Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ As many readers and contributors to TPQ will probably be aware I have written several articles expressing concern for our planet as a few greedy capitalist profit mongering bastards continue their activities, putting their profits before the wellbeing of our home. 

Many of these activities which are detrimental to the Planet Earth such as more airplanes in the air, an increase in space exploration, are openly encouraged by world governments. We are witnessing what can only be described as accelerated climate change, meaning the actions of the global capitalist class are having a severe effect on the planet and the climate with changes happening on an almost yearly basis! I say this partly through my socialism and partly because I happen to live here just like the rest of the human race.

Global constitutional political leaders speak with what native Americans called a “forked tongue,” speaking with double meanings or, in plain language, telling lies. One moment they are encouraging the rest of us, those stupid enough to listen and believe them, to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’ and in the next sentence they are glorifying the vandalising antics of people like Elon Musk and Richard Branson along with other members of the space cowboy club. In the Twenty-Six-Counties we regularly hear politicians tell us how to help save the planet with some meaningless scheme, like paying for plastic carriers, while the next minute recommending another runway at Dublin Airport. When the CEO of Ryan Air, Michael O’Leary, demands the passenger cap be lifted on the number of passengers passing through Dublin Airport he gets his way. An increase in passengers means an increase in airplanes and the pollution they bring. All hypocrites every one of them. From New York to London, from Moscow to Dublin to Tokyo they are all a waste of space as they set about being seen to be concerned and doing something about climate change while all the while protecting the profits of the capitalist class. Every now and again we get an honest person: a rarity, granted, but they do exist!

One such man is British naturalist, David Attenborough, who turned 100 years of age on Friday 8th May 2026. Attenborough has been and continues to be a brilliant man in his field and has been one of the few to speak of protecting our planet, and meaning it. David Attenborough first came to prominence in 1954 when he produced and narrated Zoo Quest broadcast by the BBC between December 1954 and May 1963. Since he hosted Zoo Quest, his career has spanned eight decades (including the fifties) and programmes which include Natural World, Wildlife on One, Planet Earth, Blue Planet and Frozen Planet have proved very popular. 

On many of his programmes David Attenborough has stressed the fragility of our planet and the need to conserve and look after the place which provides us all with a home, Planet Earth. Instead of heeding this advice the capitalist class totally ignore it and continue making huge profits irrespective of the damage they are causing to the planet. Then they come up with looney ideas about finding another planet to live on after they finally hammer the last nail into Earth's coffin. While they look for another planet for a few of the mega rich to relocate and in all likelihood start the whole rotten process over again they are causing more and more damage to the atmosphere by constantly travelling through it. If they do find another planet, and it is a huge if, only a few thousand of the world’s richest and their chosen political lackeys will be allowed to make the journey. The rest of us will be left on a ball of overheating pollution to exist on. Attenborough tends to keep out of geopolitics but in its generic sense he says a lot politically which should be listened to. Politics generically speaking covers every aspect of life because the subject covers much more than party politics, parliamentary and non-parliamentary politics, but all walks of life including, even especially, the future of Planet Earth.

Many political decisions taken to protect the reservoir in which the capitalist predatory fish swim and are taken to increase these brigands profits are also damaging to our planet. Though David Attenborough stays clear of outright criticism on these decisions he condemns them between the lines. It is not so much what he says but perhaps what he does not. Most of these political decisions are a farce and if not so serious laughable, for example, telling people to buy expensive electric cars to help protect the planet then giving the go ahead for more air transport to land at the already fuel emitting and planetary damaging airports. How do they keep a straight face?

Irrespective of what these parliamentary semi-imbeciles decide the international bourgeoisie and groups like the Bilderberg Organisation will do as they please anyway. For this reason these groups prefer right-wing governments to those with any left-wing credentials. Right-wing politics and corporatism, where countries are governed as a company, are preferred by the bourgeoisie and they keep such ideologies in their armoury in case, as was the case in Chile 1973, socialism is democratically voted for, when the electorate voted the wrong way against bourgeois interests. International capitalism appears to care very little for our planet probably because they believe their own bullshit about living elsewhere on another planet. Maybe this is the case, maybe not, but one thing is for sure when this planet finally calls time on us the bourgeoisie will perish with the rest of us as will their billions and science fiction ideas about living elsewhere will not save the greedy minority! If as much money was to be invested in sensible planet preservation schemes as are spent on these barmy ideas, we may have a fighting chance.

On one of his programmes dedicated to preserving our planet David Attenborough quite categorically stated regards looking after the planet; “Many individuals are doing what they can” to help our planet but “real success can only come about if we change our societies, our economics, and our politics”. This observation by the centenarian is spot on especially economics and economies geared solely to the profits of the few. The rest of us are blindly led to believe this economy belongs to all of us. It does not! When governments speak of the economy they speak of the wealthy and only the profits amassed by these planet damaging parasites. Attenborough continued; “surely we have a responsibility to future generations to leave behind a planet which is healthy, which is habitable for all species”. 

These responsibilities we are not honouring and not only the capitalist class but the rest of us for blindly going along with their polluting and damaging schemes. When Musk launches another space programme many of us, instead of being appalled, look on in stupid wonder at this great man who is burning our houses down! Leaving Musk and Branson aside in Brazil the tropical rainforests are being cut down to make space for developments at an alarming rate. The loss of the trees not only denies the natural fauna their habitat but also removes another chunk of the planet’s lungs. Without plant life, particularly trees, the human race and other mammals will be unable to breath. This should be of major concern to all of us, but is it? 

David Attenborough has seen many changes in the natural world, many not nice, since he presented Zoo Quest all those years ago. He has given over the years countless warnings about the fragility of Planet Earth very few of which have been seriously heeded. He is now 100 years old and with a lifetime dedication behind him should be listened to now more than ever before. His knowledge in this field is second to none and if he says our planet is in a perilous condition he should be taken very, very seriously. 

I remember watching him some months ago when his centenary was approaching and he looked very much at ease, much younger than his years, as he accepted his time was probably “almost up”. He still spoke, and, I hope, will continue to speak calmly about the planet he loves and the biodiversity, including humans, which share earth as home. 

