Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Britain Page 2 of 9

The Possible Dire Consequences of NATO & Ukrainian Escalation

By

On April 28, 2022

Comments

So, UK foreign secretary Trus has said that the war in Ukraine must continue until Russia is forced out of Ukraine entirely, including Crimea.

Meanwhile, the UK is shipping weapons to Ukraine that are capable of striking Russian cities.

As a moral matter, of course, the Ukraine has the right to strike Russia, same as so many countries have the right to assassinate American leaders and bomb American weddings in which “high value targets” might be involved.

But let’s consider the state of the war. Putin calls it a special military operation. Reserves have not been called up, and a great deal of care is being taken in the use of force. Unlike in Iraq, Russia has not taken out power, sewage, water systems, most roads, or rail. It has not unleashed level bombers for massive bombing of Ukrainian cities.

Russia has also not called up its reserves. Putin appears to think that would be unpopular. Russia has millions of men in its reserves. It could call up two million men and not exhaust them. They’re not the best troops, but they would swamp Ukraine.

Now, if Ukraine hits Russian cities, however fair that is, what will happen to Russian public and elite opinion? Imagine Iraq somehow managed to hit New York and cause real damage in the 2000s (if you want a scenario: perhaps they could have smuggled bombs into the harbor on cargo ships).

How would Americans have reacted?

That’s how Russians will react. Add in some atrocity propaganda (and there are plenty of videos of Ukrainian soldiers doing horrible things, they aren’t saints) and Putin will easily have all the backing he needs to go to total non-nuclear war. In fact, even if he doesn’t want to escalate, it would be difficult to avoid.

This would mean, as a start, bombing every road and rail crossing leaving the Ukraine that Russia or Belarus doesn’t control, so more weapons can’t get into Ukraine. It would likely mean removing all power and water from western Ukrainian cities and forcing most of the remaining population in those areas to flee: 20+ million people. And it would mean taking major cities, which Russia will have the manpower to do.

Further, the idea that any Russian government would ever give up Crimea is insanity (that Russia would fight a war to keep Sevastopol is why I was able, in 2008, to predict the next war would be over Crimea).

This idea that NATO has that it can safely fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, without any chance of war-spillover is insane. Likewise, China CANNOT afford to let Russia be broken up. If it is, then China can almost trivially be blockaded and forced into subjugation. They need Russian oil, gas, coal, minerals, and food and without them they cannot survive a confrontation with the West. It is literally impossible.

What China sees is that the US wants to fight wars where they aren’t at risk. If there’s a war in Asia against China, without using nukes, China has little ability to hit the US mainland, while the US can hit China. Yes, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan (if they’re stupid enough to join in) get devastated, but the US laughs as the damage is done overseas.

I strongly suspect the Chinese now see this as the US plan for them. The US has stated it wants to place hypersonic missiles in the first island chain off China, which includes Taiwan, the same sort of movement of weapons which contributed to Russia’s demands before the Ukraine war (the US is a year or two from hypersonic, but the placement of other missiles and ABM close to Russia has been protested by Russia for years), and recently there has even been talk of putting US troops in Taiwan as a trip wire similar to the one in South Korea.

This means China needs a conventional deterrent; they need missiles that can hit the continental US, and they need to increase their navy to the point where it can fight the US navy in international waters and win. Remember that China’s ship-building capacity is VASTLY larger than that of the US.

The US and UK, both of whom think that Russia and China can’t hurt them, are pushing this war in ways that are very dangerous. This is a bet, in fact, that Russia and Putin are entirely “rational”, despite the rhetoric and won’t risk escalation. But Putin is reputed to have spent hours watching the video of Gaddafi being sodomized by a bayonet before being killed, and the CCP knows that “regime change” is what the US wants for China.

Regime change in China will leave a lot of CCP members, and especially leaders, dead.

This is an existential issue for China and Russia. If they lose to America, their leaders are overthrown. Russia will be dismembered (this is what multiple NATO leaders have said they want), and China will be relegated to permanent 2nd tier status at best. Many of the leaders will die, and many of those will die ugly.

This is understandable for the US. They have a wasting asset: China, given enough time, will inevitably have a larger military, since it has the larger economy, and they are catching up in technology. The US Navy has been shrinking for decades and the US has lost the ability to build ships: they have had to cancel recent designs because on testing, they suck. The US’s ability to build planes is also in doubt: the F-35 was a massive mess and is far too expensive.

