Nick Wright http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv/06-mason.html “Capitalism, it turns out, will not be abolished by forced-march techniques. It will be abolished by creating something more dynamic that exists, at first, almost unseen within the old system, but which will break through, reshaping the economy around new values and behaviours. I call this postcapitalism.”—Paul Mason Paul Mason has conjured
Full report available at http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2015/08/26/new-research-on-market-income-and-its-distribution/ August 26, 2015 by Micheál Collins The latest NERI Research inBrief examines the underlying distribution of market income in the Republic of Ireland. Market income captures the income received by employees as earnings, the profits of the self-employed and other ‘unearned’ income including rental income, private pension income, investment income
The below was written by Nick Dearden in 2011 and published in Red Pepper at http://www.redpepper.org.uk/samir-amin-at-80/ Many of Samir Amin’s writings are available at https://monthlyreview.org/author/samiramin/ Samir Amin is one of the world’s greatest radical thinkers – a ‘creative Marxist’ who went from Communist activism in Nasser’s Egypt, to advising African socialist leaders like Julius Nyerere to being
Another brilliantly insightful article by James Petras available at http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2044 and reprinted below in full: First, the denial came as tragedy: When the Greek majority elected Syriza to government and their debts increased, the economy plunged further into depression and unemployment and poverty soared. The Greek people voted for Syriza believing its promises of ‘a new
H.D. Dickenson on Marxist economics and political economy ‘A socialist society, which is trying to build up the basis of a modern industrial economy, realizes this very clearly. The creation of physical capital (“means of production”) involves a real cost to the community—a foregoing of potential present enjoyments. In a truly human society, where the
“Capitalism, it turns out, will not be abolished by forced-march techniques. It will be abolished by creating something more dynamic that exists, at first, almost unseen within the old system, but which will break through, reshaping the economy around new values and behaviours. I call this postcapitalism.”—Paul Mason
Paul Mason has conjured up a very 21st-century formula for the replacement of capitalism. It combines all the elements of a problem-free route to “postcapitalism,” rather than the old techniques of revolt, revolution, and working-class power, and relies—it seems—on the facility of the internet to permit the free transfer of information combined with the ability of human beings to devise forms of exchange that evade the capitalist market.
His latest book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future, energetically puffed by the Guardian, was published on 30 July. It sets out “a project, the aim of which should be to expand those technologies, business models and behaviours that dissolve market forces, socialise knowledge, eradicate the need for work and push the economy towards abundance.”
He calls it Project Zero, “because its aims are a zero-carbon-energy system; the production of machines, products and services with zero marginal costs; and the reduction of necessary work time as close as possible to zero.”
His aim is “to build alternatives within the system; to use governmental power in a radical and disruptive way; and to direct all actions towards the transition—not the defence of random elements of the old system.”
For this contemporary model of painless revolutionary change Paul Mason has drawn from the Marxist method of historical materialism the conception that capitalism arose within the existing framework of feudal society.
Thus, within present-day capitalism something like all the conjunctural factors that in an earlier epoch dissolved the bonds of feudal obligation—labour shortages arising from the Black Death, the subsequent raising of wages, the increased tempo of merchant activity, the plunder of the Americas, the growth of banking and credit, market-driven modes of thinking—are to be replicated by a new corrosive factor, that of information.
So far so distinctly utopian. Having abandoned the cumbersome Marxist notion that the bearers of the new ideas that arise with social systems—emerging and distinct classes—are obliged to overthrow the political and state power of their historically redundant class enemies, Paul Mason has cast around for a new agent of historical change. In his schema, information will sweep all opposition before it.
How much easier Oliver Cromwell would have found his task of destroying the feudal power of the King if he had a Google account! Would not our Catholic King and aristocracy have feared a Twitter storm more than Cromwell’s Ironsides? And in turn, would not Cromwell himself be easily defeated by a tsunami of Leveller Facebook likes?
Postcapitalism is possible, he argues, “because of three major changes information technology has brought about in the past 25 years. First, it has reduced the need for work, blurred the edges between work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages. The coming wave of automation, currently stalled because our social infrastructure cannot bear the consequences, will hugely diminish the amount of work needed—not just to subsist but to provide a decent life for all.”
To suggest that further automation is stalled because our social structure cannot bear the consequences is true enough. Capitalism makes a mockery of the uncounted millions whose boundaries between work and free time—eroded by zero-hour contracts and unemployment—are already bearing the costs of a capitalism that cannot match human resources to productive labour.
The reserve army of labour—whose aged parents cannot obtain affordable care and whose children cannot find affordable housing, and who themselves are forced often into emigration—will be surprised to find there is a reduced need for work and even more surprised to find, in the absence of wages without work, that the relationship between the two is loosened. To them, and the millions whose security is guaranteed for no more than a week or a month, it seems rather tight.
Where Paul Mason is on firmer ground is on the role he ascribes—in the manner of the factors that destabilised feudal social and class relations—to external shocks to the system. These he identifies as energy depletion, climate change, ageing populations, and migration.
The point, however, is that it is the inbuilt tendencies of contemporary capitalism itself that mean that these seismic movements cannot be managed. Thus their nominally external character is a function of the system itself.
For a journalist whose latest tasks entail on-the-spot reportage of the ways in which governmental office alone is an insufficient condition for the overcoming of class power, Paul Mason’s revisionist project is original in finding new ways to imagine out of existence the very concrete factors that might impede the natural working through of his utopia.
In the case of Greece, the will of the people means nothing in the face of capitalist class power organised at the national, continental and international levels.
His notion that “collaborative production, using network technology to produce goods and services that only work when they are free, or shared, defines the route beyond the market system” has a charm of its own, but—valuable though the long existence of co-operative forms of production, distribution and exchange is within actually existing capitalism—there is no example of them transcending the logic of the market, evading the determinants of the banking system, or escaping the regulatory framework of the state (or transnational institutions like the EU).
Although I can still remember my mum’s co-op divi number from nearly five decades ago (39887), I cannot imagine Britain’s worthy but ailing co-operative sector as the decisive factor that might corrode the sinews of capitalism.
Paul Mason speaks to the hopes and aspirations of a whole new generation of people whose entry into struggle—forced on them by the failures and contradictions of capitalism—has transformed the political life of Britain and other developed capitalist countries.
He is right in arguing that “by creating millions of networked people, financially exploited but with the whole of human intelligence one thumb-swipe away, info-capitalism has created a new agent of change in history: the educated and connected human being.”
And in referring to the changes in political consciousness that factory production brought about among workers he alludes to Marx’s notion of the working class as the agency of revolutionary change and even to Lenin’s attention to the revolutionary potential of Bolshevik factory organisation—but only to replace these dynamic elements in a real revolution with “a project based on reason, evidence and testable designs.”
The unwillingness of our masters to countenance even a mildly Keynesian economic strategy to stabilise the Greek economy rather undermines the quaint notion that reason alone will cause Madame Merkel to smile on Comrade Tsípras or Gideon Osborne to operate the levers of the economy in favour of British workers, no matter how educated and connected they may be.
Almost absent within Paul Mason’s mise-en-scène is the key agency of class rule. The state is the silent and invisible actor, save for a brief and benign walk-on part as enabling the transition to postcapitalism.
Postcapitalism, he argues, “will need the state to create the framework—just as it created the framework for factory labour, sound currencies and free trade in the early 19th century.”
Left unexplained is how the actually existing state might be compelled to do his thing; and equally unexplained—with his new revolutionary class of information workers chained to their keyboards—is how the coercive power of the capitalist state—which is not limited to its mercenaries but rests also on ideas that have as much currency in the media and the sphere of information as any other—might be overcome.
Full report available at http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2015/08/26/new-research-on-market-income-and-its-distribution/
August 26, 2015 by Micheál Collins
The latest NERI Research inBrief examines the underlying distribution of market income in the Republic of Ireland.
Market income captures the income received by employees as earnings, the profits of the self-employed and other ‘unearned’ income including rental income, private pension income, investment income and interest income. It is in effect the pre-distribution of income; that which arises before the redistributive mechanisms of taxation and welfare step in.
The key points from the analysis, which use the latest available data which is for 2013, are:
- The median (middle) market income was €23,701 while the mean was €32,042.
- The distribution of market income is concentrated on incomes of less than €50,000 per annum – representing 80% of all earners.
- 15% of all those with a market income, about 290,000 people, receive less than €5,000 (the average direct income for this group is €2,000 and most receive less than €1,000).
- 50% of those with a market income receive between €5,000 and €35,000.
- The top 10% of recipients have an income of more than €65,000.
- The top 5% of recipients have an income of more than €85,000; this group approximates to the top 100,000 earners in the state.
The below was written by Nick Dearden in 2011 and published in Red Pepper at http://www.redpepper.org.uk/samir-amin-at-80/
Many of Samir Amin’s writings are available at https://monthlyreview.org/author/samiramin/
Samir Amin is one of the world’s greatest radical thinkers – a ‘creative Marxist’ who went from Communist activism in Nasser’s Egypt, to advising African socialist leaders like Julius Nyerere to being a leading figure in the World Social Forum.
Samir Amin’s ideas were formed in the heady ferment of 1950s and ’60s when pan-Africanists like Kwamah Nkrumah ran Ghana and Juliuys Nyrere Tanzania, when General Nasser was transforming the Middle East from Amin’s native Egypt and liberation movements thrived from South Africa to Algeria.
Africa looked very different before the International Monetary Fund destroyed what progress had been made towards emancipation and LiveAid created a popular conception of a continent of famine and fecklessness. Yet through these times, Amin’s ideas have continued to shine out, denouncing the inhumanity of contemporary capitalism and empire, but also harshly critiquing movements from political Islam to Eurocentric Marxism and its marginalisation of the truly dispossessed.
Amin believes that the world capitalism – a rule of oligopolies based in the rich world – maintains its rule through five monopolies – control of technology, access to natural resources, finance, global media, and the means of mass destruction. Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made.
This raises particular challenges for those of us who are activists in the North because any change we promote must challenge the privileges of the North vis-à-vis the South. Our internationalism cannot be expressed through a type of humanitarian approach to the global South – that countries in the South need our ‘help to develop’. For Amin, any form of international work must be based on an explicitly anti-imperialist perspective. Anything else will fail to challenge structure of power – those monopolies which really keep the powerful powerful.
Along with colleagues like Andre Gunder Frank, Amin see the world divided into the ‘centre’ and the ‘peripheries’. The role of peripheries, those countries we call the global South, is to supply the centres – specifically the ‘Triad’ of North America, Western Europe and Japan – with the means of developing without being able to develop themselves. Most obviously, the exploitation of Africa’s minerals on terms of trade starkly favourable to the centre will never allow African liberation, only continual exploitation.
This flies in the face of so much ‘development thinking’ which would have you believe that Africa’s problems come from not being properly integrated into the global economy which has grown up over the last 40 years. Amin believes in fact Africa’s problem stem from it being too integrated but in ‘the wrong way’.
In fact, as long as the monopolies of control are intact, countries of the centre have had few problems globalising production since the 1970s. Sweatshop labour now takes place across the periphery but it hasn’t challenged the power of those in the North because of their control of finance, natural resources, the military and so on. In fact, it has enhanced their power by reducing wages and destroying a manufacturing sector that had become a power base for unionised workers.
So there is no point whatever in asking countries of the centre to concede better trading relationships to the peripheries. Amin is also concerned at environmental activism which too often becomes a debate about how countries of the centre manage their control of the world’s resources, rather than challenging that control. It is vital that Northern activists challenge the means through which the ruling class in their own society exerts control over the rest of the world.
Of course, this is not just a project for activists in the North – far from it. The theory for which Amin is most famous that of ‘de-linking’.
De-linking means countries of the periphery withdrawing from their exploitative integration in the global economy. In a sense it is de-globalisation, but it is not a form of economic isolation – something which African socialist leaders too readily fell into. Rather it means not engaging in economic relationships from a point of weakness.
Amin argues that Southern countries should develop their economy through various forms of state intervention, control of money flowing in an out of their financial sectors and promoting trading with other Southern countries. Countries must nationalise financial sectors, strongly regulate natural resources, ‘de-link’ internal prices from the world market, and free themselves from control by international institutions like the World Trade Organisation. Whatever problems come with nationalised industries, it is the only possible basis for a genuinely socially controlled economy going forward.
After 30 years of being told that their problems would be solved by exporting more, privatising their natural resources and liberalising their financial sectors, many developing countries would today do well to heed Amin’s advice. Instead, too many countries have bought into a de-politicised narrative which posits ideologically loaded terms like ‘good governance’, ‘poverty’ and ‘civil society’ carefully disguising questions as to how poverty happened, what interests governance serves, or the legitimacy of organisations claiming to speak on behalf of the dispossessed.
Amin does not believes that the ‘rise’ of China, India and other emerging economies has in any way broken the power of the oligopolies, in fact that power has only become more concentrated. But there have been important changes. Imperialist powers have realised competition between themselves is not helpful and have created a sort of collective imperialism which is expressed through institutions like the WTO and IMF.
Capitalism, ‘a parenthesis in history’
Capitalism is experiencing a profound long-term crisis to which Amin believes it has no solution short of political barbarism. He describes this form of capitalism as ‘senile’.
This crisis is characterised by an increased dependence on finance, which means less and less money is being made from productive activities, and more from simple ‘rent’. It is a far more direct means of stealing wealth from the majority of the world. The accompanying form of politics means that democracy has been reduced to a farce in which people are spectators in an elite drama – that is when they’re not fulfilling their proper role of consuming.
Capitalism necessarily requires an ongoing process of dispossession so that it can accumulate and continue to expand. Capitalism could not have developed without the European conquest of the world – the availability so many ‘spare’ resources was vital. The safety value for many of those dispossessed from European land was the ‘new world’ which allowed mass emigration – though of course others died in droves, witness the Irish potato famine.
So as much as many of the dispossessed might aspire to the lives of those in advanced capitalist countries, it is simply not possible. Nor can traditional Marxists be correct when they say capitalism is a necessary stage on the path to socialism – a view which Amin describes as ‘Eurocentric’.
Industry cannot incorporate more than a small fraction of humanity, but it does require the resources that that humanity depends upon. So the only way that capitalism can move forward is through the creation of a ‘slum planet’ – a sort of ‘apartheid at the world level’. Amin sees the dispossession of the peasantry across the peripheral countries will become the central issue of the twenty-first century.
This is one reason why Amin see the role of the peasantry in the South – almost half of humanity after all – as key to determining the future. The strength of movements around food sovereignty, against land grabbing and supporting the rights of indigenous peoples, give support to this theory. But for Amin, agriculture is not merely a big opportunity, the existence of the peasantry presents capitalism with an insurmountable challenge.
Amin believes the road to socialism depends on reversing this trend of dispossession meaning, at national and regional levels, protecting local agricultural production, ensuring countries’ have food sovereignty and de-linking internal prices from world commodity markets. This would stop the dispossession of peasants and their exodus into the towns.
Only this revolution in the way the land is seen, treated and access can lay the basis for a new society. This also means ditching the idea of ‘growth’ as it is spoken about today and by which all world economies are judged, which really benefits only a minority of the world population. The rest of humanity is “abandoned to stagnation, if not pauperisation”.
The long road to socialism
Perhaps this makes Samir Amin sounds rather idealistic in his approach, but this is far from true. Amin explicitly rejects the idea of a ‘24 hour revolution’ – a single insurrectionary act which ushers in a period of socialism. Indeed he accepts there may well be a need to use private, even international capital, in order to diversify Southern economies. The important thing is control. For this reason Amin also refuses to use the phrase “socialism of the 21st century” focussing on the need for “the long route of the transition to socialism”.
But that’s not to say there have not been significant victories. Interestingly, Amin is less interested in developments in Latin America, which he believes contain risks of repeating the mistakes of many national liberation movements on the 1950s and 60s in becoming a form of “popular statism”.
Amin is more interested in Nepal as an possible future model to look towards. He also sees the Chinese revolution as an incredibly significant event in directly challenging the basis of capitalism and in the struggle for democratic socialism, most especially in its “abolition of the private property of land” and the formation of powerful communes and collectives.
Amin’s somewhat romantic view of the Chinese revolution is certainly challenging to Western sensibilities, but his underlying view that the formation of democracy must go beyond a narrow political project, and that peasants – and especially women – through collective organisations, might be better placed than Western individualists to define a really progressive vision of democracy needs to be properly taken on board by activists.
Perhaps Amin’s central thesis is somewhat obvious, but it’s often forgotten – that a true revolution must be based on those who are being dispossessed and impoverished. But he goes further in undermining the assumption that any thinking emerging from the South will lack enlightenment, or that a lack of enlightenment should be excused.
He believes the Enlightenment was humanity’s first step towards democracy, liberating us from the idea that God created our activity. He has caused controversy in his utter rejection of political Islam. This ideology, embedded for example in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, obscures the real nature of society, including by playing into the idea that the world consists of different cultural groups which conflict with each other, an idea which helps the centre control the peripheries.
Amin’s view is that organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood, with their cultural and economic conservatism, are actually viewed positively by the US and other imperialist governments. And he doesn’t limit his critique to Islam either, launching similar criticism on political Hinduism practiced by the BJP in India and Political Buddhism, expressed through the Dalai Lama.
Samir Amin decribes himself as a ‘creative Marxist’ – “to begin from Marx but not to end with him or with Lenin or Mao” – which incorporates all manner of critical ways of thinking even ones “which were wrongly considered to be ‘alien’ by the dogmas of the historical Marxism of the past.”
These views are surely more relevant today than when Amin started writing. A creative Marxism takes proper account of the perspective and aspirations of the truly dispossessed in the world, break out of historical dogmas and rejects attempts to stick together a broken model, but equally sees the impossibility of overthrowing this model tomorrow. Fortunately Amin seems more prolific than ever – and well worth the read.
Another brilliantly insightful article by James Petras available at http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2044 and reprinted below in full:
First, the denial came as tragedy: When the Greek majority elected Syriza to government and their debts increased, the economy plunged further into depression and unemployment and poverty soared. The Greek people voted for Syriza believing its promises of ‘a new course’. Immediately following their victory, Syriza reneged on their promise to restore sovereignty – and end the subjugation of the Greek people to the economic dictates of overseas bankers, bureaucrats and political oligarchs. Instead Syriza kept Greece in the oligarchical imperialist bloc, portraying the European Union as an association of independent sovereign countries. What began as a great victory of the Greek people turned into a tragic strategic retreat. >From their first day in office, Syriza led the Greek people down the blind alley of total submission to the German empire.
Then the tragedy turned into farce when the Greek people refused to acknowledge the impending betrayal by their elected leaders. They were stunned, but mute, as Syriza emptied the Greek treasury and offered even greater concessions, including acceptance of the illegal and odious debts incurred by private bankers, speculators and political kleptocrats in previous regimes.
True to their own vocation as imperial overlords, the EU bosses saw the gross servility of Syriza as an invitation to demand more concessions – total surrender to perpetual debt peonage and mass impoverishment. Syriza’s demagogic leaders, Yanis Varoufakis and Alexis Tsipras, shifting from fits of hysteria to infantile egotism, denounced ‘the Germans and their blackmail’ and then performed a coy belly-crawl at the feet of the ‘Troika’, peddling their capitulation to the bankers as ‘negotiations’ and referring to their overlords as . . . ‘partners’.
Syriza, in office for only 5 months brought Greece to the edge of total bankruptcy and surrender, then launched the ‘mother of all deceptions’ on the Greek people: Tsipras convoked a ‘referendum’ on whether Greece should reject or accept further dictates and cuts to bare bones destitution. Over 60% of the Greek people voted a resounding NO to further plunder and poverty.
In Orwellian fashion, the megalomaniac Tsipras immediately re-interpreted the ‘NO’vote as a mandate to capitulation to the imperial powers, accepting the EU bankers’ direct supervision of the regime’s implementation of Troika’s policies – including drastic reductions of Greek pensions, doubling the regressive ‘VAT’ consumption tax on vital necessities and a speed-up of evictions of storeowners and householders behind in their mortgage payments. Thus Greece became a vassal state: Nineteenth century colonialism was re-imposed in the 21st century.
Colonialism by Invitation
Greek politicians, whether Conservative or Socialist, have openly sought to join the German-led imperial bloc known as the European Union, even when it was obvious that the Greek economy and financial system was vulnerable to domination by the powerful German ruling class.
From the beginning, the Greek Panhellenic Socialist Party (PASOK) and their Conservative counterparts refused to recognize the class basis of the European Union. Both political factions and the Greek economic elites, that is, the kleptocrats who governed and the oligarchs who ruled, viewed entry into the EU as an opportunity for taking and faking loans, borrowing, defaulting and passing their enormous debts on to the public treasury!
Widely circulating notions among the Left that ‘Germany is responsible’ for the Greek crisis are only half true, while the accusations among rightwing financial scribes that the ‘Greek people are spendthrifts’ who brought on their own crisis is equally one-sided. The reality is more complex:
The crash and collapse of the Greek economy was a product of an entrenched parasitic rentier ruling class –both Socialist and Conservative – which thrived on borrowing at high interest rates and speculating in non-productive economic activities while imposing an astronomical military budget. They engaged in fraudulent overseas financial transactions while grossly manipulating and fabricating financial data to cover-up Greece’s unsustainable trade and budget deficits.
German and other EU exporters had penetrated and dominated the Greek markets. The bankers charged exorbitant interest rates while investors exploited cheap Greek labor. The creditors ignored the obvious risks because Greek rulers were their willing accomplices in the ongoing pillage.
Clearly entry into and continued membership in the EU has largely benefited two groups of elites: the German rulers and the Greek rentiers: The latter received short-term financial grants and transfers while the former gained powerful levers over the banks, markets and, most important, established cultural-ideological hegemony over the Greek political class. The Greek elite and middle class believed ‘they were Europeans’ – that the EU was a beneficent arrangement and a source of prosperity and upward mobility. In reality, Greek leaders were merely accomplices to the German conquest of Greece. And the major part of the middle class aped the views of the Greek elite.
The financial crash of 2008-2009 ended the illusions for some but not most Greeks. After 6 years of pain and suffering a new version of the old political class came to power: Syriza! Syriza brought in new faces and rhetoric but operated with the same blind commitment to the EU. The Syriza leadership believed they were “partners”.
The road to vassalage is rooted deep in the psyche of the political class. Instead of recognizing their subordinate membership in the EU as the root cause of their crisis, they blamed ‘the Germans, the bankers, Angela Merkel, Wolfgang Schnauble , the IMF, the Troika… The Greek rulers and middle class were in fact both victims and accomplices.
The German imperial regime loaned money from the tax revenues of German workers to enable their complicit Greek vassals to pay back the German bankers… German workers complained. The German media deflected criticism by blaming the ‘lazy Greek cheats’. Meanwhile, the Greek oligarch-controlled media deflected criticism of the role of the parasitical political class back to the ‘Germans’. This all served to obscure the class dynamics of empire building — colonialism by invitation. The ideology of blaming peoples, instead of classes, is pitting German workers against Greek employees and pensioners. The German masses support their bankers, while the Greek masses have elected and followed Syriza – their traitors.
From Andreas Papandreou to Alexis Tsipras: Misconceptions about the European Union
After Syriza was elected a small army of instant experts, mostly leftist academics from Canada, the US and Europe, sprang up to write and speak, usually with more heat than light, on current Greek political and economic developments. Most have little knowledge or experience of Greek politics, particularly its history and relations with the EU over the past thirty five years.
The most important policy decisions shaping the current Syriza government’s betrayal of Greek sovereignty go back to the early 1980’s when I was working as an adviser to PASOK Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou. At that time, I was party to an internal debate of whether to continue within the EU or leave. Papandreou was elected on an anti EU, anti NATO platform, which, like Tsipras, he promptly reneged on– arguing that ‘there were no alternatives’. Even then, there were international and Greek academic sycophants, as there are today, who argued that membership in the EU was the only realistic alternative- it was the ‘only possibility’. The ‘possibilistas” at that time, operating either from ignorance or deceit, were full of bluster and presumption. They denied the underlying power realities in the structure of the EU and dismissed the class capacity of the working and popular masses to forge an alternative. Then, as now, it was possible to develop independent alternative relations with Europe, Russia, China, the Middle East and North Africa. The advantages of maintaining a protected market, a robust tourist sector and an independent monetary system were evident and did not require EU membership (or vassalage).
Above all, what stood out in both leaders, Andreas Papandreou and Alexis Tsipras, was their profound misconception of the class nature of the dominant forces in the EU. In the 1980’s Germany was just beginning to recover its imperial reach. By the time Syriza-Tsipras rose to power (January 2015), Germany’s imperial power was undeniable. Tsipras’ misunderstanding of this reality can be attributed to his and his ‘comrades’ rejection of class and imperial analyses. Even academic Marxists, who spouted Marxist theory, never applied their abstract critiques of capitalism and imperialism to the concrete realities of German empire building and Greece’s quasi-colonial position within the EU. They viewed their role as that of ‘colonial reformers’ –imagining that they were clever enough to ‘negotiate’ better terms in the German-centered EU. They inevitably failed because Berlin had a built-in majority among its fervently neo-liberal ex-communist satellites plus the IMF, French and English imperial partners. Syriza was no match for this power configuration. Then there was the bizarre delusion among the Syriza intellectuals that European capitalism was more benign than the US version.
EU membership has created scaffolding for German empire-building. The take off point was West Germany’s annexation of East Germany. This was soon followed by the incorporation of the rightwing regimes in the Baltic and Balkans as subordinate members of the EU – their public assets were snapped up by Germany corporations at bargain prices. The third step was the systematic break-up of Yugoslavia and the incorporation of Slovenia into the German orbit. The fourth step was the takeover of key sectors of the Polish and Czech economies and the exploitation of cheap skilled labor from Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and other satellite states.
Without firing a shot, German empire-building has revolved around making loans and financial transfers to the new subordinate member states in the EU. These financial transactions were predicated upon the following conditions: 1) Privatization and sale of the new member states’ prized public assets to mainly German as well as other EU investors and 2) Forcing member states to dismantle their social programs, approve massive lay-offs and meet impossible fiscal targets. In other words, expansion of the contemporary German empire required austerity measures, which transformed the ex-communist countries into satellites, vassals and sources of mercenaries – a pattern which is now playing out in Greece.
The reason these new German ‘colonies’ (especially Poland and the Baltic States) insist on the EU imposing harsh austerity measures on Greece, is that they went through the same brutal process convincing their own beleaguered citizens that there was no alternative – resistance was futile. Any successful demonstration by Greek workers, farmers and employees that resistance to empire was possible would expose the corrupt relationship between these client leaders and the German imperial order. In order to preserve the foundations of the new imperial order, Germany has had to take a hardline on Greece. Otherwise the recently incorporated colonial subjects in the Baltic, Balkan and Central Europe states might “re-think” the brutal terms of their own incorporation to the European Union. This explains the openly punitive approach to Greece – turning it into the ‘Haiti of Europe’ analogous to the US’ long standing brutalization of the rebellious Haitians – as an object lesson to its own Caribbean and Latin American clients.
The root cause of German intransigence has nothing to do with the political personalities or quirks of Angela Merkle and Wolfgang Schnauble: Such imperial leaders do not operate out of neurotic vindictiveness. Their demand for total Greek submission is an imperative of German empire-building, a continuation of the step-by-step conquest of Europe.
German empire-building emphasizes economic conquests, which go hand-in-hand with US empire-building based on military conquests. The same economic satellites of Germany also serve as sites for US military bases and exercises encircling Russia; these vassal states provide mercenary soldiers for US imperial wars in South Asia, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.
Syriza’s economic surrender is matched by its spineless sell-out to NATO, its support of sanctions against Russia and its embrace of US policies toward Syria, Lebanon and Israel.
Germany and its imperial partners have launched a savage attack on the working people of Greece, usurping Greek sovereignty and planning to seize 50 billion Euros of vital Greek public enterprises, land and resources. This alone should dispels the myth, promoted especially by the French social democratic demagogue Jacques Delores, that European capitalism is a benign form of ‘social welfarism’ and an ‘alternative’ to the savage Anglo-American version capitalism.
What has been crucial to previous and current versions of empire-building is the role of a political collaborator class facilitating the transition to colonialism. Here is where social democrats, like Alexis Tsipras, who excel in the art of talking left while embracing the right, flatter and deceive the masses into deepening austerity and pillage.
Instead of identifying the class enemies within the EU and organizing an alternative working class program, Tsipras and his fellow collaborators pose as EU ‘partners’ , fostering class collaboration – better to serve imperial Europe: When the German capitalists demanded their interest payments, Tsipras bled the Greek economy. When German capitalists sought to dominate Greek markets, Tsipras and Syriza opened the door by keeping Greece in the EU. When German capital wanted to supervise the take-over of Greek properties, Tsipras and Syriza embraced the sell-off.
There is clear class collaboration within the Greek elite in the destruction of nation’s sovereignty: Greek banker oligarchs and sectors of the commercial and tourist elite have acted as intermediaries of the German empire builders and they personally benefit from the German and EU takeover despite the destitution of the Greek public. Such economic intermediaries, representing 25% of the electorate, have become the main political supporters of the Syriza-Tsipras betrayal. They join with the EU elite applauding Tsipras’ purge of left critics and his authoritarian seizure of legislative and executive power! This collaborator class will never suffer from pension cuts, layoffs and unemployment. They will never have to line up at crippled banks for a humiliating dole of 65 Euros of pension money. These collaborators have hundreds of thousands and millions stashed in overseas bank accounts and invested in overseas real estate. Unlike the Greek masses, they are ‘European’ first and foremost – willing accomplices of German empire builders!
Tragic Beginnings: The Greek People Elect a Trojan Horse
Syriza is deeply rooted in Greek political culture .A leadership of educated mascots serving overseas European empire-builders. Syriza is supported by academic leftists who are remote from the struggles, sacrifices and suffering of the Greek masses. Syriza’s leadership emerged on the scene as ideological mentors and saviors with heady ideas and shaky hands. They joined forces with downwardly mobile middle class radicals who aspired to rise again via the traditional method: radical rhetoric, election to office, negotiations and transactions with the local and foreign elite and betrayal of their voters. Theirs is a familiar political road to power, privilege and prestige. In this regard, Tsipras personifies an entire generation of upwardly mobile opportunists, willing and able to sellout Greece and its people. He perpetuates the worst political traditions: In campaigns he promoted consumerism over class consciousness (discarding any mobilization of the masses upon election!). He is a useful fool, embedded in a culture of clientelism, kleptocracy, tax evasion, predatory lenders and spenders – the very reason his German overlords tolerated him and Syriza, although on a short leash!
Tsipras’ Syriza has absolute contempt for democracy. He embraces the ‘Caudillo Principle’: one man, one leader, one policy! Any dissenters invite dismissal!
Syriza has utterly submitted to imperial institutions, the Troika and their dictates, NATO and above all the EU, the Eurozone. Tsipras/ Syriza reject outright independence and freedom from imperial dictates. In his ‘capitulation to the Germans’ Tsipra engaged in histrionic theatrics, but by his own personal dictate, the massive ‘NO to EU’ vote was transformed into a YES.
The cruelest political crime of all has been Tsipras running down the Greek economy, bleeding the banks, emptying the pension funds and freezing everyday salaries while ‘blaming the bankers’, in order to force the mass of Greeks to accept the savage dictates of his imperial overlords or face utter destitution!
The Ultimate Surrender
Tsipras and his sycophants in Syriza, while constantly decrying Greece’s subordination to the EU empire-builders and claiming victimhood, managed to undermine the Greek people’s national consciousness in less than 6 months. What had been a victorious referendum and expression of rejection by three-fifths of the Greek voters turned into a prelude to a farcical surrender by empire collaborators. The people’s victory in the referendum was twisted to represent popular support for a Caudillo. While pretending to consult the Greek electorate, Tsipras manipulated the popular will into a mandate for his regime to push Greece beyond debt peonage and into colonial vassalage.
Tsipras is a supreme representation of Adorno’s authoritarian personality: On his knees to those above him, while at the throat of those below.
Once he has completed his task of dividing, demoralizing and impoverishing the Greek majority, the local and overseas ruling elites will discard him like a used condom, and he will pass into history as a virtuoso in deceiving and betraying the Greek people.
Syriza’s embrace of hard-right foreign policies should not be seen as the ‘result of outside pressure’, as its phony left supporters have argued, but rather a deliberate choice. So far, the best example of the Syriza regime’s reactionary policies is its signing of a military agreement with Israel.
According to the Jerusalem Post (July 19, 2015), the Greek Defense Minister signed a mutual defense and training agreement with Israel, which included joint military exercises. Syriza has even backed Israel’s belligerent position against the Islamic Republic of Iran, endorsing Tel Aviv’s ridiculous claim that Teheran represents a terrorist threat in the Middle East and Mediterranean. Syriza and Israel have inked a mutual military support pact that exceeds any other EU member agreement with Israel and is only matched in belligerence by Washington’s special arrangements with the Zionist regime.
Israel’s ultra-militarist ‘Defense’ Minister Moshe Yaalon, (the Butcher of Gaza), hailed the agreement and thanked the Syriza regime for ‘its support’. It is more than likely that Syriza’s support for the Jewish state explains its popularity with Anglo-American and Canadian ‘left’ Zionists…
Syriza’s strategic ties with Israel are not the result of EU ‘pressure’ or the dictates of the ‘Troika’. The agreement is a radical reversal of over a half-century of Greek support for the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people against the Israeli terrorist state. This military pact, like the Syriza regime’s economic capitulation to the German ruling class, is deeply rooted in the ‘colonial ideology’, which permeates Tsipras’ policies. He has taken Greece a significant step ‘forward’ from economic vassal to a mercenary client of the most retrograde regime in the Mediterranean.
H.D. Dickenson on Marxist economics and political economy
‘A socialist society, which is trying to build up the basis of a modern industrial economy, realizes this very clearly. The creation of physical capital (“means of production”) involves a real cost to the community—a foregoing of potential present enjoyments. In a truly human society, where the fruits of abstinence were enjoyed (collectively) by those who abstained, the neo-classical theory of capital and the return to capital (“interest” in Böhm-Bawerk’s terminology) would come into its own. As it is, the economists of the U.S.S.R., Poland and Yugoslavia are painfully re-discovering the true doctrine of capital and interest. (“Interest” is not, of course, paid to individuals as personal income, but is simply used as an accounting device in order to regulate the allocation of fixed capital to various enterprises.)’
Published by New Left Review in 2003 the full article is available below.