Only one species, and a minority of them at that, are hell bent on global destruction accelerating the normal climatic changes which have occurred over the millions of years of Earth's existence so they now come at an unstoppable pace. Maybe there is still time with a complete change of direction away from profit, profit, profit moving the emphasis to preservation, preservation, preservation. 

David Attenborough maintains it “may not yet be too late” with a change in economic and political direction with the way we conduct ourselves in general changing accordingly. This direction of travel must begin now, right now, but will it? It is time David Attenborough and those who follow in his wake, other naturalists, be listened to and advice followed before the planet calls ‘last orders at the bar.’
     
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

David Attenborough At 100

Tommy McKearney ☭ With Donald Trump drawing so much attention to his outrageous demands and acts of international piracy, it is hardly surprising that, with notable exceptions, little attention is paid in Ireland to problems caused by the European Union.


One exception is the CPI. Opposition to the European Union has been party policy since that capitalist bloc’s formation. For long, though, the Communist Party has been fighting an uphill battle against the overwhelming influence of the Irish ruling class, supported by its subservient media and a compliant political establishment. Yet there may be the prospect that this attitude could change, albeit not necessarily in a progressive direction.

In the meantime, though, we are told, on an almost daily basis, that the Republic’s so-called prosperity is due to its membership of the EU. So intense is the pro-EU propaganda that to challenge the received wisdom is to risk being deemed deranged at best. Seldom do we hear or read in the mainstream media that the Republic’s prosperity is not just precarious but ill-divided.

A recent report published by Oxfam Ireland[1] highlights the huge disparities of wealth in the 26 Counties. Its findings are stark: the top 10% of Irish households hold half of all wealth, with the top 1% owning 13%, and 11 billionaires collectively wealthier than 85% of the population combined. The charity describes such extreme inequality as a ‘policy failure’, pointing to budgets that worsen inequality.

The outworking of this grave inequality is there for all to see: almost 17,000 officially homeless and, according to the Simon Community[2], perhaps ten times as many living in what they describe as hidden homelessness. This is before mentioning the despair arising from a two-tier health service or the burden of education costs faced by working-class families.

Such extreme disparities of wealth, coupled with the lived experience of poverty and hardship, lead inevitably to discontent and anger. This deep frustration with the existing system has opened a door to the fascists, who are currently focusing on deprived working-class communities. However, and in spite of their determined efforts, these thugs are not having a major impact in terms of recruitment or electoral success. There is a danger, though, that this may change due to a number of factors. One major factor is membership of the EU, with its relentless insistence on free-market economics resulting in hardship for many.

Over recent decades, fascism has not had a coherent leadership in Ireland or more significant, societally powerful adherents. However, recent rulings emanating from Brussels may cause this to change. Two in particular: a decision last November to greatly reduce the Irish fleet’s fishing quotas and, especially, a drive now to ratify the Mercosur Treaty.

The first of these, reduced fish quotas[3], underlines the nature of Ireland’s difficulty with the EU. The Hague Preferences, a forty-year-old agreement apparently guaranteeing Irish access to its own waters, was abruptly swept aside by other member states with possibly devastating consequences for coastal fishing communities.

It is, nevertheless, the second issue, that of Mercosur, which carries the greater potential threat. This treaty is being driven by EU members, such as Germany, with large manufacturing sectors anxious to access markets in South America. In return, they are willing to tolerate cheap agricultural products being imported into the bloc regardless of the detrimental impact on European farmers’ incomes. Understandably, the powerful Irish Farmers Association is bitterly opposed to this treaty and already has the support of many TDs, including those right-wing independents led by Minister of State for Agriculture, Michael Healy-Rae.

Should Mercosur proceed as planned (and it most likely shall), it is bound to cause anti-EU sentiment to arise within an often conservative and powerful section of society. It may seem far-fetched to foresee the creation of an ultra-right, Farage-style ‘Ire-exit’ movement, but stranger things have happened.

Reflect briefly on the contents of a recent article[4] by the Financial Times’s US National Editor and Columnist Edward Luce. He wrote that Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, is ‘… planning to open an Irish branch of Bannon’s War Room, his influential Maga daily podcast…’. In a recent interview, Bannon claimed to be looking for an Irish version of Trump. Moreover, in the same article, Luce quotes Robert O’Brien, Trump’s former national security adviser, complaining about Ireland’s left-leaning president, Catherine Connolly.

Taken together, these factors give cause for concern. Consider the effect of powerful, extremely wealthy right-wing American propagandists combining with a disgruntled Irish farming community and thereafter exploiting the misery of Ireland’s dispossessed. No leap of the imagination is required to envisage a drive to follow a course set by the Godfather-like figure in the White House. We have a precedent in that the first Fine Gael chairperson was an unapologetic follower of 20th-century European fascism.

None of which means, of course, that we should change our position vis-à-vis the European Union. There is, after all, a very healthy progressive element within contemporary Irish society. Look, for example, at the election of Catherine Connolly and the massive support for Palestine. It is, however, imperative that as disillusionment with the imperialist EU inevitably grows, this anger is properly directed. It is essential that we continue to encourage all to punch up and not down.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist.
He is author of The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament.
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney

Capitalism 🪶 An Inhuman System of Exploitation

Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ The bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, that gang of international criminals whose actions are perfectly legal under bourgeois law, that is they are allowed to legally rob working class people of their fruits produced by ‘labour power’ on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. 

The ruling-class, called so because whoever we elect into government these people will always own the wealth created by the proletariat, these are the people we call “employers” and “bankers”. The people who have ‘pulled themselves up by their own boot strings’ and made a success out of life. Roughly translated this means; those people who are cunning enough not to do any work at all and get thousands of others to work for them! Irrespective of who sits in the various parliaments around the so-called ‘free world’ these people will still own ninety percent of the wealth created by the ‘labour power’ of the neo-proletariat*. 

It should be pointed out this parasitical class are the minority on this planet yet they cause most climatic damage and in the process of exploitation accumulate huge sums of wealth by creating absolutely nothing. They have inventors to develop their products after they in the Board Room have decided to enter a process called ‘diversification’, meaning their ‘science departments’ invent new products or develop and upgrade older ones for the market to be sold at exorbitant prices in their shops and multi-stores or online. Their customers are generally the working-class who have produced the products in the first place. 