Since the US also judges that any escalation short of nuclear won’t hit them, except economically, and will hurt their enemies and their satrapies worse (making Europe weaker economically and stronger militarily is a win for the US), they have a great deal of incentive to escalate as much as possible, and just make sure it doesn’t go nuclear.

This isn’t in anyone else’s interest, but Europe is consumed with fear of Russia, and Western European leaders have accepted the narrative of Eastern Europe and the USA about Russia as a completely rogue power which must be destroyed, because it can never be trusted.

Meanwhile, the US’s ability to control foreign countries outside of Europe is dropping fast. Three of the four Gulf States (creations of the UK and kept in existence by the US) refused to side with NATO in the UN. Saudi Arabia has basically told the US to fuck itself. The Solomon Islands signed a military pact with China which spawned threats from Australia and the US of military action if a base is built because apparently the right to make military alliances and do what you want in your own territory is available only to would be American allies.

India has not gone along with sanctions and Malaysia is wavering.

US hegemony is breaking. Western hegemony is breaking. As alarmed and scared as Chinese and Russian elites are, American and Western elites are furious: absolutely livid that anyone dare challenge them, or that the days of their hegemony may soon be over. Right now, calculating that the costs of wars to stay in charge will not primarily be born by them, they are willing to escalate recklessly.

Since passions are up, I note that this is not a moral analysis about who is good or bad. There was certainly moral justification for going to war against the USSR at various points, but we didn’t and we avoided escalating beyond certain levels because we knew that war with them was unthinkable.

War with Russia is still unthinkable. War with China is abominable.

Our time is done. We sold our patrimony to the Chinese from the 90s thru the 10s, so that our elites could break our working class and get richer than if they had to pay 1st world wages and costs. That’s the truth. Our elites thought they were international elites, not national elites, and they were wrong. The Chinese knew they were a national elite, and, in effect, bribed our elites to give away the most important sources of their real power: having the largest industry, and having a huge tech lead.

Our elites gave it all away, for a few trillion dollars, and China paid happily. Our elites now see that their only chance to retain power is to use the waning asset of military supremacy. First they need to take out Russia, then they can choke China out.

This is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. Even if it doesn’t blow into nuclear war, it can easily blow into hot war. American allies in Asia, I would suggest, would be well advised to decouple militarily. This especially goes for Japan: build your own nukes and conventional deterrent and sit this one out. China can’t reach the US mainland yet, but it can reach you.

On top of all of this extraordinarily dangerous nonsense is the opportunity cost: we should be spending trillions on preparing for climate change and ecological collapse, not playing war games. NATO and Russia, over the last 10 years should have been disarming near mutual borders, not rushing troops, missiles and planes to the borders.

We are acting insane, chimpanzees trying to maintain dominance, locally or globally. And we are going to pay for it, even if we avoid nuclear war, with hundreds of millions, probably billions, of unnecessary deaths.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

 

The Destruction of the United Kingdom

By

On October 21, 2021

Comments

Jeremy Corbyn, the UK’s Last Hope

The more I look at the UK the more I become convinced it’s done. We tend to forget that United Kingdom is the union of Scotland and England and I don’t see a reasonable scenario where Scotland doesn’t leave the UK. The UK will almost certainly also lose Northern Ireland, which post-Brexit does not make sense in the UK (and the EU is FAR more powerful than the UK and wants Ireland re-united). Give it a couple decades and I wouldn’t be surprised if England (they won’t be the UK then) loses control of Wales.

This has been a long time coming. England has been de-industrializing since the late 19th century. After the war they didn’t renew their physical plant and wound up in such bad shape in the 70s they had to go to the IMF for help. They joined the EU to get help, so that the IMF wouldn’t completely immiserate them (which is what it does to countries.)

The EU did bail them out, that’s just a fact, but then came neo-liberalism. Remember that it first took formal power in Britain, with Thatcher, in 79. Oh President Carter in the US had a lot of neoliberal policies, but he wasn’t formally with them. Thatcher was.

Thatcher deliberately accelerated de-industrialization. The decision was made that Britain couldn’t compete, and more importantly, shouldn’t even try: neoliberalism said to open borders, not engage in industrial policy and so on. The policies needed to rejuvenate Britain’s industrial plant and become involved with the next great techological leap (which Britain still had the ability to do, to be clear, it still had good computer companies, for example, and auto firms and so on), were thus ideologically forbidden.

