A big win for tribalism. Have your say, bearing in mind the comments policy.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
A big win for tribalism. Have your say, bearing in mind the comments policy.
John Quiggin 
Is tribalism/democracy a bit like terrorist/freedom fighter?
Norway is doing exceptionally well without being part of the EU. Why can’t the UK? (oil is not the only reason Norway is doing well).
And couldn’t further unravelling of the EU be a good thing, especially the monetary unity? Can’t see what good the euro does for the PIGS countries at the moment at least.
Interesting question: would the USA have been better off if they did split in two? Could have produced a worse future, could have produced a better one. But that’s my point: it’s difficult to say either way.
And a big loss for betting odds. Again.
I think they have a bias in favour of VSPs/status quo and against populist revolts.
If you lose money, it’s always more defensible to say “but all the serious people were saying that, so you can’t blame me”. But if you lose on a contrarian view, you just look crazy. This affects market prices.
If by tribalism you mean something negative, I disagree. The majority of Brexit supporters, like the rest of us, simply want more control over their lives, and the British political system does not give them that sense of control at present… the vote may make them feel empowered to some degree. For Marx’s sake, there is no historically predetermined path to European unity and internationalism. Have we not learned that yet? Yes, according to Simon Wren-Lewis and others, a majority of economists thought Remain was the correct and desirable choice, but oddly enough, for somewhat technocratic reasons… it is one thing to say what the goal should be, and another to identify a practical path to that goal. Brexit is in the ascendancy at the moment, but what will happen the day after? The Scots are already murmuring dissent, so it seems their tribalism is tinged with some internationalism, perhaps? Meanwhile, back in the City of London, the 1% will be looking to their own interests. For the rest of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, if post-Brexit politics are left in the hands of the likes of Boris and Nigel, yes, we all have a problem. If “taking back control” meant taking back control of the public lands and assets and urban spaces that have been increasingly privatised in recent years; if it meant taking control of state revenues that have been hijacked by the 1% business owners such as “Sir” Phillip Green; if it meant dealing with the international billionaires whose empty tax-avoiding luxury apartments dull the London skyline; if it meant policies to ensure the secure future of the NHS and other key institutions; then that would be something. Admittedly there is not much evidence that anyone on the Brexit side understands these challenges. But if political debate descends even further into squabbling about poor migrants, spurious issues of border control, etc., yes, we have a problem. If those who now feel empowered find, after the Brexit is a done deal, that nothing much else has changed, then watch what they do with their energies then. From this (not entirely safe) distance, certainly, the processes will make interesting watching over the next several months. And with British politics, has it not ever been thus?
It is not clear given the constitutional structure of the UK whether the ordinary person will be any more empowered interns of redress against executive power outside of europe. I am inclined to doubt it. It is however going to put pressures on the current party and parliamentary system given the divisions that it has highlighted. The division between support for remain in Scotland and the vote to exist just south of the Scottish border points to something significant
The Guardian detailed data analysis site http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis has a series of six interesting plots showing:
a. A range of sociological correlates as well as how noisy the data are and hence that these explanatory variables are incomplete.
b. Crudely it suggests if you are educated, rich, see yourself as a better class of person, are younger and/or have overseas links you wanted to remain.
c. And if you are the opposite you wanted out. This looks as much like vested interest as tribalism.
d. And the balance is pretty fine over this issue of the EU.
Additionally if you are Scottish or a Londoner you mainly want to remain even though the Scots or Londons can hardly be called single tribes.
Beyond we all tend to belong to overlapping tribes which these 7/8 factors exemplify – for professional, social, sporting, academic and other reasons. So broad tribalism is not strictly bad. So your use of the term tribalism here needs qualification perhaps. Maybe John you should be referring more precisely to nativist or xenophobic groupings which are a bit different to the broad tribes identified by the Guardian.
Altearntively we are perhaps seeing simply another vote based on ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’.