Taken from https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/the-emerging-market-crisis-returns/
By Michael Roberts
The business media is full of the meltdown of the Chinese stock market, the credit bubble and impending crash in the Chinese economy. But less well announced is the dangerous economic slowdown and already unfolding debt crisis in ‘emerging economies’ in general.
So for the first time since the emerging market crisis of 1998, all the large so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are in trouble. And so are the next range of ‘developing’ economies like Indonesia, Thailand, Turkey, Argentina, Venezuela etc.
Previously rising commodity prices in oil, base metals and food led to fast growth in many of these economies. This in turn led to a flood of capital from advanced capitalist economies by banks and companies looking for higher profits than available in their economies.
But the commodity boom has collapsed. Global commodity prices continue to plunge. Bloomberg’s commodity price index, tracking gold, crude oil and other raw materials, is down to its lowest point since 2002. It has fallen by 40% since 2011. It’s another indicator of the long depression and deflationary pressures in the world economy (see my post: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/…/the-spectre-of-de…/).
That’s partly because of the Great Recession and the weak recovery afterwards has reduced demand for energy and industrial materials. And it is partly because the biggest consumer of these goods, China, has seen its economy slow in growth from double digits to (just) 7% a year or even lower. Inflation in many top economies has given way to deflation in prices (in Europe and Japan).
The latest ‘flash’ estimates of business activity globally, based on the so-called purchasing managers indexes, show that emerging economies are now contracting for the first time for over two years.
Unemployment across emerging markets has risen sharply this year, reversing a six-year slide, even as it has continued to fall in developed countries. Across emerging markets, unemployment has risen to 5.7 per cent, from a cyclical low of 5.2 per cent in January, the sharpest rise since the global financial crisis, according to figures compiled by JPMorgan.
During the emerging market boom, capital flowed into the emerging economies and corporations in Asia and Latin America ran up large debts. Now the money is flowing out, not in and profits are falling as prices for commodities and sales of even for hi-tech goods are falling. Investors pulled a net $4.5bn from EM funds in the week through July 30, according to data from EPFR, compared with $3.3bn a week earlier. A total of $14.5bn has now been redeemed from EM funds over the past three weeks alone.
And currencies across Asia are dropping like stones.
And the US is poised to raise rates in September, so emerging markets could suffer further instability as the cost of servicing that debt rises in dollar terms. A debt crisis is emerging.
The latest data on foreign exchange reserves show a sharp fall in dollar reserves. The reserves of emerging market governments have slumped as these governments experience declining trade surpluses and weak domestic economies, leading to a flight of money. The IMF’s COFER figures, the measure for FX reserve data, show that emerging-market reserves have dropped for three successive quarters, from a peak of $8.06trn at end Q2 2014 to $7.5trn by end Q1 2015. These analysts reckon that emerging-market reserves have fallen $575bn since the middle of last year, the sharpest decline in 20 years. Capital is fleeing these ’emerging economies’ as their real GDP growth slows and investment drops off.
Investment bank JP Morgan reckons that the debt of non-financial corporations in emerging economies has surged from about 73% of GDP before the financial crisis to 106% of GDP as of 4Q14. This 34%-point increase is enormous, averaging nearly 5%-points per year since 2007. In previous research, the IMF has found that an increase in the ratio of credit to GDP of 5%-points or more in a single year signals a heightened risk of an eventual financial crisis. Many emerging market economies have registered such an increase since 2007. Hence the conclusion of the credit analysts, S&P, that “we have reached an inflexion point in the corporate credit cycle”.
Alongside rising debt are falling profitability and consumer demand in emerging markets outside China.
Falling commodity prices for emerging economy exports, rising corporate debt, falling profitability and demand, significant capital outflows and the probability that the US Fed will hike rates this autumn/fall and increase debt servicing costs. It’s a concoction for a serious crash/slump in the great ‘growth’ story of the ’emerging’ economies.
The same mantra has dominated German politics and the German media for many years now. It is reflected in many ways but at its core remains the same: any German blame for the social and economic devastation wrought on peripheral countries in the euro zone is denied; all others are at fault, and only one country did everything right. According to the Deutsche Bundesbank (the German central bank), in conjunction with the latest data on the nominal gross domestic product from the Federal Statistical Office, the German current-account surplus reached a new record in 2014: it now stands at 7.4 per cent of GDP. It was already incredibly high in previous years: 5.7 per cent in 2010, 6.1 per cent in 2011, 7.1 per cent in 2012, and 6.7 per cent in 2013.
The current-account surplus has never been so high, not even in the days preceding German reunification. West Germany’s surplus, which exceeded 4 per cent in the second half of the 1980s, was considered to be extremely high. However, the resulting pressure from the foreign exchange markets led to an appreciation of the German mark against the US dollar and to readjustment within the European Monetary System. This in turn devalued West German foreign assets, which had been accumulated through trade surpluses—a mechanism that no longer exists within the monetary union.
The current-account surplus of 7.4 per cent creates a major macro-economic imbalance inside and outside EMU. It is higher than the (arbitrarily set) limit of 6 per cent of the “macro-economic imbalance procedure” (MIP), which is part of the so-called European semester, which is an absurdity in itself.
The limit set by the MIP is asymmetrical: deficit countries within the EMU need to adhere to a rule that limits the deficit to 4 per cent of their GDP. If the deficit becomes bigger than 4 per cent, the EU Commission will push for a reduction of the deficit. The surplus countries, on the other hand—presumably at the behest of Germany—have to face sanctions only at 6 per cent. On top of that, three-year averages of balances are considered, meaning that for single years the result can exceed or fall below the limit (if compensated for in other years) without the Commission intervening. However, given the fact that the German government expects the surplus to increase again in 2015, a violation of the treaties is undeniable.