So what happened instead is that Britain completely financialized: everything poured into “the City”, the financial capital and money was made primarily from financial games. The people who lost their jobs were not compensated and did not find good jobs to replace them. The social state was liquidated in wave after wave, starting with Thatcher bribing people by selling them council homes for less that they were worth.

As usual, some people won from this, at least for a generation or two, but the real wealth production of the UK was absolutely shattered (financial games do not count.)

Then came Brexit. It’s worth noting two things about the EU: it is an evil neoliberal institution AND it was less evil than a big chunk of the British establishment: it was stopping them from doing even more evil things (aka. even more immiseration of the population and even more lowering of regulations and privatizing of the state).

The people who had lost their good jobs and been plunged into multi-generation shit-lives blamed the EU. Remain pointed out that the EU was actually keeping those people’s heads above water, but it was also true that the policies required to un-immiserate them were essentially forbidden by EU rules. No matter, it wasn’t decided on that: it was decided on the UK having been in the EU for the entire period when their lives had gotten worse. Maybe the EU was not the villain, but their lives still sucked ass. “The EU makes sure your miserable lives aren’t even more fucking miserable, peasants” was not the winning argument many Remain types seemed to think it was.

So Britain left the EU, and now what is happening is that the population is being even further immiserated. Austerity upon austerity upon austerity. Every pound which can be hoovered further up the chain is being sent up. The ruling class is solidifying its position over a de-industrialized country. It is better to be rich and powerful over a bunch of beggars, than to give any power or money to the hoi polloi.

The route out was offered: elect Corbyn, a 60s style liberal, and do a left wing Brexit. Then engage in actual industrial policy and bring back an economy which actually produces things and services (other than financial games) that both it and the rest of the world needs.

But Corbyn wanted to help reduce poverty, to give more money and power to the poors and the middle class. He wanted to gut the City (which has to be done, because a financial center like that actually harms the rest of the economy outside of it), and to let people into the power-franchise who didn’t go to OxBridge.

He was a direct threat to the elites. They would rather be in charge of a collapsing country returning to poverty than be less powerful in a more prosperous nation returning to true health, though most of them are too ideologically bound to even understand that was what was on offer: all they could see is Corbyn was a threat.

So they took him out, lying about him almost 80% of the time, and enough British voters were fooled.

And now the UK’s days are numbered. The only way to keep Scotland in would have been to make it a good place to be again: to reverse the decline and be seen to be reversing the decline.

The EU sucks, but it’s better than a Britain run by people like Boris Johnson, and the Scots can see that, and soon enough the Irish and Welsh will too.

And so the sun which was never to set, will set on Great Britain.

(My writing helps pay my rent and buys me food. So please consider subscribing or donating if you like my writing.)

The Betrayal At The Heart of Sanders, AOC and Corbyn’s Refusal To Use Power

By

On February 24, 2021

Comments

You’ve probably heard of Manchin. Conservative Democratic Senator. With a 50/50 Senate and few Republican Senators willing to cross the aisle, Manchin has been having a field day: he’s been determining much of what can be done by Democrats, since without him they can’t get votes thru the Senate.

Manchin’s mostly using this for evil, but recently he decided to oppose Biden’s budget chief pick, Neera Tanden. Neera’s a famous twitter warrior, who was viciously anti-Bernie, but she also famously shut down Think Progress, a media site she ran, because the workers unionized. She punched a journalist in the chest, and outed a sexual assault survivor.

Now Machin isn’t opposing Tanden because of stuff like the union, but he is opposing her and there’s a good chance she won’t get in. What he’s really doing, though, is trying to stop Hillary Clinton’s primary proxy from being in the Biden administration, because that’s what she is.

Bernie, who chairs the committee she has to get by, has not opposed her even though she’s been his savage enemy, and he is opposed ideologically to her.

Manchin is using his power, and Sanders is not.

Let’s think back to when Nancy Pelosi was running for Speaker. It was a close run affair and AOC and the squad had the votes to stop her. Yes, the person who got in would have been very slightly worse, but the difference is marginal and Pelosi is almost done in politics anyway, given her age. The Squad voted for Pelosi and got nothing for it: they tried to claim that the organizing resolution not including Covid and the environment as requiring budget neutrality was their win, but that doesn’t pass the laugh test, because those are Biden’s priorities. Pelosi’s always been very willing to work with the priorities of Presidents: Democratic or Republican.