Dont get me wrong. I find Boris and Nigel almost as painful as Trump. But I think there is more to Brexit than Tribalism and its maybe time to develop a more sophisticated factor analysis of what is going on. One thing this might reveal is why despite virtually every high status expert (politician, economist, churchman, US president, Guardian journalist) saying stop wait, the majority said stuff you. This loss of credibility of experts is a worry for me as despite my suspicion of experts our society is dependent on them and this so-called independence seems to correlate with disbelief in real problems like climate change.
We know something of the sources of this rejection of expertise e.g. decades of patronizing and management of the populace by policy makers…currently exemplified here in Sydney by bulldozer development plans like WestConnex and the sacking of NSW local government…. But we understand less about what will happen next and the pressure cooker being heated. We are not the same people we were in the 1930s so suggestions of Trump being a new Hitler are laughable. But that doesnt preclude some unknown types of destructive chaos like a second financial collapse or at least slowing off an already slow base. It will be interesting to watch how this unfolds.
It is the opposite of tribalism.
The so-called “tribe” of Tories was split right down the middle – Boris vs Cameron.
The winning side was comprised of two completely different “tribes” – the Farage right and the socialist left.
The European project just represented capitalist internationalisation – it did not represent proletarian internationalism. UK capitalists used Europe to destroy the working conditions and opportunities.
For example:
British leftwing and rightwing workers have moved to defend their own interests against the designs of capitalist politicians, academics and journalists.
We need a few reality checks here.
1. It does appear that the Brexit referendum has been “called” and that the outcome is “Leave the EU.
2. This is a democratic outcome of the voting polity in question. The minority view can question and criticise but this is the democratic outcome.
3. The referendum outcome (as I understand it) does not force the government of the day to exit the E.U. It is just possible that the government of the day might not enact the result but rather take it to the next polls, thus using delaying tactics.
Now, for some opinions;
4. Just about everyone is “tribal” at times, in the derogatory sense used by J.Q. This includes moderate left social democrats.
5. If the UK as a democratic polity decides to halt net immigration then this is a reasonable decision, especially in the light of limits to growth issues and ecological footprint analysis with respect to the UK. There is no reason that immigration to replace emigration need be racially based. Commitment to a steady, sustainable population need not be a racist policy. Having said this, there probably was a xenophobic element in some campaigning.
6. Britons made the right decision economically even if some made it for the wrong reasons (xenophobia). The EU is a failed experiment, a failed economic union, a neoliberal democratic deficit zone and a non-optimal currency area sans a true and democratic federation.
7. The global neoliberal elites will attempt to manipulate markets to punish the UK. Democracy is not allowed under their system. Rather, everyone must do what the neoliberal elites dictate or be punished.
8. If people lament the taint of “tribalism”, racism and xenophobia in the outcome, they should blame the neoliberal capitalist elites who promote inequality, ignorance and wedge politics. Remember, neoliberals want a border-less world to promote the freedom of capital and falling wages via global wage arbitrage. They certainly don’t want equality. While democracy is limited to national polities, national democracy is the only defence against globalised neoliberal corporatocracy of which the EU was and is a prime example.
Thanks John
Tribalism is the right word. Funny that the British at the height of their Empire blamed tribalism for all the insurrections against their cruel rule.
I am very sorry to see the mess that Britain has got itself into through xenophobia and narrow parochial attitudes. Will we be too late to see Australia do any better. OMG, we’re nearly there.
The common thread is the wonderful advice of Mark Textor and (now Sir) Lynton Crosby from Australia have given to Tory parties in Canada, Australia, New Zealand (I think) and Britain over the years. The advice is always to play the race card, fan hatred against refugees or immigrants, use the dog-whistle. Brexit, their latest achievement will be regretted for decades. David Cameron won’t benefit from this. He will lose his job to more extreme people with help from UKIP and all those nutters with swastikas tatooed on their scalps.
To think of it that I was once on radio and sitting across a small desk in the radio studio. He thought he’d eat an inexperienced Greens candidate, but I didn’t let that happen. It was a robust discussion.
Isolationism has always been a failure, more-so in the world these super-conservatives have created.
