-----Original Message----- From: Mark Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 September 2000 15:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Marxism-Thaxis] Target of the petrol tax revolt Responding to Chris B. (below). The reason for public sympathy for the pickets was because of the notorious overweighting of regressive indirect taxes, the fuel tax in particular. The UK tax burden on corporations and the wealthy is low compared to Europe, the top rate is only 40%. In times of severe stress such as shortages of essential commodities, or war, etc, governments often find it necessary to be more redistributive and as and when energy shortages do take their toll, unemployment rises etc, it will be politically unavoidable in low-tax states like the UK and the US; they will have to tax wealth more or face civil unrest, sikple as that. So much for one of the main alleged comptitive advantages of the Anglo-American system. As far as who is prole + who is petit-bourgeois is concerned, this whole discussion has to be located in the context that only around 15% of UK workers are actually in "productive" ie surplus-value producing manufacturing industry; there are probably only 400 million "true proletarians" employed in internationally-competitive manufacturing *worldwide*. A vast number of newly-marginalised, semi-employed, unemployed and underemployed semi-proletarians, semi-petit bourgoies etc consttitues the bulk of the working class, the reserve army of labour, and the hapless and dispossessed peasantry/petit bourgeoisie - probably 3 billion people or perhaps far more in this bleak lumpen hinterland. Obviously the recent protests in the UK were fanned by Big Oil for its own reasons (lower taxes = higher profits) and by right wing anti-Labour newspapers (why they should be anti-labour beats me). And obviously on the face of it, supporting workers' demands for cheaper fossil fuel doesn't look very green. But the point is that the urban populations of most of the world, and the workers of advanced countries, have simply been made political and social hostages to fossil-fuel based capitalism. Equally obviously, as energy famines really start to bite, the demand will no longer be for *lower taxes* per se but for *alternatives* to fossil. The "the energy politics of international finance capital" are to continue to plunder the planet's fossil fuel "resources" until they "unexpectedly" and to the evident surprise and discomfort of "experts" like Doug Henwood, "run out"; and their polituics after that will be to try to avoid the lynch mobs who will come calling. Millions will die because of this "policy", whose roots go back more than a century and which has formed the political bedrock of imperialism. "when petrol plays a smaller part in the > capitalist system" will also be when the capitalist system itself collapses, and if experience of what happened in the USSR is any guide, that can happen with devastating speed and suddenness. Do not forget that only two years ago "The Economist" said oil was gonna cost $5/bbl or less and we were "drowning in it". The Economist's coverage of the present crisis has been abysmal, utter gibberish, blind denialism. But what else can you expect from such deluded people? The elites and their scribbling classes (including most of the so-called "Marxist" left) are politically completely irresponsible and now they are in collective denial. Check the recent archives of Doug Henwood's own list Lbo-talk for similar evidence of almost wilful denialism and of discussion which is so frivolous that it really does resemble playing quoits on the deck of the Titanic. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris > Burford > Sent: 16 September 2000 09:52 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Target of the petrol tax revolt > > > At 09:58 14/09/00 +0100, > > Mark wrote: (title S11) > > >Chris Burford wrote: > > > > > The leaders of the activisit network are bourgeois and petty > bourgeois. > >The > > > man closest to being a leader is Brynle Williams, a North > Wales farmer. No > > > way a finance capitalist. > > > >I'm not at the right pc and can't locate the stats, but I seem > to recollect > >a recent DoE/Treasury report which shows that marginal hill farmers like > >Brynle > >earned less than UKP8,000 p.a. in the past 4 years. This puts > their average > >wage not only below the mean but often, below social security benefit > >levels. > > > > > > > > If you accept my earlier class and ideological analysis of > this movement > >it > > > is reactionary. > > > >Why is it reactionary? It is anything but reactionary. It is a frontal > >attack (based on a widespread public feeling that we've all been > deceived) > >on the energy politics of international finance capital. > > [and] > > >As for Brynle Williams, far from being a petty-bourgeois > reactionary, he is > >someone driven by intense anger and even desperation to commit acts > >which in any more or less normal circumstances would be absolutely > >unthinkable. There will be many more people like him and we should > >do what we can to tell the truth, at last. They have been made fools of > >by a corrupt and cynical ruling class which does not care if they live or > >die. > > > I did not just want to rattle off a reply which might lead to a scrappy > argument rather than an important debate. But I appreciate Mark's > challenge. > > We often see struggle going on in front of our very eyes, to > allude to the > Communist Manifesto, and there is a problem of how to analyse it at a > deeper level. > > To remind other readers, I was replying to Doug's challenge about my > proposition that the target of the global protests should be defined as > global finance capital. I used the petrol tax revolt to illustrate. > > My point was not to denounce someone like Brynle Williams, who > has clearly > been courageous and also thought of the wider democratic interest and not > just his own immediate problems. I agree with Mark's point about the > desperate position of marginal farmers who are being severely squeezed > between the overproduction of food and more efficient larger > capitalist and > finance capitalist systems of production. > > Neverthelesss in marxist terms Williams is almost certainly > petty-bourgois, > exploiting himself, with perhaps as few as 3 or 4 other employees whom he > exploits in his capacity as a small bourgeois. > > There is no mechanical and automatic link between ideology and material > class position but there is a general probabilistic link. > Williams is only > one of perhaps many thousands of people in his class position who > have been > involved in some sort of action. His individual name has emerged more to > the forefront perhaps because of qualities that stand out a little in > comparison with his peers. > > Nevertheless he and others illustrate that the class basis for the > *activists* in this tax revolt has been petty bourgeois and small > bourgeois, squeezed between competition with larger bourgois systems of > production, and a tightening of the market for raw materials, > namely fuel, > and the market for the sale of their products. > > We should not dismiss him and his peers because they are not true > proletarians. Nor should we jump on the populist bandwagon. It is > necessary > to have a dialectical analysis that sees them both from their progressive > and their reactionary perspective. > > To avoid a moralistic tone to this point, I am happy to > substitute the term > "reactive" instead of "reactionary". Many, perhaps most struggles, are in > some sense reactive. Only when combined in a wider movement with > progressive goals do they have the opportunity of becoming progressive. > > But it should be one of the missions of communists to see these links, if > we take the Communist Manifesto seriously. > > This brings me up to the main and very interesting point I wanted to > respond to in Mark's comments: how to define the target of a particular > campaign. > > I really have difficulty with Mark's formulation and I hope > others may come > in on this question of formulation: > > >It is a frontal > >attack (based on a widespread public feeling that we've all been > deceived) > >on the energy politics of international finance capital. > > Can I suggest we consider this from the point of view of > > a) the subjective target of the attack - what or whom is seen as > the target > by the activists and sympathisers, and > > b) what is the "objective" target of the attack - what a superior > materialist class analysis suggests is "objectively" the target. > > Unless I am missing some statements specifically made by Brynle > Williams or > his peers, I do not assume Mark is claiming that the energy politics of > international finance capital were the subjective target of the attack. > Most of the placards attacked the government for taking such a high > percentage of the pump price in the form of tax, and by > implication for not > cushioning users of petrol against the recent oil price increases. Blair > was roundly accused of being out of touch, and the Conservative press > fanned this perception. > > The overwhelming popular sympathy with those who used petrol for their > business, came from motorists who used petrol for personal > consumption. The > oil companies had no desire to distance themselves from those > feelings, and > did little to order their drivers to cross non-violent picket lines. When > some supplies were let through for emergency services by > agreement with the > picketers, the pcicketers applauded. > > This suddenly all came together in a massive national demonstration to > force the deaf, uncaring government to listen. The subjective > target of the > action was the government. > > I assume however that Mark's formula was deliberately intended to > go beyond > the subjective target and to identify the objective target of the attack. > > He wrote it was an "attack (based on a widespread public feeling > that we've > all been deceived) > on the energy politics of international finance capital". > > These formulas are tricky to get right without careful thought and > discussion and a lot of evidence. > > Mark indicates by his comments in parenthesis the subjective feeling by > which the attack had as its objective target > > >the energy politics of international finance capital > > > I am aware from the Crash List that Mark has done a lot of work > on oil, but > I would request a one sentence formulation of what these energy > politics are. > > Clearly I have areas in common with Mark in that I wanted to formulate > "global finance capital" as the target of the chain of demonstrations > against the IMF, and Mark talks about the energy politics of > international > finance capital. But I suppose I think the connections between different > sectors of capital and global capital, as an concentration of all > the most > hegemonic elements of capital, are complex, and also riddled with > contadictions. > > (This is a far from purely philosophical exercise in the relationship > between the concrete and the abstract.) > > To take one concrete example, a company like BP has played around with > suggesting that its name might also mean "Beyond Petroleum", suggesting > that only for the highest motives of the public good (of course), it will > be finding ways of shifting its capital into areas of exploitation of > labour that do not involve the production or distribution of oil. BP took > the subtlest and most progressive role of the petrol companies in the > recent petrol tax revolt crisis. > > Furthermore, the nature of the crisis has rapidly emerged as one of the > global management of the capital tied up in the oil industry, as direct > action has cascaded across western Europe. Significantly the OPEC > countries > who have kindly agreed to an increase in production, are negotiating hard > for compensation when petrol plays a smaller part in the > capitalist system. > > So what, concisely - in one sentence so it can be useful for a > formulation > - are > > >the energy politics of international finance capital? > > > (And will this formula suggest how at least subconsciously or > objectively, > the petrol tax activists were attacking it?) > > > > Chris Burford > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