Today the bourgeoisie need fewer and fewer workers to produce goods and services because Artificial Intelligence (AI) once again owned by and for the general benefit of the capitalist class will do the jobs of thousands of workers who will now be denied the right to make a living. There is nothing wrong with new technology the question is, as always has been, who owns it and for whose benefit? Who owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange? The same argument which has prevailed since the industrial revolution and the days of Richard Arckwright, John Kay, inventor of the Flying Shuttle in Textiles, and other pioneers of their day. In those days the developing bourgeoisie had a progressive role to play in the development of industry, though exploitation was at a high level particularly of women and child labour, whereas today the capitalist class are loafers who invent fuck all. That is done by inventors in their employment!

Occasionally members of the bourgeois class attend a building called a church. They attend this establishment to perform a ritual called prayer where they, either collectively or as individuals, go through this performance to thank the ‘superior being’ called God for all the wealth he has bestowed on them over the previous year. They actually do believe, or do a good job of pretending to do so, it is God's will they be allowed to rob people of the fruits of their labour for the whole of the worker's life. They then pray to this God to make them even richer by increasing profits for the coming year, an increase as great as possible on the previous twelve months. Finally they say a quick prayer, if time permits, for the poor many of whose poverty they, the bourgeoisie and their system, are greatly responsible for. These sickening people then leave this Church pretending to like each other but in reality, the sight of one another they cannot stand, and return home to a huge feast. This time of year these bandits pray even harder to the ‘Almighty’ for their firms and the system in the coming year.

Tomorrow is Christmas Day, another day of prayer for many bourgeoisie hypocrites and another invention of the capitalist-class, and is a time of year our friends the employing classes increase their profits enormously while the working-class, in many instances, go into debt for the coming year. The goods sold in the shops, again owned by the bourgeoisie, are over-priced because they know full well people will go into debt in order to purchase them. Today kids will no longer settle for a stocking present and one major present reasonably priced to save the parents debt. No, today, it has to be state of the arts computers fully programmed with the latest ‘Eye Phone’ with all the internet and social media apps attached as stocking presents. 

Many working-class people will be in debt for the coming months of the new year in order their children are not disappointed at Christmas. This is perfectly understandable given the nature of modern society and the appetite for consumer goods. And the bourgeoisie? They get even wealthier selling these goods created by working-class ‘labour power’ somewhere on the planet! And what of the coming year 2026? Never fear the bourgeoisie are here to help yet again!! They can offer people savings clubs for next Christmas, 2026. On 16th December I could not believe my eyes and ears on television as offers of savings clubs for next Christmas were advertised. They have not even got all your money for this year and the are touting to increase profits already for next Christmas. This they would call ‘profit projection’, worked out on how much they have managed to steal this Christmas and how much, through their special savings schemes, they can con out of people for next Christmas. 

Here is the next con; money saved in these clubs cannot be spent wherever the saver wishes, no, no, don’t be fucking stupid, the money so diligently saved over the year must be spent in specific stores often receiving vouchers, not cash: the capitalists bank this accumulating interest, and hampers for that particular retailer. Unlike regular banks where a person can at least draw their money and spend it as the please these clubs limit the saver to the stores owned by individual capitalists who also run the scheme! Stuffed again just like the proverbial turkey many will eat at the table on the 25th December! But never fear our lovely gang of international brigands will start picking your pockets nice and early ensuring your entire life is one of debt, misery and need.

The irony is if all these pitfalls were to be pointed out to the victims of these robber barons the explainer would be called a ‘Scrooge’ or a ‘killjoy’ for wrecking these victim’s illusionary party. Deep down people know this exploitation is happening but refuse to lift a finger to stop it, perhaps it’s just easier to carry on with a lifetime of debt! 

Oh well, old Ebeneezer here has had his say, not that anybody will listen after all what is the point life will go on as will exploitation and legalised robbery.

Merry Christmas everybody on this uplifting note!

*Neo-Proletariat – the modern working-class who are employed by the modern transnational bourgeoisie in the high-tech industries of today which have replaced the old heavy industries and Fordist production line. The fact remains these people are still the proletariat of today selling their ‘labour power’ to an employer for a monetary wage.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Merry Christmas From The Bourgeoisie!!

Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ Under capitalism and the greed which is an integral part of this economic system of the asylum we exist under the human race face ever greater uncertainties and dangers.

Our children and grandchildren face even greater perils than we do not only with human-accelerated climate change but the constant threat of nuclear Armageddon, annihilation, is forever present. 

In the Ukraine Russian President, Vladimir Putin, constantly hints at the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy his armies should, quite frankly, have defeated years back! US President, Donald Trump, who claimed he would have stopped the war in Ukraine in “24 hours” as an election pledge and has clearly failed to do so, is reportedly embarking on yet another attempt at peace. Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, a former stand-up comedian, has vowed Ukraine will not “give up any Ukrainian territory” as part of any peace negotiations. Talks between Putin and Trump are due to be held but without Zelensky being present. This sounds, at the moment, a little like the talks over the future of Czechoslovakia 1938 when Adolf Hitler met Nevile Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the UK, along with French Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier, and Italian fascist leader, Benito Mussolini but not the Czech President, Edvard Benes, to discuss the future of the Czechoslovakian state and, in particular, the Sudeten Germans. Hitler demanded and was granted, without the knowledge of Benes, the Sudetenland where German speaking people made up the majority of the three million people who occupied the area. 

In Ukraine today Putin and Trump are to meet on Friday 15th August but without the Ukrainian leader Zelensky, see similarities? Russia claims Russian speaking regions of Luhansk Oblast, Donetsk Oblast  - areas controlled by Russian speaking peoples - want to separate from Ukraine. Putin, who also claims sovereignty over the Crimea - where historically he might have some justification - wants these regions under Moscow’s control.

Elections in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to come under the rule of Moscow, which is doubted by the western governments and media. Why should we believe Putin any less than Trump and Starmer or their predecessors? We shouldn’t because we have no proof these elections in Ukraine were false and neither do the less than clean governments of the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany to name a few. Volodymyr Zelensky himself is, in my view, no more reliable than other world leaders, they are all as corrupt as fuck with each having their own hidden agenda. Oust the fucking lot, but I am deviating.