I think I saw a quoted figure of the UK having just written off ~20% of their purchasing power?
An even more pure neoliberal experiment is about to run I guess.
@David Sligar
Is this just a variation of the old saw about “better to lose for the right reason than win for the wrong reason” ?
Because there’s always a lot of that going on.
@David Sligar
It sounds like you’re saying that the betting markets are subject to a kind of herd behaviour. That strikes me as pretty plausible.
@Willy Bach
If you think that “tribalism” is the right word, then I suspect that “tribalism” doesn’t mean what you (and ProfQ) seem to think it means. I can see a certain amount of “cohortism” – ie people with a shared characteristic (in this case perhaps being ‘xenophobia’), but not “tribalism”.
In any case, I think it’s much more a case of “shared intentionality” – based on ignorance and prejudice to be sure, but nonetheless shared and intentional. Remember, you can have a state without tribalism, but not without shared intentionality (which may be just a different name for ‘enlightened self-interest ?)
@Ikonoclast
It’s certainly the case that the decision is democratic, and the U.K. establishment should respect the outcome and make the best of it, even if they aren’t happy about it. Whether or not the decision is the right economic one, or indeed does anything to address the various issues plaguing the British people, remains to be seen.
Despite what all the pundits are pontificating about, my guess is it’ll make almost no difference to the average Brit – they’ll still go to work every day, drop in to the pub the way home and watch their football team on the weekend. All the nonsense of doom and gloom all the new services are running will come to nought.
whilst I’m neither parochial or xenophobic, I voted out. tribalism would have dictated my voting remain rather than being even remotely associated with a load of fascist knuckledraggers. but if we go ad hominem, remain has some pretty unsavoury war criminals, neo liberals and worse.
with luck this vote heralds the end of neo liberalism. a lot of people who were doing quite nicely are going to find their lives a little more difficult and they’re squealing. others who’ve had a hard time have given the elite the finger.
Here is a positive take on Brexit http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/john-king-left-wing-case-leaving-eu . Reading it suggests Brexit is likely not just about Farage and tribalism. Many on the left see the EU as more of a problem that Johnson and Farage because so much of it is antidemocratic. The trouble is the choice is a devil’s alternative.
On the plus side for Remain – there were things such as ease of movement and internal cooperation, slow national and racial barrier removal and integration, good environmental initiatives. But on the negative side Remain in effect accepted an unaccountable neoliberal hegemony which has created and locked the EU peoples into an economic straightjacket and stimulated the rise of the very reactionary forces it was supposed to mitigate. Consider the Greeks.
Conversely for the Leave camp there was the offer of greater Britsh autonomy, closer control and inhibition of the out of control City financiers, and better control over Transatlantic trade agreements which this Leave vote may have scuppered more widely. But on the negative side, much of this liberatarianism was a cover for irrational tribalism as John puts it focused on immigration.
And this is before we come to the controversy around standardisation of the English sausage.
Lots of distorted signals all round. People will be running celebration or commiseration parties in some quarters depending on their views. Might I suggest this soundtrack? It turns distorted signals into an art-form, IMO.
Link Wray – Full Concert – 11/19/74 – Winterland (OFFICIAL) on Youtube.
@Ikonoclast
The trouble is that the leaders of both sides of the Brexit argument are horrors.
In the US we have the same choice – Hawkish lovechild of Wall St Hillary v. the laughing golfer clown.
What Brexit also tells us is:
a. (once again that) The polls can be quite wrong.
b. There is a rising anarchism that could go any way…..ergo Trump is still a possibility.
Of course there is a another possibility. Rather than a clash between libertarians and internationalists what we are seeing is a ploy by the Illuminati/Extraterrestrial Lizards to crash the economy again so that further transfers of money into the hands of the wealth from the public and ordinary people can take place, as in 2008. Or maybe there is a plot to resurrect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Rise_of_Michael_Rimmer by life imitating art again as in 2001.
[Sorry about this last silliness but it seems appropriate given the Silly Party has finally been victorious]
1.Tribalism need not be derogatory, but as an alternative I put forward “cosmopolitans” and “parochials”, Katharine Betts, The Great Divide (1999). The neoliberals are more-or-less cosmopolitans, but there are other cohorts of intellectuals who would place themselves in that camp.
2. The European project seems to have been commandeered by the neoliberals to make life easier for global capital, but originally neoliberalism was not the only driver, and arguably not the main one. Europe was determined to ensure that Germany never again became a military power and the EU was a step towards demilitarising continental Europe.
3. We have the neoliberals to thank for the rise of the far right, for want of a better term, in the UK and continental Europe. Resentment against economic oppression has meshed with nationalist resentment, although one can identify different intellectual origins. The nearest Australian equivalent I can think of is Pauline Hanson, whose platform was part nationalist and part anti-free trade and foreign investment.
4. If Britain leaves and retains neoliberal policy settings it could muddle around for years with the worst of all worlds. However, if it ditches the neoliberal project and localises its economy, it could thrive.
In the midst of all this there is a clear message to all the various strata dumping Australia into adverse trade deals and damaging globalisation.
If Australians get the chance, they will also reflect on the destruction of their working conditions brought on by unfair competition imposed by Keating, Howard, Rudd, and Abbott.
But I am sure that our keepers will never allow Australians to vote on trade deals they then have to live under.
Capitalist globalisation is not proletarian internationalism.
The Leave vote is entirely explicable:
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2016/06/24/brexit-and-deliberative-democracy-special-i-told-you-so-front-page-reposting/
@Peter Chapman
How does replacing one set of privileged white public school boys with another set give the British people more democracy?
@Droo
Or indeed more control over their lives? Anyone who thinks a Tory government led by Boris Johnson or Michael Gove is going to wind back austerity or give more to the disaffected ex-Labour voters is living on a different planet.
Norway is part of the Schengen area, allowing free movement of people. Norway never flinched about contributions via the European Economic Area structure. Norway does not have ‘the City’. But ‘the City’ is (was soon to be?) a major stumbling block for the EU to introduce a Tobin type tax. ‘The City’ was a major stumbling block for Cameron and Merkel to agree during the Greek crisis.
Contrary to what seems to be a strong belief among some, the EU is not the centre of neoliberalism. France, Germany, Italy (in alphabetical order) and without excluding many other EURO countries, have a long tradition of governments having a crucial role in an economy. This was again evidenced during the GFC.
I interpret Brexit as a popular objection to ‘globalisation’ (of the financial capitalism type) and the growth in income inequality (immigration is a coal face problem experienced by people on low wages or being unemployed). I take the marked difference in the voting behaviour between Scotland and England as being consistent with my interpretation. It was via the EU that there was some income redistribution within the UK. By income I mean development funds, support for some industries and labour laws. (Part of the UK contributions coming from London to Brussel ended up in Scotland – to provide a geographical footnote.)
Newtonian above outlines possible development paths regarding what I believe are the underlying drivers.
And now I wait for the EU’s first response.
Your blood is worth bottling, EG.
Another fair cause misappropriated by the populist right, as happened with the early Tea Party atroturfed by the Kochs.
The successful leave campaign will do nothing to change the neoliberal policies of the Tories, no matter who the leader. And whatever role Farage might have he is not the workers friend that’s for sure. He’s just a racist xenophoe with no idea about what to do next.
Boris, as mayor of London, proved so willing to give business everything it wanted that I’m pretty sure that neoliberalism will be even worse under a Johnson or Gove run Tory government.
@Ernestine Gross
Yes, these are the key symptoms. Capitalist globalisation produced or aggravated income inequality both inside OECD economies and inside China and India.
Maybe anti-Brexit Chomsky will rethink his position and put his finger on it.
So far only the British socialist left (excluding Corbyn) has come out of this with any credibility.
See: http://www.communist-party.org.uk/communications/press/2272-communists-urge-leave-vote-and-criticise-pro-eu-pessimists-and-defeatists.html
@Ernestine Gross
Yes, these are the key symptoms. Capitalist globalisation produced or aggravated income inequality both inside OECD economies and inside China and India.
Maybe anti-Brexit Chomsky will rethink his position and put his finger on it.
So far only the British socialist left (excluding Corbyn) has come out of this with any credibility.
See: http://www.communist-party.org.uk/communications/press/2272-communists-urge-leave-vote-and-criticise-pro-eu-pessimists-and-defeatists.html
Ernestine Gross,
The EU in fact has became more neoliberal than the USA. It is only historically true that “France, Germany, Italy (in alphabetical order) and without excluding many other EURO countries, have a long tradition of governments having a crucial role in an economy.” That tradition is history as the EU and EMU have followed a full neoliberal trajectory.
This paper explains the situation well.
Click to access dynamo05.pdf
A quote from numbered pages 14 & 15 (not necessarily displayed pages 14 & 15);
“The EMU, perhaps, is the most obvious manifestation of neoliberal restructuring at the European level. While the SEA guarantees “free” trade and capital mobility within Europe, the EMU fortifies the principles of monetary restraint and budgetary austerity by forcing EMU member states in to a tight fiscal corset. As we will discuss in the following pages, the budgetary constraints imposed by the convergence criteria also compel member states to introduce far-reaching reforms in labour and social policies as their ability to confront unemployment and social exclusion is sever
ely limited by the lack of budgetary funds. Whereas the Commission (2003a:9ff) continues to advocate price stability and fiscal austerity as the most effective measures to promote growth, the outcomes of theses policies are slow growth rates if not stagnation, very moderate real income increases, and an unemployment rate that amounts to more than eight per cent across the union (Euromemorandum Group 2004).”
The EU is a real and very damaging centre of neoliberal orthodoxy. By “damaging” I mean damaging to economic equality and worker rights. See “Increasing inequality plunging millions more Europeans into poverty” Published: 9 September 2015 – Oxfam.
The Brexit in essence is an attempt at a strategic withdrawal from neoliberalism by the people of the UK. They will next have to fight a national political battle to make a further withdrawal from neoliberalism. The outcome of that battle is as yet uncertain.
@Droo Exactly. This is a class issue through and through. Different fractions of the dominant class may argue with each other but replacing Cameron with Boris will make little difference, I venture, to the average citizen. Meanwhile the 1% can and will look after themselves, regardless of who is in “power”.
@Ivor
I am not surprised that the communist left is now competing with the populist right to gain grounds. I don’t like either of them. Aren’t they all just interested in power?
@Ivor
That makes just two issues where I have discovered I disagree with Chomsky.
Chomsky romanticises Europe excessively – “Europe is more civilised than the USA”. When? In what period? Now? Well maybe now but “now” doesn’t usually last long in historical terms.
The other issue was that of “free will” where Chomsky was dismissive of any view contrary to his and baldly stated that it is “obvious” that we have free will. Actually, it’s not obvious at all. It’s arguable but it’s not obvious. The contrary position and other more nuanced positions are also arguable. I argue that we have “pseudo free-will”. “Pseudo free-will” is probably just as good for most realistic, practical purposes as genuine free will and it feels like genuine free will. But… I stray off topic… again. Note, I argue for “pseudo free-will” not that “Free will is a pseudo-problem”.
No, Boris and Farage supported the Leave side for the wrong reasons.
The Left supported the Leave side for the right reasons.
Google “Lexit”. There is no competition because their pathways are completely different.
Defending workers’ rights is not power seeking.
There is a negative in all this, in that Boris’s buffoonery and Farage’s rightist rants will now combine and possibly enter Downing St.
No, Boris and Farage supported the Leave side for the wrong reasons.
The Left supported the Leave side for the right reasons.
Google “Lexit”. There is no competition because their pathways are completely different.
Defending workers’ rights is not power seeking.
There is a negative in all this, in that Boris’s buffoonery and Farage’s rightist rants will now combine and possibly enter Downing St.
@Ikonoclast
There are hundreds if not thousands of academic papers published every year on topics related to the EU. To pick one from 2005 – before the GFC – doesn’t support your argument.
The GFC did not originate in the EU. The date I associate with neoliberalism arriving in Europe is the date of Thatcher’s ‘big bang’ (financial deregulation).
You seem to like words like ‘austerity’. I don’t because this term does not have a unique meaning under all possible circumstances in any one cultural setting and, even more so, across cultures.
For example, if there is a practically equal income distribution(1) but, for one reason or another, there is a growing public sector deficit, then calling for ‘austerity’ doesn’t mean much else than ‘we have to tighten our belt a little’, where we refers to each and every member of society. I can’t see a problem with this. On the other hand, if there is significant income (or wealth) inequality (1), then a call for ‘austerity’ can mean that a segment of society can barely exist while another notices nothing except perhaps one zero less among many in their the net wealth account statement. I see a lot wrong with this.
As the above discussion about the meaning of ‘tribalism’ indicates, words are a tricky thing as soon as the world of abstract ideas is entered.
(1) In contemporary Australia, I would consider an income distribution with a minimum of $40,000 and a maximum of $500,000 p.a. as equal enough for practical purposes (people don’t start off with $500,000, they may get it for a few years after many more modest income years, assuming fair play). But a maximum of $15,000,000 p.a. would really overstretch my imagination as to plausible justification.
@Ernestine Gross
History makes fools of us all. Which feels like something Santayana might have said. There would have been a time when I would have been much in favour of the proto-EU and EU project, if I had taken much notice of Europe at that time. I mean from about 1975 to 1990. I only became aware of the deeply pernicious nature of neoliberalism (and its capture of our political economies) from about the first Howard government (1996-1998) onward. I am a slow learner obviously.
Neoliberalism captured and perverted the EU. The thing is that one can be in favour of a political movement until it is captured by bad actors. Then one is deeply embarrassed. Sadly, even the best of movements can be captured by the worst of people.
History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions,
Guides us by vanities. – T.S. Eliot
Ernestine Gross,
To reply more directly, I think a pre-GFC paper supports my position even better. EU neoliberalism was clearly going badly well before the GFC. The USA-generated GFC simply gave it the coup de grace or something close to that.
Remember Wynne Godley and his 1992 essay “Maastricht and all that”. Godley nailed it.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-all-that
@Ikonoclast
When you look at the imprisonment rates, the food stamp population, the working hours and the shooting gallery that is USA, Europe could well appear more civilised than the USA.
Maybe others supporting Brexit were quite properly concerned about the right-wing and racist undertones the Brexit campaign carried.
I hope Chomsky and others review their stances.
Thank heavens for tribalism (English Nationalism) in 1940.
And consider this paper from the EC, Economic and Financial Affairs Directorate, no less…
Click to access publication12413_en.pdf
One can read this paper in different ways I guess. To me, their conclusion reads as if they are struggling to find and prove the most minuscule of benefits to a few core nations. Too bad about the periphery I guess. Real improvements were prognosticated to be out in the never-never somewhere. Meantime, the GFC became proof positive that the EMU simply could not withstand an economic shock and would struggle seemingly indefinitely to recover from it.
And here is the EU’s first response to Brexit:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/europe-plunged-crisis-britain-votes-leave-eu-european-union
One for Ikon.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/david-cameron-resign-teflon-cockiness
Memorable quotes from a Joseph Stiglitz interview on or about April 27, 2016.;
1. “The Euro zone has been a failure; a dismal failure.”
2. “Financial markets are always volatile, always looking for a reason for a shock.”
3. “Germany dominating totally, economic discussions. You’ve (countries with 20% to 25 % unemployment) lost your economic sovereignty. It’s a compelling case (to get out).”
To be honest I feel on sound ground with the “Stig” as my backing.
Point two highlights what has actually happened now, a lot of financial volatility. This volatility is largely unnecessary. It’s a case of the Chicken Little market running around saying the sky is falling. It’s an illustration of the facile nature and rank stupidity of unregulated capitalist markets. “There’s going to be crisis now even if we have to create it by panicking.” – seems to be their mantra. Of course, it’s really about deliberately creating a crisis to punish people for making a democratic decision. The neoliberal econocrats hate democracy and will do anything to quash it.
Anyone who claims to be of the left and stands with Farage and Johnson against Europe is a first class nincompoop who can’t look past their own privilege to what Brexit is going to do to the poor and disadvantaged in Britain. I am disgusted that people like @Ivor and @Ikonoclast have the gall to spout anti-neoliberalism ideology in support of the UKIP agenda.
Europe is not perfect – no government is – but the poorer regions and demographics of Britain will do a lot worse under Boris than they would under the EU, and acting as a useful idiot to deliver this pain to the proletariat on whose behalf you claim to act is just disgraceful.
@m0nty
Try reading what people write. There is no support for the UKIP agenda and it has been made abundently clear to the slowest of learners that Farage supports Brexit for the wrong reason while the left supported Bexit for the right reasons.
This must have given you a brain ache.
It has also been explained that the Left support and Farage support for Brexit represent completely different pathways.
There is absolutely no possibility of conflating the two, except as a fraud.
You are the disgrace.
@Historyintime
Pity about that German tribalism though, eh?
@Ivor
That’s a lovely set of foolish lies you tell yourself, but if your thinking reaches the same conclusion as Nigel Farage, maybe it’s you who need to go back to the hall of mirrors.
Your contention that you wear a different brand of steel-capped boots to the fascists is nothing to be proud of. You’re still standing side by side with them, kicking down the state that cares for the poor and disadvantaged to serve your ideology.
Regular people in normal society are repelled by both neoliberalism and communism.
@David Sligar
Oil (and gas) is a *very* important reason Norway is doing well, along with an abundance of natural resources. The petroleum sector alone provides a whopping 15% of GDP and 40% of exports.
Also, if the UK were to follow Norway’s example, it would have to become a member of EFTA, thereby paying for access to the EU market and still having to follow many relevant EU rules and regulations. You wonder what the advantages are to be paying the EU to be allowed to play along, but having no say whatsoever about the rules you have to follow to play along…
@m0nty
It is certainly true that capitalism, especially late-stage neoliberal capitalism, engineers complex predicaments where workers are “exploited if they do” and “exploited if they don’t”. British workers were due to be exploited if they remained in the EU and they are due to be exploited when they leave. They are still bound to the globe’s fate. The power of globalised capital ensures that socialism in one country is impossible. This is as Marx and Engels predicted.
From the Poverty and Exclusion Website:
“A paper by the OECD in Paris has highlighted growing income inequality in European countries – with large income gains among the top 10 per cent of earners as the main cause. The paper’s author constructs an aggregate measure of EU-wide inequality that takes into account inequality both within and between countries.
Key points;
– Inequality in Europe has risen ‘quite substantially’ since the mid-1980s.
– Towards the end of the 2000s the income distribution in Europe was more unequal than in the average developed (OECD) country, though notably less so than in the USA.
– It is the within-country, not the between-country, dimension that appears to be the most important factor. Although European Union enlargement has contributed to increasing inequality, it is not the only explanation: inequality has also increased within eight ‘core’ countries, including the United Kingdom.
– Large income gains among the 10 per cent top earners appear to be a main driver behind the overall trend, while the poorest 10 per cent have been losing ground.
The paper (Kaja Bonesmo Fredriksen, Income Inequality in the European Union, Economics Department Working Paper 952, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is available from the OECD website.”
(I think the paper is from 2011.)
Neoliberalism is the late stage capitalism project nonpareil. It is more correct to say that if you support the EMU then you support late stage capitalism and increasing inequality in practice, even if this is not your ideal or intention. The only weapon workers have is to withdraw their labour and cooperation from capitalists. In leaving the EU, the workers of the UK have withdrawn their cooperation from the neoliberal EU project.
A loss for neoliberal economics. This is a heartening result.