They had power, didn’t use it, got nothing. AOC didn’t even get the committee assignment she wanted. It wasn’t Pelosi who made sure she didn’t get it, but she didn’t lift a hand to help AOC either.

Let’s consider a third situation: the first Covid stimulus bill. Progressives could have stopped it. They didn’t. But that bill had the key bailouts for the rich. Once they were done, Progressives had no leverage. Future Covid relief bills, centrists and right wingers didn’t care: it wasn’t important to them if ordinary people got relief, so they’d just hold firm for really crazy stuff.

Sanders and AOC had a chance to hold what the rich needed in order to get something for the poor. They didn’t.

This is a pattern, and a nearly constant one. It is related to Sanders being unwilling to call out Biden on his record because “Biden was his friend.” (Gagging sounds. Their friendship isn’t worth millions of Americans in poverty because a Biden admin won’t help them.)

But what I want to examine now is the use of power.

Here’s a rule: power everyone knows you won’t use, you don’t have.

Left-wingers are not credible because they never use their power. We saw this with Corbyn in Britain when  he repeatedly refused to throw out MPs who challenged him or allow MPs to be re-selected (primaried, in effect.) There was nothing they couldn’t do to his cause or him that would get him to retaliate.

If AOC had taken down Pelosi people would remember. Pelosi did not and does not want her last political memory and piece of  history being defeated for the role of Speaker. AOC and the Squad had the ability to take something away from Pelosi that REALLY mattered to her, and everyone would have noticed that they did so and would take their threats seriously in the future. Including the guy who won the Speakership, who, if they controlled the margin next time would know they’d take HIM down if they didn’t get something important to them.

When Boris Johnson became Prime Minister of Britain some Conservative MPs voted against his most important project: Brexit. He immediately threw them out of the party, and went on to resoundingly win the election.

Voters don’t like wimps who won’t use their power and they are correct in this: if you won’t fight, it doesn’t matter what you believe. Corbyn was the man who could take any punch, but would never throw one, no matter what his opponents did.

Using power tells both your enemies and your friends that you are serious, and that your demands must be met or you will make them pay.

Progressives (not necessarily AOC/Sanders/Corbyn, but those who justify their behavior) are like bullying victims who have forgotten that you end bullying only by hurting the bully (win or lose) not by giving in to them. Progressives who support them are often similar, they’re scared “but if we oppose Tanden won’t Biden retaliate?”

Let the fucker retaliate (though he probably wouldn’t much care, she’s Hillary’s servant, not his.) It’s a 50/50 Senate, and Bernie is a powerful committee chairman. He can make Biden’s life Hell AND, more to the point, Biden already isn’t doing most of what Bernie wants despite Bernie being super nice to him. Being nice doesn’t work. Threatening Biden’s legacy might. Sanders can have exactly the power Manchin wields, and more, the second he wants it: the second he decides that making them remember that if the poor people he represents don’t get something, neither do the rich.

A compromise is where you get something and so do I. What progressives do far too often is capitulate: they get nothing.

Use your power, or you don’t have it.

I’m going to return to this and the reasons, which go beyond a misunderstanding of how to use power or cowardice (Corbyn is not in any way a coward) , because it’s important. I like Bernie and AOC, and I admire Corbyn, but their refusal to use power is a betrayal, and I use that word deliberately, of the people they represent and who trust them.

All the content here is free, but subscriptions and donations do help, a lot.

The European Union

By

On September 21, 2020

Comments

CONTENT WARNING: *** MANDOS POST *** MANDOS POST *** MANDOS POST ***

Both inside and outside Europe, the left is highly divided on the topic of the European Union, with a large current being firmly against it for reasons that are actually quite understandable, from multiple perspectives (not just economic). The recent history, especially the Syriza episode in Greece, does not help the reputation of the EU from a left-wing perspective, and there is a temptation to see anything that damages the EU as being good for the people of Europe.  Jeremy Corbyn’s somewhat incoherent position towards the EU can therefore be dismissed by some as the result of a circumstance impossible for him, whereby a good chunk of Labour voters were supportive of EU membership while a principled leftist like Corbyn would have to, in their inner selves at least, be against it.  The EU’s association with neoliberal economic policy has led some, including a large percentage of this blog’s own commentariat, to view Brexit as just another stick with which to beat the neoliberal dog, so to speak, and to take at best a neutral view of who and how the stick is wielded.