Recently the world’s richest man, Elon Musk - the man who did a Nazi salute on the stage after Trumps Presidential victory of 2024 - and Trump himself, arguably the world's politically most powerful man fell out, a ‘lovers tiff’! The question is, who holds the most power over all our futures, Trump or Musk? In September 2022 Musk’s Starlink Satellite, part of his Space X’s internet service, was ordered by Musk to be turned off. What’s the significance? Ordinarily there is none but this satellite was aiding the Ukrainian Army gain vital ground and counter Russian advances in the war. This is despite Trump, at the time not yet elected, being on very friendly terms with Putin and, supposedly, a confidant of Musk’s! 

During a pivotal push by Ukraine to retake territory from Russia in late September 2022, Elon Musk gave an order that disrupted the counteroffensive and dented Kyiv’s trust in Starlink, the satellite internet service the billionaire provided early in the war to help Ukraine’s military maintain connectivity.

Three people familiar with the command reportedly claimed:

Musk told a senior engineer at the California offices of Space X, the Musk venture that controls Starlink, to cut coverage in areas including Kherson, a strategic region north of the Black Sea that Ukraine was trying to reclaim. Because of this order issued by Musk Ukrainian forces suddenly faced a complete communications blackout. Soldiers panicked, drones surveying Russian forces went dark, and long-range artillery units, reliant on Starlink to aim their fire, struggled to hit their targets. 

Such concentrated power over conflicts, which could one day include a Third World War and nuclear weapons, in the hands of one man, an unelected businessman, tells us where real power lies in todays fucked up capitalist world, despite Musk claiming he needed “approval” from President Biden. Musk claimed “US sanctions on Russia prevented Starlink from being turned on near Crimea” which makes no sense whatsoever? Surely if this satellite was aiding Ukrainian forces, it would assist the aggravation sanctions were supposed to cause Russia?

Elon Musk and, no doubt several other so-called ‘entrepreneurs’ which capitalism hails as “great men of vision,” seriously suggests to us the dangers we live in every day. Dangers we do not need to live in! Dangers none of our making but which are created by those who profit out of manufacturing such potentially lethal contraptions our lives and, more importantly, those of our children and grandchildren are in constant peril. The money spent on creating these hazardous pieces of so-called technology could be spent on projects to preserve life, such as cancer cures and medicines for other life-threatening illnesses. In Sub-Saharan Africa children are needlessly going blind when, but for the want of money, a cure is available, easily manufactured if these countries could afford the extortionate prices, which they cannot, while the likes of Musk, Richard Branson, a rival of Elon Musk’s, and many others, spend billions on projects of destruction and planetary damaging space exploration. If your child was going blind and a cure being available but for the want of money and you witnessed money spent on such projects as Starlink by people, not even elected, how would you feel? The fact is plenty of money exists but under capitalism such monies are distributed wrongly and, in my view, criminally.

Every time one of these space-craft in space exploration lift off they spit out emissions the equivalent of twenty-eight Jumbo Jets taking off simultaneously. They then blast through the five delicately balanced layers of the earth’s atmosphere causing untold, irreparable, and irreversible damage to these finely tuned layers. The layer which affects us most immediate is the Troposphere which controls the weather and therefore temperatures. Damage to this layer is no doubt having an effect on the melting of the icecaps causing the seas to rise rapidly. It affects our rainfall and, as can be seen around the globe, rainfall is increasing along with flooding. Temperatures are rising causing uncontrollable fires around the planet and much of these changes are, in my view, down to the damage caused to the Troposphere by these ‘space cowboys’. After these rockets have blasted their way through the Troposphere, they continue their journey through the other four equally vital layers of our atmosphere causing untold damage and all to increase profits for the owners of these crafts. The most aggravating aspect of all this is the way many people, all of whom will suffer, applaud the ‘greatness’ of these men’s achievements! It is pure lunacy of the highest magnitude, applauding somebody who is burning your house down! All these men from Musk down are unelected yet hold more power over our destinies than those who are!

Real power does not exist in the elected chambers but moreover in the bank accounts of the international bourgeoisie. This has just been proved in the USA and at an earlier encounter between Elon Musk and then British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. The meeting between Musk and Sunak would show how elected politicians are ridiculously impressed by rich people. This trend was started in Britain by Tony Blair who was “pathetically impressed by rich people – almost any rich person would do – and Sunak’s analogous vulnerability would be his starry-eyed tech fandom. From long before he became Prime Minister, Rishi has seemed not so much unperturbed by a future where tech firms run the world, but actively encouraging of it, despite the vast and blatant encroachment on his own power and those of his political successors that would mean” (Source: The Guardian). As Mark Zuckerberg once commented, not untruthfully, “companies over countries”. Roughly translated what the ultra-rich entrepreneur was stating; it does not matter who you people elect, it matters not a fuck. The high-tech companies of the world and our ownership of Artificial Intelligence will rule and, for the record if you wish, don’t you mugs forget it!

How much power does Elon Musk and the likes of hold over the world's militaries and conflicts they are involved in? Could they decide the outcome of a nuclear war or, more to the point, could they deliberately start one? Musk and many others are involved in trying to find another planet for them and their rich friends to inhabit, one which can sustain human life, hence the investment in space exploration. For this reason a nuclear conflict on earth would not be of such concern to these people as for the rest of us! Musk is joined in the ‘space cowboy club’ involved in spaceflight by to name but a few; ‘Richard Branson: Virgin Galactic Unity 22, Jeff Bezos: Blue Origin NS-16; Guy Laliberte: Space Adventures Soyuz TMA-13/ TM A-12’ and many others. How many of these ‘entrepreneurs’ have their hands on such satellites for military use, as is Musk’s in the Ukraine, which could one day purposely start a nuclear war? These are dangerous times and will, unless things change, get worse, much worse. All these so-called ‘entrepreneurs’ many of whom have never invented a thing in their lives, Elon Musk for example, a good marketing man who uses other people’s ideas and inventions for marketing, could between them bring about the destruction of us all and our children. It is they who will decide if we ‘live or die’.
 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Who Decides Whether We Live Or Die 🪶 Elected Or Unelected People?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ In the world we live, or at least exist in, the political system we live under is called ‘liberal democracy’ which is a far cry from full transparent democracy and only means we get a vote every four or five years. 

It does not mean our daily lives are democratically directed or that the proletariat as a class have any meaningful say in what direction our lives take in the broader scheme of things. Actually, in the 26 County Irish state constitutionally that term of office for a government can be legally as long as seven years, though this is never enacted by any incumbent. 

In Britain in real terms, and where no written constitution exists, there is a two or possibly three-party system though in recent years more political parties have entered the race but the reality is it is still a two or three horse race. In the 26 County’s we have a system of voting called ‘the single transferable vote’ whereas in Britain the even less democratic ‘first past the post’ system of electing still exists. In real terms in Britain, it is going to be either the Labour or Conservative Party with perhaps the Liberal Democrats helping out one party or the other to form a coalition. In the 26 County’s it is usually a coalition of either Fianna Fail and perhaps Labour, or Fine Gael with Labour and the Greens forming a coalition, either way one of the ‘civil war’ (the pro and anti-treaty sides in the Irish Civil War 1922-23) parties are the senior and deciding party in such a set up. Today a revitalised and certainly unrecognisable Sinn Fein have entered the former cosy little set up, with the two old enemies Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, burying their differences and forming an unholy alliance to keep Sinn Fein out of government. Sinn Fein are promising the world as do most of these would-be stooges of the rich and powerful while in opposition and, as per usual, the government parties are going all out to tell us why the policies of Sinn Fein are unrealistic and will never work. There is nothing new in this verbal bullshit and to that all I can say is, without having much faith in Sinn Fein, they have not yet been given a chance to implement their policies.

One major promise of Sinn Fein is to introduce over a two-term period a ‘fully costed single tiered nationalised health service’ based loosely on the one operated in the United Kingdom (UK). The question is whether the real government, the rich and the powerful occupants of the 26-County state, will allow such a service to be introduced? I doubt it but will give Sinn Fein the benefit simply because things cannot be any worse regarding health provision of service (not to be confused with level of health care) in the 26-County’s. What perhaps Sinn Fein are not taking into account is when the Labour Government of Clement Attlee brought in the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 they did so on the back of the Second World War and people demanded better. Today the wealthy are slowly clawing back the NHS into their private hands, though various governments deny this charge.

It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics, many think they are the same, they are not, courting couple yes, husband and wife no. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in the general scheme of any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals and companies belonging to them. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary to name three and the rest of their business-class have larger private bank accounts collectively than the rest of the population combined, most of which is banked outside the state collecting huge interest on their base capital. Ignoring these people’s personal wealth and take the value of their gross capital, buildings and means of production therein (push pull economics), along with the annual profits made by these companies their wealth is astronomical. Banking outside the state is beneficial to these bandits so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike illegal tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the 26-County state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government and the Dail administration wish to remain friends with these conglomerates! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment! Eventually the European Commission intervened in the case of Apple forcing the government to take the money, upwards of €13 billion! These brigands are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ in society and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail, or any parliament, these people will still be in charge, certainly economically, and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy.’

So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all take ourselves back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote! Karl Marx once stated, rightly so, “All forms of the state have democracy for their truth, and for that reason are false to the extent that they are not democracy”. Marx continued; “The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Put simply, the government sitting in Dail Eireann or any other parliament are simply agents to ensure the well-being and economic stability of the capitalist-class, the exploiters of labour, and this democracy charade is perhaps the biggest work of fiction since the Bible. Perhaps a comparison can be made with a ball of clay? Imagine a huge ball of clay which represents the global proletariat in today’s post-modern world. The governments of the planets liberal democracies represent the Potters who, through their policies, mould the clay into a shape in this case worker who produces products the international capitalist-class demand. The shape of this once ball of clay must be suitably adjusted to produce the needs of the ‘market’ which the bourgeoisie, or capitalist-class, profit from. Former coal miners or steel workers who had worked most of their lives down the pit or in the steel works coking a blast furnace, with the closure of their industries, are remoulded to work in the new small post-industrial units. Occasionally the working-class do not wish to be ‘moulded’ into the shape the potters are trying so they go on strike, switching off the kilns. If this strike continues for too long, costing the capitalist economy money, the government on behalf of the wealthy send out the police with batons to chastise the workers. This analysis may sound a little ‘Heath Robinson,’ or over complicated, but it is nevertheless correct. We are all pieces of clay to be manipulated and moulded into a shape of benefit to the minority capitalist-class!

What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. More recent examples would be Mussolini’s fascist Italy and Pinochet’s Chile. Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures in place. Perhaps only socialism and the overthrow of the capitalist system would provide such democratic structures in the workplace (please do not use the former USSR as an opposition argument). In truth the only democratic structure in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward.’ These representatives of the employees are voted into their positions, or out of them, every year or sometimes longer but never in excess of five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the workers labour-power, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or ‘collect your cards’! If it is not a democracy it must then be a plutocracy?

Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics, Hugo Boss fashion designers who designed the uniforms of the SA then the SS, and many other mega rich exploiters of labour. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business! Trade unions were closed down and were replaced by the Nazi ran ‘Labour Front’ which in real terms was controlled by the Nazi Party and the bosses.

If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government or opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister (as Jeremy Corbyn almost did in 2017), they will economically undermine that person’s credentials and governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person in to governmental power. The elected Salvador Allende was shot dead in Chile and General Augusto Pinochet put in charge and the policies beneficial to exploitation continued. As Karl Marx said over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive,” this is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, and Engels. Workers are forced into jobs they hate and pay low wages or lose their benefits. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?

To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party or parties to government who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class. A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Perhaps modern liberal democracies could be described as; plutocracy with liberal democratic impressions and forms, they are dressed up to look and feel like democracies? Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!” How very true that quote may well prove to be.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Capitalism 🪶A Democracy Or Plutocracy?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ As the obviously deranged US President, Donald J. Trump, continues with his economic policies which appear to be aimed at collapsing the world's capitalist economies what next for this unstable economic system of the ‘madhouse’? 

One thing which does come out of this mess which even the most naïve person should be able to see is this system is unstable, unsafe, and dangerous to all our existences. Trump has imposed a 20% tariff on European Union (EU) goods and a 10% import tax on goods entering the US from the United Kingdom (UK), which includes the six counties, compounding the issue for the island of Ireland. 

