Worth a Read: The Morning Star and the Current Crisis

I did something I very rarely do today, and bought the Morning Star, the English-speaking world’s only daily socialist newspaper. I rarely but it partly because it is a hard paper to come by, and partly because its politics sometimes baffle me, especially its line on Northern Ireland, which more often than not reads like a nationalist press release rather than a socialist analysis. At the same time, it’s important that such a paper exists, and it does often contain interesting material. Although it remains the publication of the Communist Party of Britain, it has in the last number of years attempted to open itself up to the broader left, mainly as a matter of survival. Its columnists now include George Galloway for example. It’s a good place to go to for international politics and the story of trade union activity in Britain.

Today it included alternative plans for restarting the economy, including from the civil service union PCS which were interesting in themselves, and exactly the sort of thing that the trade union movement in the UK and the Republic should be doing, given the inability of the parties of the left to produce detailed alternative policies due to their weakness. But the most interesting article came from John Foster, the CPB’s International Secretary, and discussed how Marx was essential to understanding the current financial crisis. Its title ‘Let’s Get Technical’ says a great deal about the argument that followed.

Foster acknowledges that the standard analyses offered by financial journalists so far have some validity – the bonus culture and irresponsible investments, the absence of sufficient regulation, and the trade imbalances between debtor and creditor countries. Naturally, he does not, however, accept that addressing these issues will solve these problems.

More profound processes are at play. Only the term state monopoly capitalism, conceretely applied, provides a full understanding.

State monopoly capitalism? I nearly choked. Except of course, the word monopoly marks us off clearly from the world of Tony Cliff and the SWP. “State monopoly capitalism brings together two interlinked developments – the evolution of the capitalist market and the way that our ruling class organises that market to sustain capitalist profit.” Foster points out that Marx identified the tendency of capitalism to monopoly, and its effects on credit transactions and the dislocation of markets. Lenin, he says,

used the term state monopoly capitalism to describe the stage where this dislocation of the competitive capitalist market demanded state intervention in the interests of capitalist stability. But he stressed that this state intervention was no more neutral than that of the capitalist state in general, except that, in these new conditions, it defended the interests of the great concentrations of capital against small business as well as against workers. As a result, the capitalist class was increasingly divided against itself

Foster points out that the conflict between the increasingly narrow appropriation of profit and the socialised character of production remains today; as does the pattern of periodic crises. He identifies changes in the precise mechanisms, however. The state had to step in to revive production during the Depression of the 1930s, on the terms of big business, financing it via inflationary finance, at the expense of small businesses and other non-monopoly strata and workers.

Growth revived, but only on the basis of a redistribution of income by the state to monopoly and the still closer interlinkage between monopoly capital and the state apparatus. Hence the term state monopoly capitalism.
Essentially, this was how governments maintained growth for the 30 years after 1945. Keynesian politics called for the injection of liquidity whenever the economy slowed. The business cycle was smoothed and the growth of big business accelerated. But all this came at a grave cost to others.

Developing countries were further exploited, Foster argues, while proletarianisation was accelerated among the rural populations of advanced countries. The Keynesian consensus was broken by the oil producers striking back in the 1970s and the demands of the labour movement for a greater share in the wealth produced, and the response of monopoly capital, especially in the US and UK, sowed the seeds of the present crisis. The response, he says, sought to transform the framework of the market in four ways that now make up neoliberalism. Firstly, an assault on organised labour, and the creation of a “flexible” workforce, i.e. one more easily exploited. Secondly, privitisation of utilities and services to provide big business with a direct income stream. Thirdly, capital movement was freed to allow for the export of capital to more profitable regions, and transforming the City of London at the expense of deindustrialisation. Fourthly “and most critical of all for understanding the current crisis, workers’ savings for pensions, insurance and housing were transferred into the private sector.” This created “the key new mechanism for the extraction of superprofit.”

Foster argues that although there remains an element of monopoly pricing, the bulk of capital in public companies and high street banks now comes from pension funds and the savings of employees and non-monopoly strata, who have fallen in number. They provide the basis for the array of financial instruments (merchant banks, hedge funds and the like) and speculation used by the very wealthy to secure further profits.

This system was no more immune from capitalism’s contradictions than its predecessors. The accelerated accumulation of capital placed pressure on average profit. The export of capital to countries like China and India generated immense imbalances in trade and currency reserves.
Fatally, the system fell prey to the inequality and poverty which it had created. Workers could no longer afford to buy all the goods produced.
So, to keep the money wheel spinning, governments and banks between them colluded in the creation of massive levels of sanctioned debt, above all in mortgages. In the hands of finance capital’s investment specialists, this became the credit required for one last round of leveraged speculation in property, commodities and private equity buy-outs.
Then the bubble burst, leaving working people facing unemployment and repossession.

Foster puts the reality of the situation at its most naked:

It’s not a matter of bonuses. It’s about state power – state monopoly capitalism. Change will require the creation of an alliance that can budge that power by uniting all those who are suffering the consequences.

To restore the economy, he demands that savings, pensions and insurance are taken under public control, which means state-owned banks, not subsidies for finance capital. It means an end to speculation, tax havens – more than half of which are controlled by Britain – PFI and more taxation of wealth. “If enough people understand the real cause of the current crisis, these are demands that no government could deny to an angry, mobilised majority.”

This is why the Morning Star is valuable. It gives space to these ideas. It is important that the blunt reality of the situation is made clear. The reality of economic organisation in a capitalist society. The true class nature of the state. The need for ordinary people to organise politically behind a class-conscious and militant party of the working class. And this is also why, although I have problems with it, I will be buying the Morning Star more often.

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Worth a Read: The Morning Star and the Current Crisis”

  1. Mark P Says:

    I think you’ll find that the nearly certifiable rump of one of the Workers Revolutionary Party splinters in Britain also produces a daily paper, the Newsline. Newsline is actually in colour which is more than the Morning Star can say.

    It does unfortunately have the distressing habit of ending articles with the phrase “and the solution to this crisis/issue/incident is to build powerful sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International around the world” though. Which must be a startling for anyone who bought it for the sports coverage or the TV guide.

  2. WorldbyStorm Says:

    I think it’s often as useful to read the stuff we have a disagreement with as the stuff we’re in total agreement with. The MS sounds like a better read than it used to be….

  3. Garibaldy Says:

    Thanks for that info Mark. I’ve never seen nor heard of Newsline, and picked that only English-language daily thing up off the Morning Star. Does their TV or sports coverage also end with lines like “If only John Terry had built a powerful section of the International Committee of the Fourth International among the Chelsea players, he wouldn’t have missed the penalty that cost them the Champions League”? If so, that would be great.

    WBS,

    I do try and read stuff I don’t agree with, but seeing tribal nationalism in a paper produced by people who should know better does drive me up the wall sometimes. Thankfully though, now things have calmed down, there is less of it. Ireland gets its own section every so often. It is a better read, and I am looking forward to it expaning and becoming free on the net in January. I could never really understand the logic in it not being free given that its primary purpose should surely be a propaganda one, and I doubt it would have cost them that many sales.

  4. Johnny Guitar Says:

    I decided to knock my infrequent reading of the ‘Morning Star’ on head after an article earlier this month said that there were still “massive question marks” about who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Guff like that isn’t worth wasting your time on. We always get it a day late over here too. Perhaps the willingness to purchase a one day old newspaper is seen in some quarters as a test of your commitment to Marxism-Leninism.

  5. Garibaldy Says:

    That is extremely ridiculous Johnny. And frankly should never have appeared. Stuff like that does rob it of credibility, and readers, like you say.

  6. John O'Neill Says:

    Healys crowd were an awful bunch of sectarians. I recall the SWP produced a pamphlet called “Why you should be a socialist” and then the WRP produced a pamphlet called “Why Paul Foot should be a Socialist”. I have seen newsline and it was full colour way before any others on the left could have done so. Newsline usually lead with a story celebrating the ‘revolution’ in Lybia or Quadaffi. I wonder if the quality of the paper and this fact was related?

    Anyway, I recently came across two Finglas lads who were members of the WRP in their youth. They went to an educational weekend in a estate house in the UK, the cops raided the meeting and arrested the two of them (no one else) they believed just because they were Irish.

    I wonder did the WRP ever organise in Ireland? If anyone is interested there is a lenghty article on Gerry Healy on ‘What Next’ magazine website.
    http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Healy/Contents.html

  7. Garibaldy Says:

    Thanks for the info John. I’ll have a look at those articles. Seems a bit mad to write such an extensive critique of him. I know the Iraqi CP think that the WRP acted as agents on behalf of the Baathists in the UK, and were paid for it. Interesting story about the arrests. I’ve no idea about whether they organised over here. If Mark P is still about, he might know as he seems to have a very good grasp of all this stuff.

  8. Dunne & Crescendo Says:

    The WRP were organised in Ireland in the early 70s; I can’t remember the name (Young Socialist League?). Theres a document of theirs somewhere on the Cedar Lounge Left Archive. They had a fairly strong branch in Waterford a couple of whom were glass workers and later shop stewards. In general I think they were the sectarian’s sectarians. Healy was Irish of course. The WRP’s brief days of glory came after Hungary 1956 when they swept up quite a few ex-CP militants and this gave them a bit of a base in the unions. Brian Behan, Brendan’s brother was a member for a while. I heard a story way back in the mist of time, that in the 1960s it became known that Vanessa Redgrave was interested in joining one of the trot groups. Tony Cliff met her and argued with her about why the International Socialists were the people to join, state capitalist theory etc. Then Healy met her and just abused her for an hour, telling her how she was a bourgeois actress, privilaged and cossetted and how the working class was struggling every day while she lived it up. She joined the WRP.

  9. Garibaldy Says:

    Thanks for that D&C. Good to see Redgrave’s politics had some serious thought behind them. I read those articles John linked. Total madness, especially the culture of physical discipline and beating people up. Also interesting how many of the leaders of these sects were Irish – there were others. I suspect some of them had the whiff of cordite about them, given that at least one or two had a background in republicanism.

  10. Baku26 Says:

    There was one WRP member in Belfast in the mid-70’s. He recruited two students for a short time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: