LINK (PDF)The European crisis has, under many aspects, taken on a political form. First of all, we can see the (probably definitive) decline of the petit-bourgeois idea that the political integration of the continent can occur through the pacific and progressive economic integration, culminating in the creation of a community of nations united under a single federal flag. In practice, what we are witnessing is the full affirmation of national interests in a context of inter-communitarian relations where the big fish dictates its conditions to the small one. The result of as many as 14 emergency summits in 20 months has been the constitution of a sort of directorate – centered on the French-German axis, the ECB management and the EU commission –, in which the political decisions are clearly taken by the two leading nations, with the clear prevalence of Germany. This aspect already goes beyond the old communitarian structure, firstly because decisions do not pass through EU institutions and secondly because the inner core of EMU is depriving the EU countries outside the Euro area of authority over crucial decisions, first and foremost the United Kingdom. We are glimpsing a preview of the possible split between EMU and non-EMU countries, which is not, however, the only possibile future split inside Europe.
The most evident fact emerging from all the summits preceding the one held at the end of October 2011 has been the reluctance of Germany to agree on rescuing countries involved in a debt crisis. In fact, as economic contribution to bailout operations given by individual countries is proprotional to their economic weight, the greatest burden would be on Germany, with a considerable transfer of resources towards the Southern European countries. Germany, like France, is interested in saving its own banks and in ensuring monetary stability, not in being involved, beyond a certain limit, in the problems of others. The apparent indecision of the German government in the management of the sovereign debt crisis is actually the fruit of a precise strategy aiming to keep the States in crisis on the tightrope, in order to force them to pursue economic recovery policies, an attitude that has risked to worsen the crisis, but also an indication of the fact that German capitalism is also taking into account the possibility of giving up the EMU (7), despite the enormous cost that the move would have for exports and for the banking system.
In fact, the result of the summit held at the end of October does not substantially change the prospects outlined by the previous ones. The declaration of intent to save the single currency was followed by solutions that do not represent a qualitative step forward when compared to the previously decided emergency measures. Another 100 billion in aid were assigned to Greece, banks will have to accept a loss of the 50% of the nominal value of the Greek bonds they hold and, in order to strengthen their financial position, they will have to proceed to recapitalize; the “state rescue fund” had its resources increased from 450 to around 1000-1400 billion euros due to a “lever effect” (intepret: “getting into debt”); a financial tool (the Special Purpose Vehicle) was set up: it is supposed to attract foreign sovereign funds in support of the European public debts. In fact, in order to recapitalize, banks will be allowed to resort to state aid if needed and, in the last resort, to the “state rescue fund” itself, whose real resources remain the same as before (440 billion, 140 of which already used for Portugal, Greece and Ireland), and rise only thanks to a financial trick. Finally, the prospects of interventions by foreign states in support of the fund don’t lie within the European power of decision (8).
In the end, the highly praised resolution of the summit held at the end of october has given birth to a new mouse. The problem of the financial structure of EMU, which lies in the nature of the ECB, was not tackled: in the Eurozone the ECB has the prerogative of supplying liquidity, but is not allowed to “monetize” sovereign debt, as well as being bound by statute, modelled on that of the Bundesbank, to the basic principle of safeguarding the value of money to contrast the risks of inflation. In this respect, the ECB has already stepped beyond its mandate by issuing several billion euros in order to save Greece, Portugal and Ireland, but cannot bleed itself white any further in buying up Italian and Spanish (or even French) State bonds in order to halt their falling trends, as the order of magnitude of the expenditure would soar to several hundreds billion euros, making it inconceivable to absorb percentages of debt as high as those of Greece and Ireland.
More in general, the contradiction of the ECB lies in the fact of its being the central bank of an aggregate of independent States, with conditions and interests that diverge, especially in a period of crisis; its own claimed “independence” from the pressure of individual governments prevents it from carrying out massive interventions like those of the Fed (quantitative easing), making it at the same time a tool in the hands of the strongest States. The interventions of ECB in the crisis fully reflect the politicy of Germany of saving the Euro while refusing stable solutions, so that to keep the States in difficulty under the pressure of financial markets, forcing them to adopt restrictive economic policies. From the point of view of financial markets, the ECB embodies the political weakness of Europe: it is a central bank that cannot guarantee unlimited liquidity in situations of sovereign crises.
In fact, the ECB is not involved in the rescuing salvage operations, even indirectly – as it was proposed by France, with the idea of turning the “State rescue fund” into a bank which, as such, could have been financed by the ECB. Germany opposes solutions implying the full assumption of European sovereign debts by the ECB, just as it has always opposed the issuing of community bonds (Eurobonds) to finance the sovereign debt of individual countries, whose risk premium would be an average of the yields of national sovereign bonds, thus increasing the cost of financing the German debt. To each its own State bonds, to each its own banks! The real “solutions” have never been taken into consideration by Germany, nor will they be in the future, and this ensures a permanent economic instability in the Eurozone and the risk of its deflagration.
During the summit, the reformulation of treaties was discussed: however, this should not be seen as a turning point towards a greater integration, but as the reinforcement of the present power relations based upon the French-German predominance. The purpose of the new treaties will be to “impose economic policies on the EU member States” (9): in other words, to implement rules on sanctions against peripheral countries that do not respect the “stability agreement”. It is the pure and simple ratification of present political and economic relations within the EMU, which assign the role of the decision-maker to the French-German axis, imposing to the other countries limitations on their sovereignty. We are not, therefore, witnessing a process which is obliging Germany and France, under the pressure of emergency, to advance along the path of the political integration of the EMU zone: on the contrary, we are observing the political reinforcement of the two main imperialist poles of the area (France and, above all, Germany) in their relationships with the peripheral countries – Italy included –, a reinforcement that ratifies the economic integration carried out in the preceding decade through the financial penetration of the banking systems of these two countries in the Eurozone. According to the decisions taken in the latest European summit, the programme for acquiring sovereign funds by the “State rescue fund” is subordinate to a plan of reforms drawn up in Brussels, which has to be approved by a few Parliaments, first of all the Bundestag. It will be a plenary session of the German Members of Parliament that will decide about the pensions of Italians, Spaniards, Greeks etc..
What on Earth could be better than democracy, the power of the sovereign people? As the word “capitalism” assumes more pejorative connotations, “democracy” gains adherents. The whole world is for democracy, whether constitutional monarchy or republic, bourgeois or people’s democracy. If there is one thing everyone accuses their enemies of, it is that they are not democratic enough.
Anyone who criticizes democracy can only be, in the best case, a nostalgic apologist for the old absolute monarchies. Generally the appalling label of “fascist” is the preferred epithet reserved for such people. The most fanatic mudslingers in this regard are often the Marxists and Marxist-Leninists who forget what the founding fathers said about democracy, and who praise democracy so much in order to conceal their own taste for power and dictatorship. Ironically enough, it is certain elements tainted with the brush of Stalinism that will hypocritically accuse us of being Stalinists.
Democracy seems to be the antithesis of capitalist despotism. Where everyone knows that it is a minority that really rules, it is common for people to set against this minority rule the power derived from universal suffrage.
In reality, capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Democracy is the fig leaf of capital. Democratic values, far from being subversive, are the idealized expression of the really existing and somewhat less than noble tendencies of capitalist society. Communists are no more eager to realize the trinity of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” than that of “work, family, and fatherland”.
If democracy is the consort of capital, why do dictatorship and capitalism so often coexist? Why do most people live under authoritarian regimes? Why is it that, even in democratic states, democratic functions are so often hindered?
Democratic aspirations and values result from capitalism’s tendency to act as a solvent in society. They correspond to the end of the era when the individual had his place in a stable community and network of relations. They also correspond to the need to preserve the image of an idealized community, to regulate conflicts, and to reduce friction for the good of the whole community. The minority yields to the will of the majority.
Democracy is not merely a lie or a vulgar illusion. It derives its content from a shattered social reality, which it seems to reunite into a totality. The democratic aspiration conceals a search for community and respect for others. But the soil in which it is rooted and attempts to grow prevents it from successfully attaining these goals.
Even so, democracy frequently poses too great a threat to capital or at least to certain powerful interests. This is why it is always encountering impediments to its existence. With few exceptions, these constraints and even unadorned dictatorship are presented as victories for democracy. What tyrant does not pretend to rule, if not through the people, at least for the people?
Democracy, which during calm periods can appear to be a useful means to pacify workers struggles, is shamelessly abandoned when this is required for the defense of capital. There are always intellectuals and politicians who are very surprised when they are so easily sacrificed on the altar of the interests of the powerful.
Democracy and dictatorship are two contrasting, but not totally unrelated, forms. Democracy, since it implies the submission of the minority to the majority, is a form of dictatorship. A dictatorial junta may very well have recourse, in order to make decisions, to democratic mechanisms. (mehr…)
Margaret Thatcher being glorified like some sort of heroine in a film about her life. Oh yes I remember that Tory bastard, she brought us the Youth Training Scheme, the Poll Tax and was the destroyer of the trade unions. She is responsible for the greed and the wealth made by those as greedy as herself by using the working class as cheap labour. Many a man & woman were given their marching orders, so that they could use the youth of the day to work for little reward under the pretence that they were being given training for a future job. It was cheaper to use a kid out of school, paying £25 quid than have an employee who was paid £150 a week. She is responsible for the destruction of some of our greatest industries, the miners, the dockers, the steel workers, the printers. She privatised everything & even today, several decades on we are still feeling what she started all those years ago. Real social housing was taken away in favour of selling off council housing which has led to the kind of homeless epidemic we see around us every day. Hospitals were closed & sold off, wards sat there empty for months, sometimes years. She is hated & dispised by millions. Unlike Robin Hood she robbed the poor to give to the already rich parasites who still profit at our expense even today. We were not asked what we would like done for the benefit of all in our country & for all. We are forced to bail out greedy bastards every day.
It is good to know that there were good people out there who stood side by side against her, who fought bravely and defiantly against her, her cabinet and her bastard government. We had industries which were the envy of the world & one by one she crushed the life out of them. She sold off all our public services to profiteers who didn’t give a fuck & even today we see on the news, in the papers her lasting legacy with pensioners in privately run old peoples homes, mistreated, abused, assaulted & left to lay in their own shit. Our household bills are through the roof, gas, electricity & even our weekly grocery bills are all sky high. This is what Thatcher left us and I for one would like nothing more than to see the bitch burning on a heap of her own shit.
A state funeral for her? You’ve got to be fucking joking & we are expected to foot the bill? No fucking way. She deserves to be turned into fertiliser, pissed on, squatted over an shit on. She may look frail & pitiful looking now, yet she showed no pity or remorse & we shouldn’t show her any. The sooner she’s gone the better & by the look of the picture above, many will celebrate her demise. It is only a shame she never got what she should of got in Brighton.
Our greatest victory was smashing the poll tax when we had had enough & took to the streets in 1990 we worked together in solidarity & that time has never been forgotten. We can do so again, work together. Groups that before wouldn’t work together sat side by side at the ALARM Conference on Saturday 7th January. The way forward is open to us so we can again form alliances, form organisations all over the UK in towns, in cities for the rebellion that will surely come, if not now then its not far off, because a new generation of kids from working class backgrounds under the present government are being treated in much of the same way we were in our youth.
Our defiance is taking over empty homes, occupying work places, striking & telling the rich scum to FUCK OFF. But before we get started destroying the upper class toff bastards let’s have the greatest celebration ever on the day that THATCHER DIES!!!
+ DRUM Beats Detroit – Schwarze Fabrikrevolten 1968
(AK Press)An updated classic. In the early 70s, the US auto industry was rocked by the birth of the Revolutionary Union Movements and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers. Now 25 years later, the best book on those movements is updated by key activists. Long before Roger and Me, the RUM’s were predicting what would happen to Detroit. Here is their story.