The logic of the balance of payments necessarily requires that the sum of all current account deficits equals the sum of all current account surpluses. There is no logical reason why a country with a foreign trade surplus should be given preferable treatment. According to this rule, a surplus country can have a surplus of 6 per cent with countries that a have a deficit of, say, 5 per cent. The surplus would not be a problem for the surplus country, but the deficit would be a problem for the deficit countries. The asymmetry is not only unfair, it is an absurdity.
There is no doubt that long-lasting external deficits can be harmful to an economy. But the same is true for surpluses. Without surpluses, deficits would not exist. If deficits create problems, surpluses create exactly the same problems.
Apart from this, the varying size of economies plays an important role. The current -account balance as a percentage of the GDP of a relatively big country, such as Germany, is significantly bigger in absolute terms than the same percentage for a small country. A German surplus of more than 7 per cent does not lead to 7 per cent deficits in other countries but to much bigger ones. If, for example, there were only two countries, say Spain and Germany, a German surplus of more than 7 per cent would cause a Spanish deficit of almost 20 per cent. It is not altogether clear why the asymmetric MIP rule was agreed upon. There is certainly no logical reason for it. Apparently it was clear from the moment of its creation that the German current-account balance would move well above 4 per cent, so that, from the German viewpoint, a higher percentage was required in order to avoid a reckoning by the EU Commission. Most probably, the hope had been that the German balance would fluctuate below 6 per cent; but this has proved wrong. By 2011 the three-year average hit the 6 per cent limit only slightly, but since 2012 the net balance has grown well above it.
So Germany is in blatant violation of EMU regulations. The simple truth is that Germany’s mercantilist economic model is based on undercutting its trading partners, so that it accumulates surpluses while creating deficits and debt everywhere else. Only a deterioration of German competitiveness (through rising wages) and declining surpluses vis-à-vis its trading partners can help to overcome deflation and stimulate economic growth in all countries inside EMU. It does not seem likely that this will happen in the foreseeable future: the collective fear of facing the truth is insurmountable.
Yet politicians like Wolfgang Kauder, leader of the CDU-CSU group in the German Bundestag, can tell Der Spiegel that “if Greece wants more money from its European partners it must pass reforms. Perhaps it helps to realise that it is not the European bail-out policy that has driven Greece into misery but the failure of their own elite.”
If it is the Greek elite that is responsible for the cataclysm in Greece, why is it that the Troika’s infamous memorandums since 2010 (the memorandums of understanding, according to the wording of the IMF) literally spell out the policies that a country has to abide by, including a reduction in wages, pensions, and social welfare.
A great example of German denial was provided by the former chief economist of the EU Central Bank, Jürgen Stark. In the Financial Times of 11 February he wrote: “The truth is that, in contrast to many eurozone countries, Germany has reliably pursued a prudent economic policy. While others were living beyond their means, Germany avoided excess. These are deep cultural differences and the currency union brings them to light once again.”
Along the same lines, the Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote a few days previously: “It is often noted that Greek wages fell sharply because of the crisis. But the truth is that labour costs during the first ten years of the euro rose by nearly 20 per cent in Greece, while they decreased in Germany. Although Tsipras’s populism suggests otherwise, the Greeks brought most of their problems upon themselves.”
A wage increase of 20 per cent in ten years is not a problem in itself. There is nothing excessive or irresponsible about this, given that wages increase in line with productivity plus the inflation target of 2 per cent set by the ECB.
The truth about all this is that the inflationary use of the word “truth” in Germany comes on top of the complete denial of Germany’s devastating role in the European Monetary Union. The newly discovered love for what is euphemistically called “the truth” in the German media only serves to distract attention from the manifest failure of German economic and financial policies and their devastating consequences.
However, the media’s new love affair with “the truth” did not fall out of the sky. The myths about German innocence and Greek irresponsibility need to be intensified as the contradiction at the heart of the euro zone becomes more and more obvious to all.
Taken from http://www.people.ie/news/PN-128.pdf
Taken from http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-d2b5-Ireland-Bank-slammed-for-overcharging-1,372
ADDRESS TO BDC 2015 BY PATRICIA KING, GENERAL SECRETARY, JULY 8 2015
Delegates Income Inequality is a complex topic and the solutions cannot be reduced to a single answer. We know that growing income disparities are part of a global trend. We know that for decades this Island of Ireland has been subjected to a system of Neo Liberal economics, dominant in the English speaking world, the most prominent exponents of which were people like Regan and Thatcher.
We know that the main policies of this dogma were to promote free trade, cut public spending, eliminate regulation, encourage wealth creators and reduce the role of Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining all of which have over those years caused considerable hardship and damage to the lives of workers and their families. You only have to consider the circumstances in Greece today to appreciate how far they will go to pursue this dogma without much regard to the deprivation to be visited on the ordinary people of that country. Delegates inequality isn’t the price to be paid for rising prosperity, Inequality makes rising prosperity possible. It is the engine driving this economic philosophy.
What does a properly functioning economy mean? Well it means that citizens who need a home can access one affordably, that everyone who needs healthcare can receive it through a universal system rather than a dual system which is solely based on how much wealth you own. It’s the availability of quality childcare , at reasonable rates, rather than the exorbitant sums currently required and it is an economy where people are not afraid to grow old but are assured of adequate income and care in their elder years.
Full speech can be read here patrica_king_address_bdc_2015
Main Street 824 (Proprietary) Limited is the home of Walmart in the Republic of Ireland. No, it’s not a giant superstore selling bullets to frozen pizza’s. It is one of Walmart’s 78 subsidiaries in countries with no Walmart Stores yet holding over $76 billion worth of the Companies assets.
Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), a tax justice campaigning group, released a report in June of this year that reveals Walmarts vast network subsidiaries located in 15 overseas tax havens including Mauritius, Cayman Islands, Panama, Barbados, Cyprus, Gibraltar and of course Ireland! This reaffirms Dr Stephen Nolan’s (Trademark) remark that Ireland is a tax haven with bad weather!
The full report can be read here TheWalmartWeb-June-2015-FINAL