conservative patrimony of Britain and the political leadership best placed to do this was NewLabour. This explains the seemingly magic power of Mandelson. He does not get his power from god. He gets it from International High Finance imperialism and Blair was/is the politico-military side of the same coin.
Unlike the capitalist class, the working class does not have a property role in the economy.
Capitalism had a property role in the economy of the feudal system. It became the investor, the merchant, the coloniser, from within the feudal economic apparatus.

The working class is the last class, it cannot exploit anyone else. It does not accumulate or builds itself a class with a property-role in the economy. It does not announce any new class society. When it leads society, it does not bring social improvements for itself. It brings shared improvements, collective, for everyone. Peasants and workers. Countryside and cities. The nature of the power of the working class is collective, in the interests of all, eliminating classes, and therefore itself as a class. All you have then is social organs. And then, these disappear also, and society organises itself by just living.
Because Labour emerges historically from the working class - and still retains its working class base - its particular political form has no direct connections with production or capital accumulation. You can find Labour people dealing with these things, but as a political phenomenon, Labour is not based on any economic role. The Conservatives are. Hence, as it betrays, the Labour leadership is less tied to national interests. It is more free to be impressed by what it views as the world superiority of finance-capital.
Finance capital does not have a role in production either. Those who belong to finance-capital believe that ‘value’ derives from finance. Their notion of value is mystified, and even mystical. They cannot understand the role of the working class in the economy. They seek to get rid of this layer that, like the poor, ‘is always with us’. They find in Labour, under the form of New Labour, a series of careerists free of national constraints, keen to keep the working class giant in chains - and perhaps one day, out of the way.
In the coming elections, finance imperialism is supporting New Labour and not the Conservatives. You can see it in The Times editorials, and in the way the Financial Times eulogises Darling’s promises of cuts. The superstructure of the capitalist class (it is mostly financial) respects Mandelson. Its support for Mandelson/Darling may have led the rest of New Labour to present Brown and Balls as ‘the reluctant cuts merchants’: Poor dears, they must be supported. The recent so-called ‘coup’ of Hoon/Hewitt seems to have reinforced this.
The contradictions between a working class base in Labour, and this spectacularly treacherous New Labour leadership are growing explosively.
It could be that Brown will manage, (with alliances that high-finance will not challenge) to remain in government. The Conservatives feel that they have lost a main spring. This weakens their leaders. They have nothing to offer to the workers or to high-finance. There does not seem to be a Mandelson in the Conservatives, although there is nothing that spin cannot do!
If Brown stays in government after the elections, there is no reason to think that his policies will change. Should they change, high-finance will get rid of him.
But the exacerbated contradictions of today are not likely to go away. The more they are postponed, the greater is the antagonism to be resolved.

Already, nothing much can be done, no plan, no climate handling, no health, transport, education, production or housing, can answer unless the financial blood flows in the veins of the country. But it cannot flow in the veins of the country unless it flows from the heart of the international body that finance-capital has constructed.

In other words, simple human advances cannot be achieved unless they form part of planning on continental scales. This is what the crisis in Greece is showing very well just now. Competitors, by definition, do not wish to collaborate. This must be solved, if any particular country, like Britain, is going to breathe. Competition is the problem.

It is not excluded that one day, somebody, anybody almost, decides to take over the banks. It may not even be a Socialist government or a Socialist leadership! It may be a current that comes to power through the shambles. Two and two makes four. When the antagonism is sufficiently ready for resolution, it will impose itself on whoever is around.
Some comrades have an intuition of this, and some political parties. They use this to justify doing little, and simply wait. They wait for the system to self-destruct.

But when the system fails, it makes war. When the capitalist class in Chile saw it was finished, it made a coup. Now, we are in a vast Chile, on a world scale.
The LRC, and all the tendencies within it must discuss, foresee, compute things, pool the intelligence of everyone, and not just that of a few circles of ‘unconditionals’.

John McDonnell needs to build teams of people who foresee what is coming, and who prepare accordingly, building mass understanding in the LRC.
New Labour is not going to fade away. It represents the sector of capitalism the most determined about war, the least interested in collective decisions, as personified by Blair. It is the most barbaric sector of humanity. Should it win political power - it has not got that yet, mostly because each of its parts wants to be chief - humanity will experience barbarism.
The conclusion of John McDonnell (Briefing, Feb. 2010, p15) is important: “The main question [..] is how we resist and what form that resistance will take. There really is no alternative but resistance”.
I propose that comrades react, give opinions, make corrections to these considerations and make proposals of their own. Of course, you know what I wanted to say: The Peoples Charter, yes, yes, yes, as a campaigning tool. And not just for elections!