Some UK Ministers have claimed ‘Demented Don’ has been kind to them, as a master would be to their dog patting the dog's head, because of the friendly meeting UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer had with the President some weeks back. Others claim Trump has only levied the UK for 10% because he got his wish over the UK leaving the EU! Both these silly assertions are wrong because Trump has only one thing on his mind when it comes to the EU and that is get rid of it. As for his meeting with Starmer he has probably forgotten all about it. It must be music to his ears watching the EU countries pretending to be solid in their opposition to his tariffs while at the same time each member state is working out what is best for itself.

Could the 26-County’s leave the EU over this issue if the deal forged by the trading bloc proves detrimental to its national welfare, that being the national interests of the native bourgeoisie? Quite possible and Dublin may not be alone as country by country foolishly dance to Trumps tune! Millions upon millions of people’s jobs are dependent on what happens next as the representatives of global capitalism play economic chess with all our livelihoods and those of our children and grandchildren! Germany and France, despite the solid front they are showing in public, have differences behind the scenes and these cracks will appear as time passes. These two are the EUs major economies and if they fall out it invariably leads to war if history is to be a gauge. Will various national interests take preference over those of the bloc as a whole? Will the various countries bourgeoisie put their nations, and they are their nations, not ours in the working-class, over the interests of the EU as a bloc?

China received 54% tariffs on her goods by Trump and he is threatening to impose another 50% on the country if China retaliates. Trump does not like the Chinese domestic policies, often called ‘socialism with Chinese characteristic’s’ and the country aims to build a ‘socialist market economy’ if that makes any sense. It certainly has little if anything to do with the teachings of Karl Marx or, for that matter, Chairman Mao. However, Trump does not like this model and as he is a psychotic narcissist and considers himself the ruler of the world, he will do everything from the outside to force a change of political direction in Beijing. He does not like the various welfare states which EU countries afford their citizens as do the UK so he demands more money to be spent on arms thus reducing the amount available for social welfare! 

The US President could in his pursuit of changing country's internal policies line up with Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, offering to lean greatly his way in any negotiations with Ukraine. In return Putin would not back China in any future conflict and would support Trump in any conflict with the EU! This is only one avenue which Trump could take which was suggested earlier by Anthony and a view I concur with. The EU must not allow itself to be pulled apart while Trump sits back laughing his balls off. The UK are still self-deluding themselves they have a “special relationship” with the US which they have not perhaps since the 1960s and possibly before,. 1956, it could be argued is when this ‘relationship’ faltered over Suez.

“Capitalism is not virtuous, it is not caring, it is not stable and it does not deliver the goods”: these were the words of John Maynard Keynes a liberal economist and a far cry from Marxism in his critique of the capitalist system. Keynesian economic policies were, to a large extent, practiced by the Labour government after their landslide election victory of 1945. The object of Keynesianism was when a country was experiencing a boom in the economy the government would take some money out to cool things down a little, prevent overheating, and when the country experienced an economic down-turn they would put money back in to prop things up. This idea was designed to alleviate the uncertainties of capitalism without upsetting the bourgeoisie. The fact that the Atlee Government felt fit to use Keynesian policies shows a recognition that the capitalist system is unstable and insecure. Keynesian economics did stabilise the capitalist ship, to a point, as unemployment in the 1950s and 60s Britain was virtually non-existent. The US did not like these policies either and were glad when Winston Churchill was returned to power in 1951. Unfortunately for the US Churchill and the Conservative and Unionist party did little if anything to turn the previous administration's policies around. The post-war political consensus in Britain was born and the US, particularly under President Truman, hated it. Hate it they might but nothing compared to Trump's detestation of anything remotely socialistic.

As the representatives of EU and UK capitalism talk about doing a “deal” with President Trump - and that is assuming the US want to do a “deal,” -  the question of history must be asked. Back in the 1930s British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, travelled to Nazi Germany to meet Hitler. He travelled in good faith and nobody can deny that, but appeasement was not the way to deal with the leader of the Third Reich. He came back in 1939 waving a ‘piece of paper’ which was supposed to guarantee, according to him; “peace in our time”. Trump, or perhaps more to the point, the policies enacted by him, are not yet fascist let alone Nazi but they are creeping in that direction as right-wing legislation appears to pass unopposed. How long before Trump decides he is strong enough to ban the Democratic Party and declare the US a one-party state? How long will European capitalism allow their political representatives to lead the assault on Trump before they decide to take over themselves, cashing in their fascist insurance chip? These are unstable times particularly for the working-class of the EU and UK and, if they could see it, the USA.

It is labour which creates all wealth and not, as in recent decades we have been told, business. All three of the main classical economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx each cited labour as the wealth creator. Marx summed it up as a commodity which the proletariat sell for a monetary wage; “labour power”. This applies today as then though the face of work and creating wealth has changed since the days of Marx but principally it remains the same. So, where are the Marxist revolutionaries in the 32 Counties? When will the working-class find their feet and overthrow this system which causes them so much distress and insecurity? Overthrowing this rotten system is the only way security can be guaranteed on earth for us and future generations? 

Maybe it is time to stop marching behind banners depicting the busts of Larkin and Connolly, the SWPs of this world, or those busts of Marx, Engels, Connolly and Lenin and put ideology into practice. These revolutionary parties in Ireland (as a whole unit) should be involved in the trade unions, local authorities and should have been preparing for a dangerous capitalist discrepancy which is now upon us. Have they fulfilled this task? Not a chance! It is the far-right who appear organised. Thankfully, they do not possess a political brain cell between them, for now! 

It is the ‘historical destiny’ of the working-class to secure its own future and seize power. Now is, or should be, the time to do this! Are any of the present so-called revolutionary political parties ready? No, they are not in fact many of these could be a liability in giving a lead. The working-class should go it alone forming workers revolutionary councils at the point of production and within the trade unions out of which a revolutionary socialist party may evolve. This must happen in more than one country which is why I have supported membership of the EU when many others campaigned to leave. All revolutionary socialist groups across the EU should have been communicating with each other, preparing a blueprint for a plan of action in the event of a situation like this arising. Have they done this? Have they fuck! The free-market economy should be replaced with a command or planned economy, an end of production for profit and a not-for-profit system of production must be enacted by the revolutionary socialist councils. An end to the emphasis on ‘private property’ and public ownership of all property to replace this emphasis. One Special Branch man in Britain many years ago who had issues with myself took me into custody. He described the revolutionary socialist groups as; “about as dangerous as a pond full of ducks” referring to the SWP, WRP and CPGB which I mentally agreed with him. He did exempt one group from this description but that was then and now is now, I doubt the same exemption would apply today nearly forty years on!