It is absolutely correct to say that EU institutions have developed in such a way as to embed neoliberal attitudes and policies deeply within them. The institutions of European integration were largely built at the very same time as the neoliberal consensus’ apparent accession to the Mandate of Heaven.  (Providence does not hand out these mandates on the basis of evident goodness or wisdom.)  Starting from the late 2000s, it became obvious that neoliberalism was losing the Mandate, and no clear claimant has as yet emerged, a worrying sign.

The dilemma for those who want a more just and sustainable human future is extent to which the active dismantlement of the EU is necessary or warranted.  There is a left-wing position that is a kind of short-term nihilism which celebrates the destruction of institutions as a necessary step in creating the opportunities for beneficial change.  This position should certainly be taken seriously and becomes increasingly relevant as neoliberal institutions continue to operate in “zombie” mode, deprived of the providential imprimatur.

The ideal case is that the dismantlement of the EU would lead to a condition that was more beneficial, i.e., replacement from the ground up with, if not with a single institution, then with a collection of polities that are better empowered to serve the needs of their citizens.  The prospects for this can only be understood in terms of the forces that created the European Union (and its predecessor organizations) in the first place.  Europe as viewed from a Martian height consists of extremely unstable, contentious nation-states with badly drawn borders (as it is impossible in Europe, the birthplace of the nation-state, to draw the borders well).  A handful of these nation-states took advantage of a specific set of historical circumstances to become great colonial-imperial powers, but partly due to their own internal contradictions and external developments eventually lost their own heavenly mandates.  Present-day Europe, ex-EU, is a checkerboard of small states and middling industrial powers which had to reinvent themselves in the latter half of the 20th century.

A cursory, common-sense examination of Europe’s present-day geographic situation indicates that the checkerboard (or chessboard) analogy is more than apt.  European countries sit on geographically strategic (if resource-poor, relatively speaking) real estate between the current hegemonic military powers and become easy prey for the very colonial tactics Europe itself perfected.  The post-WWII architects of European convergence, themselves functionaries of states skilled in colonial tactics, were absolutely correct to surmise that Europe required a super-state level of organization that was at least partly independent of other power blocs in order to prevent being further carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey. The Middle East’s current, long-standing troubles illustrate clearly what can happen in that case.

The adolescence of European institutions during the neoliberal moment presents the central dilemma, because it itself is now a major threat to a protective European unity.  The question is: what is the optimal and most feasible way to lever out zombie neoliberalism without putting European countries at risk of “integration” into the pathologies already evident in the current hegemons?  The question is not an abstract one: one of Brexit’s consequences is that the UK likely will adopt an even harsher internal economic stance with integration into the weaker, less consumer- and worker-friendly economic regulation of the USA.

My own position is that the only way to resolve the deadlock is by the boring, difficult work of building cross-border, cross-polity popular solidarity both inside and outside the current EU.  It is the only way to enshrine the benefits of European integration with the necessary reform of the EU’s economic management.  Anything else — and admittedly, “anything else” is the most likely prospect — risks that those who live in Europe jump from the frying pan into the fire, following a mirage of dead-end cultural-nationalist idylls and emotional appeals to a clean, safe world that never really existed.

The Duty and Responsibility of Left-wing Leaders

By

On April 14, 2020

Comments

Let us say that you are leading a movement which, if it wins, will save hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths, and will take millions of out of poverty.

The corollary to this is that if you fail, if you lose, those people will die or be stuck in poverty, and generally that many others will fall into poverty.

Your loss, then, occasions a great deal of suffering.

It is often hard to know what to do to win, and there are red lines. Unless a situation has descended to civil war, or you intend civil war, like America’s founding fathers or slavery abolitionist John Brown, you shouldn’t murder, and obviously rape and torture are off the board no matter what.

But because the stakes are so high, you do have a responsibility to play your hand seriously. It isn’t actually a game.

In modern democracies, the most important thing is to control parties. Margaret Thatcher said that her victory was only complete when Labour accepted her ideology. If they hadn’t, when they got into power, they would have just un-done everything she did. John Major, the Tory PM wasn’t her true successor–Tony Blair was.

When Corbyn won the leadership of the Labour party he took over a neoliberal Blairite party. Most of the MPs had voted for most of the worst Tory policies, or abstained from the key votes. They were complicit in a great deal of the evils of austerity.

They were implacable enemies of Corbyn, as were the party bureaucrats. Indeed, a story came out with emails proving that these bureaucrats worked against Corbyn in the 2017 election. Given just how close that election was, they probably cost Corbyn the victory.

