Authoritarian Neoliberalism in the EU [Archive]

29th March 2013, 23:45

In general some very good videos. The critique toward the "silent revolution" that the EU is having, where power is centralised into a tiny oligarchic clique (the European Commission) that imposes neoliberalism as laws into its member-states is very good.

I do have some remarks though. I listened closely to what was being proposed as an alternative. There were three moments:
- In the first video, right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5XbAqYmiHs&feature=youtu.be&t=13m5s), we hear comrade Murphy talking about "public investment and socialist policies" (the latter remains unqualified) as a "way out". I find that highly dubious.
- In the second video, right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LiP9eANh4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m45s), we hear how rules are being imposed by an unelected European Commission and how, in this way, power is being transferred from the "elected governments" to the EC. So, is the implication then that we want the reverse? That we want to start a program of public investment on a national level? How is this not Keynesianism?
- Lastly, right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LiP9eANh4&feature=youtu.be&t=9m24s), we hear the alternative which wraps up the last two points and adds nationalisations to the mix. Again, how is this not Keynesian, given perhaps a radical variant of it?

Given that national ways out are illusory (they'll lead to disaster) and that we need to do more than just have nationalisations and a public investment program (we need proletarian rule in order to achieve anything), I think comrade Murphy's contributions have some lacuna's that need filling in order to achieve better propaganda: How is our view toward the EU (given that simply saying we want a "socialist Europe" is rather an empty phrase)? What should we do with it? We need centralisation, yes, but proletarian centralisation. This then begs the question of democratic demands on the EU level and, related, the question of the workers movement organising on this same level (forming EU-wide trade unions, EU-wide political parties, etc.).

I'll leave my reflections at this point and hope it is helpful.

Jolly Red Giant

31st March 2013, 21:45

Okay - interesting criticism that should be answered

The first point to make is that it is necessary to consider the forum that these comments were made in. This was a meeting of the Irish Parliament's Joint Committee on European Affairs (Joint Committee as in it includes members of the Irish lower and upper houses of parliament). The composition of this committee is made up of 6 MPs and senators from Fine Gael, 3 from Labour, 2 from Fianna Fail, 2 from Sinn Fein and 1 independent - most of the committee are openly pro-austerity and proud of it.

Furthermore - the debates on such committee's are very restrictive. They deal with a specific topic - in this case "Ireland and the future of the EU". Those who attend these committees are asked a series of questions which they answer - any attempt to stray into a wider debate is immediately cut off by the committee chairman. I have attended this same committee as a representative of the Socialist Party because of my membership of another government body and when I tried to introduce any discussion on socialist policies the chairman immediately cut me off, turned off my microphone and instructed that my comments be removed from the record - because I did not stick strictly to the topic under discussion.

The purpose of bringing Paul Murphy to this committee (and as an MEP he is obliged to attend) is for the right-wing - and particularly the Labour Party - to try and use the opportunity to beat a big stick over the head of the Socialist Party and socialist policies in general. In my opinion Paul Murphy performed admirably given the forum he was participating in.

Now to specifics -

- In the first video, right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5XbAqYmiHs&feature=youtu.be&t=13m5s), we hear comrade Murphy talking about "public investment and socialist policies" (the latter remains unqualified) as a "way out". I find that highly dubious.
To start with Paul Murphy would not have been allowed to elaborate - and I actually don't know what you find 'highly dubious' about stating that the implementing of socialist politics is the 'way out' of the crisis.

- In the second video, right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LiP9eANh4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m45s), we hear how rules are being imposed by an unelected European Commission and how, in this way, power is being transferred from the "elected governments" to the EC. So, is the implication then that we want the reverse? That we want to start a program of public investment on a national level? How is this not Keynesianism?
Any reversal of the removal of democratic rights (however limited) is positive. Will it lead to the political, social and economic emancipation of the working class? No. - Would it be a defeat for the EU Commission and the Eurpoean elites? Yes.

Furthermore, Paul Murphy stated during the course of his various contributions that what was needed was 'public investment', 'nationalisation', democratic planning' and 'socialist policies'. The stated position of the Socialist Party and the CWI is not for public investment on a 'national' scale - but a European-wide programme of public investment, nationalisation, democratic planning and socialist policies.

- Lastly, right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LiP9eANh4&feature=youtu.be&t=9m24s), we hear the alternative which wraps up the last two points and adds nationalisations to the mix. Again, how is this not Keynesian, given perhaps a radical variant of it?
You will note that the committee chairman cut off Bernard Durkan when he attempted to open up a discussion on 1930's Keynesianism - note that Paul Murphy stated he was in favour of increased public investment and he also stated he was not in favour of Keynesianism and that it was not a solution - He stated that he rejected the rule of the markets - he stated that the financial markets should be taken into public ownership and the resources should be used for the benefit of people not profit, through planning the economy. Now you might view this as a radical form of Keynesianism - I would suggest that rejecting the rule of the markets, taking the world financial system into public ownership and planning the use of those resources to benefit the population of the planet is not Keynesianism but socialism.

-Given that national ways out are illusory (they'll lead to disaster) and that we need to do more than just have nationalisations and a public investment program (we need proletarian rule in order to achieve anything), I think comrade Murphy's contributions have some lacuna's that need filling in order to achieve better propaganda:
1. Paul Murphy never stated that there was a 'national way out'
2. Paul Murphy went further than saying that nationalisations and public investment was 'the answer' - he added that a planned economy was necessary and that the resources should be used for the benefit of people not profit. Such measures require proletarian rule - it would not be possible to implement an economy planned for the benefit of the working class and the poor without proletarian rule.
3. As I pointed out earlier - the debate in this forum is restricted - this particular meeting was specifically about the future development of the EU after the recent EU Treaties and unless he was specifically asked the question the chair would have prevented him expanding any further on the politics of the Socialist Party.

- How is our view toward the EU (given that simply saying we want a "socialist Europe" is rather an empty phrase)?
I disagree - in my opinion declaring the necessity of a 'socialist Europe' is very clear and concise in putting forward an alternative to a 'capitalist Europe'.

- What should we do with it? We need centralisation, yes, but proletarian centralisation.
I actually disagree with this - I am opposed to centralisation - I am in favour of democratic planning of a socailised economy and an element of centralised planning would be necessary - however I am opposed to the 'centralisation' of economic planning which could, in my opinion, lead to the development of a bureaucracy.

- This then begs the question of democratic demands on the EU level and, related, the question of the workers movement organising on this same level (forming EU-wide trade unions, EU-wide political parties, etc.).
And again - Paul Murphy argued in favour of a Europe-wide general strike against austerity.

I'll leave my reflections at this point and hope it is helpful.
and I have attempted to answer them - hopefully my comments add to the discussion.