So what could Donald Trump’s next move be? He has slammed a 54% tariff on Chinese goods and has threatened another 50% on top if China retaliates. It is likely the eastern giant will take retaliatory action against these huge tariffs imposed by the US but where could this lead? Remember V.I. Lenin’s prophesy about the thieves falling out! Capitalism is based on legalised robbery and what could happen when “the thieves fall out”? Could this trade war which barmy Donald is waging on the rest of the world, particularly China, turn into a real war? China is a nuclear power with about 600 warheads, a number dwarfed by the arsenal of the USA but once over 100 nuclear warheads the relevance of the remainder decreases. If these two giants were to go head-to-head it is likely Britain would jump in, ignoring the needs of its peoples, on the side of the USA and, in all probability, Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power with the most warheads, would back China thus making-up for China's smaller numbers, that is unless Trump gets to Putin first with an alternative offer as mentioned above. 

Where would, or could, all this end? The worlds bourgeoisie and their governments have nuclear fallout shelters, in Britain there are several shelters one being outside Clapham Common Underground station shaped like a Submarine. The ruling-classes of this planet we live on would be safe for a while but what of the rest of us, the petit bourgeoisie and the proletariat? We, and our children, would bear the brunt of radiation sickness resulting in slow agonising deaths and all because we failed to stop things now! Wars are not nice and apart from wars of national liberation are unnecessary. Capitalists start wars which usually begin with petit arguments leading to all out confrontation. Then millions of workers from different countries are sent out to kill each other on behalf of their own rulers. Working-class people do not start wars, we just fight them like the gladiators of ancient Rome. This time, however, it will in all likelihood be different should it happen. Nuclear war does not really need troops, just somebody mad enough to push the button and start the process resulting in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Could Donald Trump be that man?

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Capitalism 🪶 Instability And War

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ In the world we live, or exist in, certainly in the so-called western world the political system we live under is called ‘liberal democracy.’ 

It is a far cry from full, transparent democracy, and only means we get a vote every four or five years. Actually, in the 26 county Irish state constitutionally that term of office for a government can be legally as long as seven years, though this is never enacted by any incumbent. 

In Britain in real terms, and where no written constitution exists, there is a two or possibly three-party system, though in recent years more political parties have entered the race but the reality is it is still a two or three horse race. In the 26 county’s we have a system of voting called ‘the single transferable vote’ whereas in Britain the even less democratic ‘first past the post’ system of electing still exists. In real terms in Britain, it is going to be either the Labour or Conservative parties with perhaps the Liberal Democrats helping out one party or the other to form a coalition. In the 26 county’s it is usually a coalition of either Fianna Fail and perhaps Labour or Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens forming a coalition. Either way one of the ‘civil war’ (the pro and anti-treaty sides in the Irish Civil War) parties are the senior and deciding party in such a set up. 

Today a revitalised and certainly unrecognisable Sinn Fein have entered the former cosy little set up with the two old enemies, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail burying their differences and forming an unholy alliance to keep Sinn Fein out of government. Sinn Fein are promising the world, as do most of these stooges of the rich and powerful, while in opposition and, as per usual, the government parties are going all out to tell us why the policies of Sinn Fein are unrealistic and will never work. There is nothing new in this bullshit, as that is all these parliaments are, strategies and to that all I can say is, without having much faith in Sinn Fein, they have not yet been given a chance to fuck things up. 

One major promise of Sinn Fein is to introduce over a two-term period a fully ‘costed’ single tiered nationalised health service based loosely on the one operated in the United Kingdom (UK). The question is whether the real government, the rich and the powerful, will allow such a service to be introduced? I doubt it but will give Sinn Fein the benefit simply because things cannot be any worse regarding health in the 26-County’s. What perhaps Sinn Fein are not taking into account, is when the Labour government of Clement Attlee brought in the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 they did so on the back of the Second World War and today the wealthy are slowly clawing back the NHS into their private hands.

It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics. Many think they are the same, they are not. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary all have larger budgets than do any incumbent government, most of which is banked outside the state. This is so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Much the same system of free market economics is the case in Britian and all ‘liberal democracies’ around the globe. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment!!

These people are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail these people will still be in charge, certainly economically and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy’ and that has been proven in the past. For example, when in 1964 a well-meaning Harold Wilson and his Labour Party were back in government in Britain, he thought he was, as Prime Minister, to be in charge. He soon found out this was not the case. He soon found out the Governor of the Bank of England decided economic policy, in general, and he just enacted these policies on the Governors ‘advice’. On the political front, with no economic detriment Wilson had a little more success, perhaps his greatest legacy was refusing the US demand for British troops in Vietnam, but this was purely political not economics.

So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all wonder off back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote!!

What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. These were ancient plutocracies but what of today? Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures there, only socialism would provide such structures, but I am deviating. Perhaps the only democratic principle in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward’ every year, sometimes longer but never longer than five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the proletariat, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or collect your cards!

Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics and many others. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business!

If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister, they will economically undermine that person’s governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person into governmental power. Salvador Allende was shot and Augusto Pinochet put in charge. As Karl Marx said well over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive”. This is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, Engels and, a little later, James Connolly, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll and William O’Brien. Today we have had union leaders like Arthur Scargill, National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) Health and Safety officer back in the early seventies, and today Mick Lynch of the RMT speaking out against such a system. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?

To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party to government or, in the 26-County’s usually a coalition of parties, who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class.

A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the capitalist class, or the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!!”

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Capitalism 🔴 A Democracy or Plutocracy?

Tommy McKearney ☭ There is a German word, schadenfreude, meaning to take pleasure from another’s misfortunes.

7-November-2022

Watching the convulsions wracking the British Conservative Party, this writer is surely not alone in experiencing a large degree of that same feeling. Not since the Suez crisis of 1956 has a British government found itself in such turmoil; never before has the Tory party been subjected to such self-inflicted ridicule.

It could hardly be otherwise. Daily U-turning, Cabinet ministers sacked within weeks of taking office, the spectacle of physical-force, yes, physical-force Conservatism, employed to whip reluctant MPs through the parliamentary voting lobby—all this topped off with a prime-ministerial resignation after a mere forty-four days in Downing Street.

Yet, in spite of this uniquely English farce, what has happened in London is more than a political party drama. It is actually symptomatic of a global crisis in capitalism.

Setting aside for a moment the Westminster theatricals, the underlying cause of the Liz Truss premiership fiasco was not simply personality clashes: it was instead the consequence of a failed and indeed futile attempt by ultra-conservatives to find a British solution to the wider problems of capitalism in its neoliberal phase.

What we now identify as neoliberalism is capitalism as shaped by Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago, working on behalf of the US State Department. Worked up originally to combat the Soviet Union’s influence over the international working class and thereafter to break trade union power, it gained global recognition as the economic policy of Pinochet’s Chile. Hardly surprising, therefore, that it appealed to and was enthusiastically adopted by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Capitalism by its very nature is “red in tooth and claw.” Neoliberalism applies this with a vengeance as it uses state power to enforce ruthless free-market policies and practices. Heavy-handed action is deliberately taken to undermine and degrade trade union strength, public services are diminished through privatisation, and savage cuts to the social wage in general do damage to any existing welfare safety net. A central element of this strategy is huge tax cuts for the rich, specifically designed to reduce the budget for social infrastructure, such as public housing, health services, and care facilities for children and the elderly.

The objective is blunt and brutal: to enhance and ensure the privilege and power of the ruling class through a conscious policy of crushing all constraints on its accumulation of wealth. The mantra is to remove all restrictions on the free market, with the obvious corollary that no steps will be taken to protect indigenous industry or to hinder the free movement of capital.

So how has the system worked out for its proponents? Well, for a number of decades all seemed to be going according to plan. Its leading practitioners, Reagan and Thatcher, had emasculated organised labour, reduced state intervention throughout society, and minimised financial regulations. Meanwhile the financial sector alone was expanding, and to such an extent that in Britain, for example, it now accounts for a quarter of annual GDP.

Inevitably, though, this led to the offshoring or outsourcing of large chunks of the economy, particularly by American and British “entrepreneurs” greedy to take advantage of lower-wage economies. Along with coal mines and steel mills, manufacturing industries in both established engineering and emerging high-tech sectors were either closed down or moved abroad.

China, with its stable government and large, well-educated population, met many of the needs of the above. Moreover, before the collapse of the USSR, offering China a reciprocal trade agreement with the G7 appeared to offer a tool for separating it from Moscow. However, as we now know, this has assisted China in developing its manufacturing and technological capacity to such a degree that its economy is on the verge of overtaking that of the United States. Ominously, from a Western ruling-class standpoint, this trajectory is disturbingly reminiscent of the economic rise of nineteenth-century Britain and twentieth-century North America.

For the hard-headed and pragmatic elements among capitalism’s ruling class, this has presented two major threats to their system’s global hegemony.

In the first instance, a reduction in living standards for so many in working-class communities as a result of deliberate neoliberal policies has caused widespread resentment against those in power. So far this discontent has largely manifested itself as an almost aimless populism, albeit often with reactionary leanings. However, more recently there is evidence that progressive organised labour is re-emerging and asserting itself. And while populism threatens stability, workers acting in concert raise an altogether different potential scenario.

Secondly, for capitalism’s strategists a huge threat is posed in the long term by the loss of manufacturing capacity, especially that involving advanced technological production. While some elements of neoliberalism believe that financial services are an adequate substitute for manufacturing, the evidence proves otherwise. China’s growing economic power and global influence testify to this fact and, incidentally, explain the real reason for Washington and its allies’ hostility towards China.

The response by Western capitalism has largely been dictated and led by the leading imperial power, the United States. This has taken the form of an economic onslaught against China, under the pretext that the People’s Republic is an authoritarian state bent on war with Taiwan and global domination thereafter. By denying China’s exports access to overseas markets, the plan is (a) to stymie its development and (b) to use its absence to encourage indigenous manufacturing in the West.

In tandem with economic sanctions is a policy of geopolitical and military encirclement of China and its allies. Hence the enormous military and material support for the war in Ukraine.

While the policy of undermining China and its allies gained widespread support within the capitalist West (including with the servile Dublin government), there was less unanimity about modifying a crucial tenet of neoliberalism, namely state intervention in the economy.

Since at least the 1930s, pragmatic free-market economists have recognised the need to occasionally intervene to save capitalism from itself. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and in Britain the Keynesian approach were based on this understanding. For some there is no questioning the need for this strategy. The French government recently intervened to nationalise the electricity company Électricité de France, while Germany nationalised its biggest gas importer, Uniper.*

However, there is no similar acceptance among the ruling class in the United States and Britain. Joe Biden’s attempt to repeat the Roosevelt strategy with his “Build Back Better” plan was sabotaged from within his own party by Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

Which brings us back to the political crisis in Britain, the origin of which lay in the country’s floundering economy and lack of growth. Fixated on Thatcherite ideology, debate within the governing party was not about limited state intervention but rather on the speed at which to introduce a continuation of its neoliberal agenda. Liz Truss and her supporters ignored the advice of some within the Conservative Party. Throwing caution to the winds, they went for broke and, ironically, were broken by the very market forces they advocated.

Riven as the Tory party is between its bitterly divided factions, there seems little possibility now that a viable economic programme can emerge from within the current British government. This poses a threat to the British economy as sought by British capital.

Ironically, rescue may arrive for them from a different quarter. The Financial Times has taken to advocating an immediate general election. With opinion polls clearly indicating only one outcome, this means the newspaper of stockbrokers and bankers is looking to Keir Starmer to save them and their economic system.

Maybe on reflection schadenfreude was the wrong word: perhaps it’s more a case of who or what can spare us from such a prospect.

*Julia Kollewe, “Germany nationalises biggest gas importer to avert supply crisis,” Guardian (London), 21 September 2022.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Capitalism ✑ Red In Tooth And Claw

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)