Had Corbyn won, he would have refunded the NHS. If it was a majority victory, he’d still be Prime Minister and he wouldn’t have bungled the Coronavirus response like Johnson, a bungling which appears to have about doubled the death rate next to comparable European countries.

Those bureaucrats, then, are responsible for the deaths caused by Johnson being PM. If you don’t understand this, you need to learn how, because this sort of thing is the key driver of why our societies are so bad: The forseeable consequences of evil actions are treated as if they are incidental. Having incompetent ideologues in charge of government who believe that “society doesn’t exist,” and that government isn’t responsible for people’s welfare has consequences.

Corbyn also failed in another important way: He never kicked out MPs who were traitorously constantly attacking him, nor did he support the mandatory re-selction of MPs, a process by which the Labour membership gets to vote for their nominee.

Doing both of these things would have transformed Labour back into a proper left-wing party, and given Corbyn a much greater chance at victory. Even if he lost both elections, his successor would be left-wing and properly supported by the party, and in first past the post democracy, the second party will eventually wind up in power.

Nothing is more important than ideological control of a party.

Now, the thing here is that neither of these strategies required Corbyn to go against his beliefs: Corbyn always said he believed the party should be run by the membership. Re-selections, indeed re-selection every election, is exactly and completely in accord with that.

Corbyn is a truly good man, but like a lot of people of his generation, he has an addiction to being nice, confusing it with being good.

Being nice to bad actors, to MPs who support cutting the NHS and social welfare and bailing out bankers, isn’t good, it’s evil. They need to be removed from power. This isn’t terrible for them, no centrist MP is likely to wind up on the bread lines if they aren’t an MP (which is part of why they were willing to be evil).

Then we have Sanders. Sanders was never as good a man in political terms as Corbyn, his politics are nowhere near as good. Still, he was a good man in American terms.

Sanders is also addicted to niceness. He refused to attack Biden on Biden’s terrible record, a record which is at odds with everything that Sanders claims to believe in, supposedly because Biden was his good friend.

This is dereliction of duty. If he had done it because he believed it was the best strategy, fine. It might or might not be. But to put his friendship with Biden against the welfare and even the lives of millions of Americans is a sickening betrayal of principle and of his followers.

Power has responsibility. Those who work to save millions of lives and make sure millions more are not in poverty, have a responsibility to their mission, and that responsibility does not allow one to put one’s personal desire to be “nice” ahead of the mission.

Good and nice are not the same thing. Niceness is, well, nice, but people who are willing to impoverish and kill millions are evil people and they need to lose their power. The actions taken to remove their power may not be “nice,” but they are good.

I admire Corbyn more than any other British politician of the past 40 years. But he failed in part because he wasn’t willing to be even moderately ruthless against people who were, well, doing a lot of evil. Traitors, in fact.

As for Sanders, well, it appears the same is true. He asked his followers to fight for someone they didn’t know, but he wasn’t willing to fight someone he did know.

A hypocrite, in effect.

Sanders’ and Corbyn’s times are done. They were the best of the Boomers, the last major politicians who hadn’t sold out or sold their soul. Their failures are not theirs alone. Brits and American Democrats genuinely prefer to let people die and live in poverty than vote for a moderate left-winger. That it is older Brits who voted against Corbyn whom Johnson’s policies are killing is ironic.

New politicians will now rise. Hopefully those on the left are people who understand that if one is the champion of the people, one has responsibilities which go beyond being nice to those doing evil. That, in fact, their responsibility is to remove all power from those who use that power from evil.

Doing so won’t be nice to the people who lose their power. It will be “nice” and good to those who are lifted out of poverty or who don’t die due to evil austerity policies, corruption, and incompetence.

Gotta decide what’s more important. Being nice to bad people, or doing good.

And you have to be willing to actually use power when you have it. The right certainly is. The left needs to be.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Corbyn’s Biggest Failure

By

On December 18, 2019

Comments

Jeremy Corbyn

I admire Corbyn greatly, as everyone who reads this blog knows. If he had become Prime Minister, he would have made Britain a better place–a lot better–because he wanted to do virtually all the right things, and he has stuck to his principles for decades.

However, Corbyn did have one major flaw, and he made one major mistake.

Corbyn was, and is, nice in the wrong way.

