I have found myself described as far left, quite often recently. I find this rather puzzling. I would not even describe myself as a socialist. Economically, I wish to see much greater worker share ownership, limitations on extreme pay differentials between management and staff, and strong regulation of casino banking with a far smaller, taxed and regulated derivatives market. I support state ownership of natural monopolies, such as rail, roads, and public utilities. I support state welfare provision and excellent state health and education services. But that is as far as it goes. I do not advocate central planning and in general prefer to keep the state out of commercial activity – which is why I support the EU so strongly in removing barriers to the mobility of all factors of production. I am not a socialist.
This blog is read by many people who have known me since university, some even earlier. I think I am right in saying that my beliefs have not changed in any fundamental way over 40 years. What I outline above was what I believed in 1976. I stand open to confirmation or correction.
Yet in 1976 I was a Liberal, and politically centre or only slightly left of centre. My views were absolutely mainstream and were voiced in mainstream media every day.
While standing still, I now find myself far left as the mainstream political spectrum rushed rightwards past me.
Is this because the Thatcherite revolution, carried on so enthusiastically by Blair and New Labour, proved wildly successful? Is it because deregulation and privatisation has brought prosperity, harmony and an inarguably better society?
No, not at all. The new right wing consensus has been a disaster. It led directly to the great crash of 2008 and the resulting austerity, which will dog us for another two decades at this rate. It led to massive, astonishing inequality of wealth and a society in which it is considered normal for top executives of an organisation to be paid 100 times more than the lowest employee. It led to hedge fund managers owning our politicians, and to Russian mafia owning our football clubs. It led to a world where Save the Children can pay its chief executive £375,000 a year of donation money yet nobody pukes. It led to collapse in manufacturing and to vast areas of blight and hopelessness, to a generation who will never afford a house while buy to let multi millionaires abound, to QE transferring yet more money straight to financial institutions.
The great right wing experiment has been a disaster for the country. Outwith the economic field, we have seen a massive attack on civil liberties, the growth of the 100% surveillance state, and end of respect for international law including the invasion of Iraq and the programme of torture and extraordinary rendition.
Yet although the disastrous failure of Britain’s forty year far right experiment is evident all around us, public opinion continued to move inexorably ever more to the right. It did so because the sheer propaganda power of the corporate media, led by the BBC, pushed it in that direction and had the power to do so. Dissident voices were excluded from the airwaves. The positions I agree with and which I heard regularly on the airwaves forty years ago no longer get airtime, even where they retain majority public support, such as nationalisation of the railways.
Some of my views have become more radical, and they relate to the need to break up the institutions of the right wing state. I believed in Scottish independence forty years ago, but it is much more central to my thinking now. Forty years ago I would have been shocked by the idea that the BBC should be utterly destroyed, but now that seems to me the only sensible approach.
I am not without hope. There is no doubt that the Sanders/SNP/Corbyn phenomenon represents a reaction to the dreadful inequality of society and all the evils which I have described. But I would also argue that this reaction has only been practical because of the new maturity of social media, weakening the grip of corporate media on the popular field of debate and the popular imagination.
Perhaps then, without moving, I became revolutionary just in time.
@ Loony – here you go spreading your ignorance of Israel’s history.
“Take the House of Saud an extremist wahhabist sect that sponsors international terrorism, that subjugates its own minorities, that has, in contravention to international law, invaded Bahrain and has launched a war in Yemen. A regime that discriminates against women, engages in state torture and regularly conducts public executions of all manner of people including children. Which western leader is proposing to overthrow this regime? Answer there is none, because Saudi Arabia is compliant with western demands to sell oil in return for US$. As long as it does this it can execute as many women and children as it wishes.”
Saudi Arabia gave $16 billion two years ago to spread its anti-Iran terrorism around the world. Saudi Arabia is conducting a proxy war for US-Israel in Yemen and Bahrain because both of those countries are strategically important to the Zionist regime.
YES – Saudi ‘royals) with there Jewish family roots discriminate women – but as much as their Israeli buddies.
Do you know Jewish women in Israel are discriminated in eight fields in the “only democracy in the Middle East”?
https://rehmat1.com/2014/05/15/8-places-jewish-women-discriminated-in-israel/
The last few days have been a bit crazy for a number of reasons, not least because of this…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers
I suppose I should talk in the 9/11 thread about how heavily involved Shia Iran was in the September 11th attacks, and how most of the supposed highjackers were most definitely not Saudi nationals and Wahabist/Sunni extremists.
And I should talk on the 9/11 thread about how most definitely Iran is not the next target for the most violent and out of control nation in history.
Breathe deeply, everything’s normal folks, because these things are only discussed on the completely wacko 9/11 thread.
Phew, we’re safe from these non-violent extremists, and our government must legislate to make non-violent extremism a criminal act, in order to protect us.
Loony
If you really believe what you say at 9:08am and are incapable of comprehending that there are possibly other explanations than your own then yes I am a distractor – happy now?
“Fred, that’s a rather flippant comment, very few could’ve predicted such a steep drop in the price of a barrel of oil.”
But plenty of us predicted it could happen, that the price of oil might fall and got accused of scaremongering. It’s because people were prepared to stand up to the name calling and insults of the Nationalists for telling the truth that Scotland isn’t now facing financial melt down.
Res Diss
“there are possibly other explanations than your own”
So what are these other explanations for the phenomena Loony describes?
“What about “Hence the prize of Russia is the ultimate end game.” What about it? It is not a comment about Russia it is a comment about western policy toward Russia”.
And this parrot is definitely dead!
Must have been listening to Craig’s recent highlighting their seeming lack of interest in the matter:
“The SNP is to launch a new drive to convince Scots to support the “beautiful dream” of independence, Nicola Sturgeon has announced.”
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2016/03/12/nicola-sturgeon-to-issue-income-tax-pledge-to-voters/
Perhaps confirmation Craig should stand. I’d imagine the SNP have done the numbers and they’re weak on the independence issue.
Loony
Res Diss hasn’t heard of The Great Game.
That, or he’s in denial and distraction.
“So what are these other explanations for the phenomena Loony describes?”
In short capitalism is not an automatically self righting mechanism that finds equilibrium at efficient prices of its own accord and without assistance, nor are there markets for everything – as you would know if you bothered to read a little Keynes. Even if you were into neo classical economics you would argue that the state and others can create barriers in markets that stop them operating efficiently. You could of course hang on to your theory that is all due to a conspiracy of bankers – but it takes a strange kind of arrogance to believe that only your theory can be correct, regardless of the evidence, and then just to rubbish all others with cheap little jibes.
Res Diss hasn’t heard of The Great Game.
And you haven’t heard of any other game.
Res Diss
What has any of that gibberish above to do with our current financial crisis.
You simply don’t have the alternative explanations you claimed.
What is your explanation for the current financial crisis?
And less of the distractions!
Res Diss
So tell us this then.
Is it your contention that The Great Game is off?
You don’t think it’s down to personal circumstances ? Had you not yourself seen the governments direct involvement in torture. You like most people might have turned a blind eye,accepted some nice cushy government job,with of course,well earned index linked pension thrown in,have a nice house somewhere with mortgage paid off and kept your mouth shut ?
Resident Dissident – Yes I believe in the broad thrust of my comment at 9:08 PM. I accept that there may be alternative explanations and that I may me wrong. In fact given the bleakness of the situation I would be very happy to be wrong. In order to reach a conclusion it would be necessary to examine the merits of any alternate explanation – which cannot be done in the absence of an alternate explanation.
In case you are thinking of providing one I would be particularly interested in alternate reasons for the suppression of price discovery, the reasons why the rule of law has been abandoned as it may otherwise apply to large financial institutions and why anyone may credibly believe that money should have a negative value.
I confess I cannot conceive of any explanation whereby these actions could be considered compatible with capitalism or market economies.
With regard to the destruction of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan – these are facts and they are indisputable.
There is plenty of evidence in the official record that the west is intent on visiting on Syria that which it has visited om the countries named above. Just look at Hansard and the original debate on bombing Assad and the second debate on bombing Assad’s opponents. Look at the “moderate” rebels we are supporting and ask who they are? Well they may be Kurds, but our NATO ally Turkey is busy bombing them. These are facts, they do not really lend themselves to many alternate explanations.
“Global pillage” – OK that may be debatable, but sure looks like the intent. The stance toward Russia is unremittingly threatening and we even fund Nazi’s in Ukraine. These are not really my opinions rather they are the opinion of Professor Stephen Cohen the foremost US expert on all things Russian. Of course he could be wrong to – as he readily admits.
In developing a thesis you go where the evidence takes you that is all. If it is wrong then it is wrong. It is not helpful to tell people they are wrong and offer no advice as to how they are wrong – or to offer no other explanation that fits the facts.
@Habbabkuk “I find that Resident Dissident is not a distractor. Rather, others (like yourself) rush to change the argument when they look as if they’re losing it (ie, it is you and they who attempt to distract).Shouldn’t you come clean about it yourself?”
Ok, I’ll come clean, I’m not a detractor in any way shape or form. What I’m interested in is stopping bad people from doing bad things from their seats of power. Instead I’d like to see an accountable good system in place that works for everyone. That’s the crux of it. People may disagree on who is doing what but that can be rationally discussed and debated in order to get to the truth. Please tell me how that can be a losing argument?
@Resident dissident “I see myself more as a debunker of garbage and Dissenter to the prevailing views on this blog”
Do you really? Strange, I haven’t yet noticed this from you
“The SNP is to launch a new drive to convince Scots to support the “beautiful dream” of independence, Nicola Sturgeon has announced.”
Is there by chance an election coming up?
Once the nationalist voters have been conned again what happens then? Will she write it into the manifesto?
CRAIG. You will find this interesting.
I was watching RT’s Sputnik tonight. George Galloway was interviewing Neil Clark* who has written a book on online trolling. They discussed the media’s misleading caricature of trolls as sad loners in grubby vests slavering at the keyboard, whereas actually they are more likely to be part of an organised campaign, particularly if the target is somebody influential of a leftward political persuasion. Mr Clark pointed out that trolling extended to Wikipedia, and said that the Wiki pages of George Galloway, Seamus Milne, Media Lens, John Pilger, and others were all hatchet jobs and were all strictly controlled by the same editor.
After the programme was over, I checked those Wiki pages and confirmed that were indeed mostly edited by someone called Philip Cross**. Then I checked our host’s page. Sure enough, Craig, your Wikipedia entry is edited by none other than ….. Philip Cross.
*Incidentally, he’s a blogger who has been viciously stalked by Oliver Kamm for years.
** Some of the pages mentioned had recently changed editor – perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can look for Philip Cross in the editorial history.
@Fred
12 Mar, 2016 – 11:31 pm
I dunno. I’m more interested in the massacres that the western powers are currently carrying out in North Africa and the Middle East.
But you, apparently, are not.
Node, your username has lots of dots, and I seem to remember something about connecting dots…
Tony – you can embed in the forum https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/tonys-suggestion-black-sabbath-live-in-paris-1970-full-show/ 🙂
“I dunno. I’m more interested in the massacres that the western powers are currently carrying out in North Africa and the Middle East.
But you, apparently, are not.”
I respond to the points raised in the web log.
You, apparently, just want to push your own agenda.
I got promoted when I was 23 years old – not Quality Control – but Quality Assurance – and I took my job very seriously and I represented my company (ICL) with the CCA..Central Communications Agency before it was renamed the CCTA
They asked me to help design the test scripts from some of the most powerful computers in the world…
I tried my best – and fought with Directors – look I am a kid of 23 – 24…and it does not work reliably…
They kind of over-ruled me..and said well if we don’t get it out by before then end of this financial year then we are going to go bust…
I said well if you do ship this State of The Art Computer to the customer he is going to complain and next time buy IBM
I didn’t realise at the time that we were 10 years ahead of IBM or anyone when I was working for ICL
But we were..and now I get yet another letter telling me from _ Northern Telecom – yes you are still on our register as an old ex-employee – and you are about to come up to the age of 65 – and us North Americans – might pay you a pension???
So I asked how much…
I should frame the letters – but just stick them in a bin…
I keep telling them – you don’t owe me anything…I transfered my Pension Out to My New British Employer.
I have never worked for anyone else – just British.
Tony
So I got the bill, and had already paid it, and the bill said in quite large print – well you could have saved £625 if instead of paying us the amount we asked..you had switched to our partner – resuppliers – switch now – save £625…
So I thought this was completely ridiculous..I mean how could I get such a ridiculous bill?
They then sent me another estimate bill a few months later for next year …which was considerably lower than if I had changed supplier..
Who are these people who write these ridiculous computer programs???
Instead of writing shite..why don’t you do something for those who are very cold..and can’t find 50p for the meter just to see…when they are close to freezing to death and hungry??
Tony
Neoliberalism has led to late stage finance capitalism. All power for the oligarchs, austerity and fascism for the masses, permanent war abroad and a police state at home.
Can’t have the oinks thinking that the system is rigged against them by the art of bullshit.
“In case you are thinking of providing one I would be particularly interested in alternate reasons for the suppression of price discovery, the reasons why the rule of law has been abandoned as it may otherwise apply to large financial institutions and why anyone may credibly believe that money should have a negative value.”
There are perfectly good explanations for all of these when you move away from the idea that market economies are efficient at all times, not all of which are that the world has been taken over by a group of evil banksters intent on having their evil way. The problem is that even when you are given the explanation in short form, your response is rubbish it and reject it as having no validity – so any debate or exploration of alternative theses is really just a pointless waste of time.
You also of course adopt the thesis that there is no separation whatsoever between politics and economics – I wonder where you got that thesis from. Lets just say that results of testing that thesis between 1917 and 1991 were somewhat inconclusive.
But perhaps rather than focusing on the current situation you and Herbie might wish to elucidate on the alternative mechanisms you would like to see for resource allocation going forward. Just how exactly will the surplus value be produced by the workers (who else!) be reinvested to produce the value for the promised future nirvana? What mechanisms will be used – will markets regulated/unregulated be trusted given what happened last time when they were take over by the evil banksters. No my guess is that you will want some alternative mechanism so that investment is made for peoples needs rather than the banksters’ greed – those signals provided by people actually buying the things that they want just don’t work ( and anyway the evil banksters and those of the sheeple that they brainwashed and we haven’t yet got around to re-educating will just engage in their dark art of suppressing price discovery (funny how suppressing price discovery was never a problem whatsoever in those good old Soviet days).
No the only alternative will be to set up democratic peoples committees for resource allocation who can then decide how the deposits of the newly nationalised Peoples Savings Bank should be allocated to investment going forward. Of course having got rid of all thise banksters who actually knew something about how to measure and evaluate the returns from investments (many thanks for that Comrade Rob G) we will of course need to appoint true revolutionaries to head the Committee – you really cannot direct democratic elections for such technical positions, as the sheeple (that old re-education problem I’m afraid) might actually want someone who has a clue about investment appraisal in preference to someone with the necessary revolutionary zeal. So step forward Comrades Herbie and Loony, the new Joint Commissars of the People’s Savings Bank Investment Committee (they can keep an eye on each other). And so to the first meeting of the Committee – life is so much easier now you don’t need to bother with all those lengthy investment evaluations with all those complicated numbers and calculations. The loan to the Rob G Lamp Post Collective was approved in recognition of all his valuable work in the important area or re-education, as were the loan to the Goss shop stewards collective to help redesign and retool for the Morris Workers Triumph saloon (Comrade Goss has given his personal assurance that the design contract with Mr Putin’s Lada Corporation is bound to address the old quality and reliability problems), the loan to Bristol Luxury Aircraft collective ( Mr Benn was very convincing in telling us how luxury travel at twice the speed of sound is something to which all the workers should aspire – and although not entirely convinced we placed reliance on Mr Benn’s impeccable revolutionary credentials). The permanent revolving facilities with interest roll up to Herbie and Loony Beneficial Funds for Investment Development in Deprived Regions were granted agreement in principle, subject to their detailed review at the Investment Sub-Committee (appointed by democratic delegation of the Investment Committee) at the meeting next week.
off topic – rather worrying news from Squonk Ben is talking about cloning.
@Resident Dissident – Your latest post is a mixture of irrelevancies and misdirection, infused with pejorative remarks but containing the seeds of very dangerous thinking.
You state that there are perfectly good reasons for abandoning the rule of law. You imply that these reasons are activated once you move away from the idea that markets are efficient at all times.
In the kinds of society that the west claims it has then surely a more appropriate response would be to change the law so as to bring the law into conformity with the needs of society. The UK and the US have a well developed judiciary and ample precedent for facilitating evolutionary changes to the law.
There is precedent for the abandonment of the rule of law – most notably in Nazi Germany. Hence your post could be interpreted as constituting an embryonic defense of Nazism. Whilst I assume that that is not your intent, it nevertheless remains instructive to remember the consequences of past precedents of abandoning the rule of law.
You express the view that the suppression of price discovery was never a problem in the good old soviet days. Perhaps this is an attempt at irony. Nonetheless the Soviet Union collapsed – and it collapsed in spite of the vast natural and human resources that were to be found within its borders. The collapse of the Soviet Union is a complex matter, but one contributing factor was the inefficiency of its economy caused in part by the absence of price signals. Given the example of the large scale experiment that was the Soviet Union it would appear reasonable to conclude that the willful suppression of price discovery is a strategy that is not without risk.
You claim that banksters (sic) know something about “measuring and evaluating returns from investment” Perhaps you can let me know who these people are, as every investment analyst I know claims that this job is all but impossible in a world where money has a negative price. Indeed this contention is supported by the dramatic broad based collapse in CAPEX.
With the foregoing in mind I do not consider that you have provided any form if explanation for these trends. As there is no explanation then by definition I cannot have “rejected it as having no validity”
Moving on to your request for an elucidation of alternate mechanisms for resource allocation.
A central party of your premise is likely in error. Increasing rates of technological change probably means a more marginal role for workers. The examples of robotics and driver-less cars serves to illustrate. This explains the trend of destruction of high paid “middle class” jobs and their replacement with low paid bar tending jobs and, in the UK, zero hours contracts.
With regard to resource allocation there is clearly a problem – in that globally we are running short of commercially viable resources. There are a range of potential responses. The current operative response is that the strong steal from the weak – I categorically reject this strategy as a valid response.
You talk of revolution and revolutionaries – perhaps more irony. Revolutions don’t tend to be that beneficial for the participants “Today’s revolutionary is tomorrows reactionary” – and all that.
A more rational response would be to return to the rule of law and use the taxation system to prevent excess wealth disparity. “Excess wealth disparity” is somewhat subjective – but rather like pornography you will know it when you see it. Take for example one David Tepper whose take home pay a couple of years ago was $3 billion. Western societies as a whole would be well advised to cut down on their rates of consumption – and to seek to live in balance with nature. Whether this is possible or not I do not know, but it is certainly not possible if we do not try.
‘While standing still, I now find myself far left as the mainstream political spectrum rushed rightwards past me.’
Craig- the mainstream political spectrum as it relates to economic issues has certainly moved sharply rightwards since the mid 70s- however it has been compensated by a marked shift leftwards on ‘social’ issues.
Forty years ago a right wing Tory minister defending the removal of a magistrate for voicing concerns about adoptions by same sex couples would have been the stuff of April Fool Jokes-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35796557
I draw two inferences from this phenomenon-
1. The left/right paradigm is increasingly irrelevant as a political identifier
2. The 1%’ers at the top of the pile don’t feel threatened in any way by identity politics, ‘political correctness’ or ‘minority rights’- all ostensibly ‘left’ causes, as these causes have flourished in tandem with rising inequality, globalisation, the bitter fruits of the widespread adoption of neo liberal economic thinking.
Some far sighted people (or ‘conspiracy theorists’ if you prefer), over two decades ago, spotted this linkage, and wondered out loud about the extent to which these ‘left’ causes were being promoted by elite intrests, to the exclusion of more traditional ‘old left’ concerns-
http://www.namebase.org/news03.html
“You state that there are perfectly good reasons for abandoning the rule of law.”
No I most definitely do not – that is entirely your inference (or as I would prefer to call it a lie. Please do not put words in my mouth you ahev done this a number of times already.
“Hence your post could be interpreted as constituting an embryonic defense of Nazism.”
Only by the stupid.
“Given the example of the large scale experiment that was the Soviet Union it would appear reasonable to conclude that the wilful suppression of price discovery is a strategy that is not without risk.”
But you still do not say whether or not you would take that risk again? Yes or no will suffice, rather than this mealy mouthed construction. I would say that the suspension of the market mechanism is rather more than a strategy – but actually is a rather critical point when it comes to resource allocation. Please stop bullshitting and answer the point as to what role would the price mechanism play in resource allocation????
” Perhaps you can let me know who these people are, as every investment analyst I know claims that this job is all but impossible in a world where money has a negative price.”
No it isn’t – since they all tend to work off a cost of capital – and I have yet to see anywhere with a negative cost of capital – or even borrowing for that matter. The negative rates you see are for lending to a very few central banks rather than investing – and they are set that way in order to reduce the cost of borrowing which are based on those rates i.e. Bank Base Rate + a margin.
“A more rational response would be to return to the rule of law and use the taxation system to prevent excess wealth disparity.”
This of course still doesn’t answer the question as to how resources would be allocated – What would be the law in respect of resource allocation, who would set it, how would resource allocation take place within that law, what would be the role of markets and prices, how would decisions be made in practice etc. etc. It is a strange kind of a democrat who can make these proposals without telling us how they would actually work in practice.