If you have principles, and you get into power, it is  your duty to see those principles through. Corbyn had a mandate from Labour party members.

Labour party MPs did not agree, and the majority of them did everything they could to sabotage Corbyn, over and over again.

Corbyn had remedies: He could back mandatory re-selection (allowing party members in ridings to re-select their candidates) or he could have just kicked them out of the party.

Kicking MPs out of the party is what Boris Johnson did, and while I don’t much like Johnson, he was right to do so. He was elected leader on a platform of hard Brexit, and those who voted against him needed to go. He got rid of them.

Corbyn should have done that and implemented re-selection. Corbyn repeatedly said that his principle was that the Labour party, and the country, should be run by the grass roots. MPs who were going against the vast majority of the party needed to face the discipline of the party members.

This is also true because the MPs have a role in selecting who is allowed in the ballot for the next leader. As it stands now there may wind up being no left-wing candidate for the overwhelmingly left-wing party membership to vote for.

An ideological movement’s first job in a democracy is to control one of the two main parties. If you do so, you will eventually wind up in power. It is that simple. No party rules forever.

If Corbyn fails his movement and his principles, it will not be because he lost a couple elections. It will be because he had the chance to change the Labour party, and he really didn’t, because he blinked when it came to dealing with other MPs.

That’s failure, and that’s an actual indictment of Corbyn in a way that losing elections isn’t. He had the power to enact his principles in a way which would have greatly increased the odds of Britain becoming a better place, whether or lost he won elections, and he didn’t do so.

For that, I blame him.

(There have been a lot of articles about the British election and Corbyn over the last week. We’ll move on to other topics after this. But understanding what happened and why is important.)

Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Why Labour Lost in Britain

By

On December 16, 2019

Comments

There’s been a vast amount of foolishness in the discussion about this.

Labour lost for two main reasons:

  1. Their base was split by Brexit, and in a real way, no “positioning” could avoid this.
  2. There was a vast propaganda campaign against Corbyn, in particular, and Labour, in general.

What urban liberals don’t seem to understand is that there was a genuine split in traditional Labour voters over Brexit. Progressives in London were Remain; working and middle class voters in Labour’s northern strongholds were for Leave.

There was no way to split the difference, though Labour tried. Going Leave alienates London voters and gives the LibDems a chance to eat Labour’s lunch in greater London. Going Remain means losing the northern strongholds.

In 2017, Corbyn went for “We’ll respect the vote.” He did better doing that than he did this year with “The People’s Vote” (basically, a redo, based on a a negotiated deal).

But when you look at the ridings Labour lost, they include a lot of the Northern bastions. Places Labour hasn’t lost in decades. What you see is that the Brexit party (which ran in Labour-leaning ridings, but not Conservative ones) made the margin of difference, and often more than it.

By going “People’s Vote” Labour lost a big chunk of the north. It’s just that simple. BUT there was no good answer, going “Leave” would have lost a lot of other seats.

This is a problem for Labour which too many commenters simply refuse to actually admit exists. Perhaps if Corbyn had picked a position and stuck to it, Labour would have done better (but if so, that means having stuck to “respect the referendum”, which progressives screamed at him not to do), but Labour’s voters were genuinely split.

The next issue is media bias. There is simply no question that the media has been terribly biased, particularly against Corbyn, but against Labour and for Tories.

This chart gives the picture on Corbyn, but it’s worse than this, because the media lied, a lot. Over 75 percent of the time, the media has lied about Corbyn’s actual policy positions and history. So people who hate Corbyn (and they do) hate a person who exists only in a propaganda delirium. Given that Corbyn is basically a kindly, social democratic grandfather (and if you watch him interact with people, he is actually sweet and kind), this means they can mischaracterize anyone, though I do agree he should have fought back harder. Not sure it would have mattered.

Note that even the supposedly left-wing Guardian was more anti-Corbyn than pro. (Something I’ve said for a long time. When the intelligence services forced the Guardian’s editors to smash their own computers because of Wikileaks, it appears to have permanently broken them. The Guardian now knows to bow.)

As for Labour, well here you go:

People tend to overthink issues like elections. Labour lost because its base was split and it faced massive media bias. This bias is understandable, the media is owned by rich people, and Corbyn threatened the power of the rich because he was going to nationalize a bunch of stuff and increase their taxes. This isn’t complicated.

Now, one more note, so people stop self-flagellating and acting as if this inevitable and there is nothing to be done.

Young people voted Labour, old people voted Conservative. Only 18 percent of over 65 voters went for Labour. There is a trope that young people get more conservative as they get older, but that only happens if the system works for them. Since it doesn’t, and won’t, they will stay left-wing. This isn’t the end. But a lot of people will suffer and die because of this.

Labour got smashed in this election because their electorate was split and because of a full court propaganda campaign by the press, one which started the moment Corbyn was elected as Labour leader. Corbyn could have done some things better (in particular, I think he should have smashed those MPs who opposed him by supporting mandatory re-selection), but it’s not clear to me that some perfect Corbyn could have won this.

All of this is rather sad. In my lifetime, Corbyn has had the best policies of any major party leader in a Western country. There is no evidence that Corbyn’s policies were unpopular, they poll fine. The issue is that the election wasn’t fought on his policies, it was fought on Brexit and whether or not a man who spent his entire life fighting racism was a racist.

Fought on those grounds, Corbyn and Labour lost.

The price of this will be high. Johnson made a lot of promises, but the practical effect of his rule and his style of Brexit will be increased austerity and a continued sell-off of state services and properties. That’s what the Brits voted for, as a plurality, and they will get what they voted for.

Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Britain’s Election Today

By

On December 12, 2019

Comments

Jeremy Corbyn

(Update: polls show a likely strong Conservate majority. If correct, that’s going to cause a lot of suffering and, likely, the end of the remains of the British welfare state. So be it, this is what Brits voted for. A pity, but you can’t save people from themselves.)

So, it’s Britain’s general election. This is probably the most important British election since Thatcher was first elected. Both Johnson and Corbyn, if they win, will change the nature of Britain. Corbyn will increase human welfare massively, prepare for climate change, nationalize various natural monopolies and so on. Johnson will continue the privatization of the NHS, will drive down wages, will be cruel to anyone who needs assistance.

Johnson will Brexit in a way designed to allow Britain to drive down environmental, labour and human rights standards as well as to allow Britain to sell off large parts of what remains of its patrimony to foreign interests (primarily American.) Corbyn’s Brexit will be designed with the opposite goals: to make it possible to be better than the EU, not worse.

None of this is hyperbole, and this is not something I will be wrong about, whoever wins.

The campaign has been a complete disgrace, with the UK media, including the BBC, pushing Johnson and the Conservatives hard, and smearing Corbyn as an anti-semite, when his entire life has been devoted to causes like anti-racism. But standing up for Palestinians, as if they are human, is verboeten, because anti-semitism has come to mean “opposes Israel’s evil actions.”

Polls are all over the place, but show a Conservative lead. On the other hand, there has been a vast swell of first time voting registrations, and how they vote and if the youth vote comes out will matter.

This is a two way race (minus the SNP in Scotland). If you want a mean, cruel Britain you should vote for Johnson. If you’re not scum, you should vote for Corbyn. There are a few ridings where tactical voting may help, but do your research. In most cases it’s the Conservatives or Labour.

This election is perhaps the clearest I have seen in my entire adult life. Corbyn is, whatever his flaws, as close to a Saint as will ever have a chance of being in charge of a major country. Johnson is a serial liar and nearly completely callous.

If Corbyn does win, Labour needs to restructure the media as one of its first orders of business. If Johnson wins, well, it’ll be good for rich people and their senior lackeys. If you’re poor, sick, or handicapped, brace yourself for a lot more misery. If you’re middle class, understand your odds of staying the middle class just dropped.

Watching the election has been very instructive, because the sheer scale of the establishment’s hatred of Corbyn and willingness to lie nonstop indicates just how terrified of him they are, and thus indicates he’s actually worthy of support. They’re doing this because they know he will change the very nature of how Britain runs in ways that mean they will have less power and less wealth. He’s the first person in a position to be Prime Minister of Britain since Thatcher who actually wants to change Britain from Thatcher’s consensus (Blair didn’t, he embraced it.)

It’ll be interesting, and revealing, to see what the British voters choose. Corbyn hasn’t run a perfect campaign, and he clearly mishandled the politics of Brexit, but at the end of the day, he’s the better choice, and voters have responsibilities as well. (Plus Boris is comically awful.)

If you’re British, you know who I think you should vote for. I’ll go further, anyone who votes for Johnson and the Conservatives is a bad person. I admit no exceptions. This isn’t an election between evils, it’s an election where the choice is good or evil.

Choose.

Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 2 of 9

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén