The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: December 2019 Page 2 of 3

Social Facts Create Reality

When I write longer works, like the booklet “The Construction of Reality,” I put aside pieces that are good, but don’t work in the context of the book.

I’ve now re-written the entire first chapter twice. The first time was way too dry, but looking at it now, I see that it’s still interesting and makes some important points, so I’m going to post it here.


Reality is constructed.

It is constructed first by our bodies–our senses and universal emotions like fear and lust, anger and love. Being human orders the world for us before we take our first breath.

This is true of all animals, who, like humans, also change the environment to suit themselves. But humans have created a reality far, far from that of our forebears who ran in bands on the Savannah.

We have created a human world.  Most of us live in cities, artificial environments created by us. We walk on streets laid out by humans, work, sleep, and cook in buildings, drive in cars or take buses, trains, and planes. We talk on cell phones and surf the internet. Even those who live in the country live on land which has been altered by agriculture and pasturing of animals humans domesticated. A farmer grows wheat which was bred over millennia (or genetically altered, more recently). The farmer raises animals humans have been raising for thousands of years. We eat the meat of cows, pigs, and chicken and we dine on rice, wheat, or vegetables we have tended for millennia and which we have bred to suit us.

As individuals, we did not create almost any part of this physical world. We did not invent the techniques for caring for domesticated animals, growing vegetables, or making smart phones.

We live in a physical world created by humans, many of whom are dead. Human life is human in a way that animal life is not animal. Animals have an effect on the environment, but it is minor compared to what humans have done to the world.

And this is just the physical side of the world. Just as important is the world of ideas, of social facts.

Look at the words you are reading right now. You didn’t invent writing, typing, any of these words, or language itself. You spend your life thinking most of your thoughts in a language or languages created by humans, for humans–and mostly by dead humans.

You almost certainly receive your daily food in exchange for something called money which is probably either plastic woven to look like paper or electronic bits. Money has no intrinsic value; a million dollars in the middle of Antarctica would do nothing for you, most money isn’t even paper any more–you couldn’t burn it for heat. Yet most of us spend most of our waking day working for someone who gives us “money” and exchanges it for most everything else we want.

In times of war and famine, money may lose most of its value. Food, cigarettes, or sex may be worth more. Money’s value is a social fact.

When someone is killed by another human being, whether it was murder or not is a social fact. In war, if a soldier kills someone it is probably not murder. If the state is executing someone it is not murder. When police kill someone it is usually not considered murder. Social facts.

The quality and amount of health care provided to individuals is a social fact; it depends on where they live.  In some countries, it depends on how much money they have. In other countries, it depends on how much power they have.

The amount of melanin in someone’s skin is a physical fact. That having a “black” name in America leads to half the interview requests than those received for an identical resume with a “white” name is a social fact.

Cannabis is almost certainly less physically harmful than tobacco or alcohol, but selling or possessing cannabis is far more likely to get you thrown in jail. In the US, during alcohol prohibition, this was not true. Alcohol is alcohol, its legal status is a social fact.

Social facts rule most of your life. They are layered on top of physical facts and tell you how to understand those facts, and how to act towards them. There are few more consequential decisions than, “When should I kill someone?” or, “When should someone receive health care and how good should it be? or “Should I hire someone and for how much?”

Not all ideas are social facts. You may believe something “ought” to be true, but often other people do not agree. You think your girlfriend shouldn’t cheat, she doesn’t agree, the state doesn’t care. But if you act on that idea, and so do other people, it’s a social fact. They may call her a cheater, ostracize her, and so on. If no one acts on it, it is not a social fact.

A gang or mafia may believe that their members shouldn’t inform to the authorities, and they may enforce this as best they can, but obviously the state does not. It is still a social fact if they can make it one, however.

You may also believe in ideas which are contrary to the ideas currently enforced by the state or other people. Perhaps you do not believe in intellectual property. Perhaps you think confessions obtained by torture shouldn’t be used in criminal proceedings. Perhaps you believe that women should or shouldn’t be able to have abortions.

These ideas may fall short of being social facts if no one acts on them. They are just ideas; musings on how the world “ought” to be.

This social world is layered on top of the physical world created by our bodies and how they perceive and interact with objects around us. No amount of social facts will alter the solidity of a rock, or our need to breathe.

Each of us lives inside these two worlds, worlds which were largely given to us.

Imposed on us.

At most, we’ve made a few choices from the worlds and realities available to us, but most of our fundamental choices have been made for us.

The reality, I, a Canadian urban male, live in is different from that of a female Mexican subsistence farmer, let alone that of a plains Indian 700 years ago, a prole in the Roman Republic, or an Egyptian priest under the Pharoahs.

This is before we get to the differences that seem important to us today: say, the difference between a conservative Republican Christian and his counterpart progressive Democratic atheist. A thousand years from now, those may seem like rather similar people, today they seem quite different.

Our bodies make us alive, but they make us different as well: To be tall or short is to experience the world differently. To have a strong constitution or a sickly one is to experience the world differently, as well.

And to be a woman or a man, likewise; so much so that men and women in some societies (Saudi Arabia today, Victorian England, or Manchu China) can be said to have such different experiences in life that they might as well live in different worlds; different realities.

Reality is inside-out, first, because we have bodies and senses which organize our experience of the world, and do so before the first drop of parental interference, training, or culture.

But it is outside-in in most of the ways which make us different from each other and from other humans who have lived in the past.

Each of us is formed by time, place and position. Even if we were both male, with similar bodies, in Republican Rome, were I born to a Plebeian family and you to a Patrician family, our worlds would part, and even if both of us were born to Patrician families the particulars of our parents, tutors and other incidentals would leave us different. Position within a place and time, added to different bodies, makes up most of the individuality which divides us from our peers.

In this book we will swoop from the heights of macro-history; of the effects of great ideas, of technologies like gunpowder and farming, or organization and vast tribal identities, to the depths of our inner experience; our thoughts, our feelings, our urges and beliefs.

Reality is an experience. Each of us lives in a reality, feels it, and thinks about it. As we live, we change the reality we live in, or it changes around us, and again, our experience of the world changes.

To write a book on the construction of reality while neglecting how we can change reality would be barren.  Though careful examination reveals that most of human reality is imposed on us from outside, by time, place, and position, none of which we choose, we do not have to accept this passively.

While even in the great struggle to change our shared world, our shared reality, all of us can change the reality we live in, by taking some control of our own circumstances–or, denied that, by changing how our bodies and brains interpret the world.

So we will cover the vast currents of history and prehistory, of identity, organization, technology and ideology. We will speak of human empathy, human violence, and human limits, because it is human limits which have the greatest effect on the world we create and our acceptance of the world that we are given.

But in so doing, we will not neglect the personal.

Corbyn’s Biggest Failure

Jeremy Corbyn

I admire Corbyn greatly, as everyone who reads this blog knows. If he had become Prime Minister, he would have made Britain a better place–a lot better–because he wanted to do virtually all the right things, and he has stuck to his principles for decades.

However, Corbyn did have one major flaw, and he made one major mistake.

Corbyn was, and is, nice in the wrong way.

If you have principles, and you get into power, it is  your duty to see those principles through. Corbyn had a mandate from Labour party members.

Labour party MPs did not agree, and the majority of them did everything they could to sabotage Corbyn, over and over again.

Corbyn had remedies: He could back mandatory re-selection (allowing party members in ridings to re-select their candidates) or he could have just kicked them out of the party.

Kicking MPs out of the party is what Boris Johnson did, and while I don’t much like Johnson, he was right to do so. He was elected leader on a platform of hard Brexit, and those who voted against him needed to go. He got rid of them.

Corbyn should have done that and implemented re-selection. Corbyn repeatedly said that his principle was that the Labour party, and the country, should be run by the grass roots. MPs who were going against the vast majority of the party needed to face the discipline of the party members.

This is also true because the MPs have a role in selecting who is allowed in the ballot for the next leader. As it stands now there may wind up being no left-wing candidate for the overwhelmingly left-wing party membership to vote for.

An ideological movement’s first job in a democracy is to control one of the two main parties. If you do so, you will eventually wind up in power. It is that simple. No party rules forever.

If Corbyn fails his movement and his principles, it will not be because he lost a couple elections. It will be because he had the chance to change the Labour party, and he really didn’t, because he blinked when it came to dealing with other MPs.

That’s failure, and that’s an actual indictment of Corbyn in a way that losing elections isn’t. He had the power to enact his principles in a way which would have greatly increased the odds of Britain becoming a better place, whether or lost he won elections, and he didn’t do so.

For that, I blame him.

(There have been a lot of articles about the British election and Corbyn over the last week. We’ll move on to other topics after this. But understanding what happened and why is important.)


Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Responsibility in Democracies

The primary responsibility for what government is in charge of a democracy rests with voters.

This is fundamental. Voters have choices, they make choices. One can make the claim that the choices are often all bad (although in systems where anyone can join a party and vote in primaries that is weak), but when it comes to the actual choice on the ballot, voters are in charge.

This is fundamental. This is the basis of democratic legitimacy.

It also has to be understood clearly, because there is an exact relationship between power and responsibility. If you put all, or the majority, of the responsibility onto leaders or elites, you are saying you do not have any power to make change.

In Britain’s election, the British made a choice. The forseeable consequences will be a lot more death and suffering. There was another option. They chose.

Perhaps Corbyn did not run as well as he could have, but people who say it’s primarily his fault don’t actually understand democracies.

This is the same as when Americans chose Reagan, or the British chose Thatcher. There was a clear choice, they made it. Reagan ran a racist campaign, it was known at the time (I remember it), and it was also clearly one based on a project of dismantling the regulatory and welfare state. That was the choice, Americans made it, and Americans are responsible for making it. They then ratified the decision by re-electing Reagan.

The same is true of the Brits and Thatcher, especially when they ratified the choice by re-electing her after seeing her policies. (Thatcher also bribed them by letting them buy council housing below price. In the long run that was a bad bribe to take.)

None of this is to say that leaders don’t have responsibilities, or more power than individuals or even groups. But they do not have more power than the population as a whole, in a democracy.

If they do, then it is no longer a democracy. If that’s the case one wants to make (and I can see making it), then fine. After all, Corbyn was lied about more than 75 percent of the time, for example, by the media.

But if the country is still a democracy, then the ultimate responsibility for the government rests with the people.

To claim anything else is to throw away the power and responsibility the people do have and to retreat into leader worship and powerlessness.

Which, actually, is what we’ve done, over and over again.

It’s either your country, or it isn’t.

Brits are about to get what they voted for. That is as it should be. (The same is true of my own country, where we have made bad electoral choices, over and over again. So be it. We made those choices.)

(Data-based aside: In most of the ridings I saw where Labour lost, the swing was usually the Brexit Party vote. Those people who think that strategy for Labour was as simple as “Go Remain” miss the point: One-third of Labour party voters wanted Brexit. Labour had a genuinely broken coalition because of Brexit and there was no obvious way to fix it.)


Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Why Labour Lost in Britain

There’s been a vast amount of foolishness in the discussion about this.

Labour lost for two main reasons:

  1. Their base was split by Brexit, and in a real way, no “positioning” could avoid this.
  2. There was a vast propaganda campaign against Corbyn, in particular, and Labour, in general.

What urban liberals don’t seem to understand is that there was a genuine split in traditional Labour voters over Brexit. Progressives in London were Remain; working and middle class voters in Labour’s northern strongholds were for Leave.

There was no way to split the difference, though Labour tried. Going Leave alienates London voters and gives the LibDems a chance to eat Labour’s lunch in greater London. Going Remain means losing the northern strongholds.

In 2017, Corbyn went for “We’ll respect the vote.” He did better doing that than he did this year with “The People’s Vote” (basically, a redo, based on a a negotiated deal).

But when you look at the ridings Labour lost, they include a lot of the Northern bastions. Places Labour hasn’t lost in decades. What you see is that the Brexit party (which ran in Labour-leaning ridings, but not Conservative ones) made the margin of difference, and often more than it.

By going “People’s Vote” Labour lost a big chunk of the north. It’s just that simple. BUT there was no good answer, going “Leave” would have lost a lot of other seats.

This is a problem for Labour which too many commenters simply refuse to actually admit exists. Perhaps if Corbyn had picked a position and stuck to it, Labour would have done better (but if so, that means having stuck to “respect the referendum”, which progressives screamed at him not to do), but Labour’s voters were genuinely split.

The next issue is media bias. There is simply no question that the media has been terribly biased, particularly against Corbyn, but against Labour and for Tories.

This chart gives the picture on Corbyn, but it’s worse than this, because the media lied, a lot. Over 75 percent of the time, the media has lied about Corbyn’s actual policy positions and history. So people who hate Corbyn (and they do) hate a person who exists only in a propaganda delirium. Given that Corbyn is basically a kindly, social democratic grandfather (and if you watch him interact with people, he is actually sweet and kind), this means they can mischaracterize anyone, though I do agree he should have fought back harder. Not sure it would have mattered.

Note that even the supposedly left-wing Guardian was more anti-Corbyn than pro. (Something I’ve said for a long time. When the intelligence services forced the Guardian’s editors to smash their own computers because of Wikileaks, it appears to have permanently broken them. The Guardian now knows to bow.)

As for Labour, well here you go:

People tend to overthink issues like elections. Labour lost because its base was split and it faced massive media bias. This bias is understandable, the media is owned by rich people, and Corbyn threatened the power of the rich because he was going to nationalize a bunch of stuff and increase their taxes. This isn’t complicated.

Now, one more note, so people stop self-flagellating and acting as if this inevitable and there is nothing to be done.

Young people voted Labour, old people voted Conservative. Only 18 percent of over 65 voters went for Labour. There is a trope that young people get more conservative as they get older, but that only happens if the system works for them. Since it doesn’t, and won’t, they will stay left-wing. This isn’t the end. But a lot of people will suffer and die because of this.

Labour got smashed in this election because their electorate was split and because of a full court propaganda campaign by the press, one which started the moment Corbyn was elected as Labour leader. Corbyn could have done some things better (in particular, I think he should have smashed those MPs who opposed him by supporting mandatory re-selection), but it’s not clear to me that some perfect Corbyn could have won this.

All of this is rather sad. In my lifetime, Corbyn has had the best policies of any major party leader in a Western country. There is no evidence that Corbyn’s policies were unpopular, they poll fine. The issue is that the election wasn’t fought on his policies, it was fought on Brexit and whether or not a man who spent his entire life fighting racism was a racist.

Fought on those grounds, Corbyn and Labour lost.

The price of this will be high. Johnson made a lot of promises, but the practical effect of his rule and his style of Brexit will be increased austerity and a continued sell-off of state services and properties. That’s what the Brits voted for, as a plurality, and they will get what they voted for.


Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – December 15, 2019

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – December 15, 2019
by Tony Wikrent
Economics Action Group, North Carolina Democratic Party Progressive Caucus

Strategic Political Economy

The Economy of Evil

[Historicly, via Naked Capitalism 12-11-19]

Benito Mussolini became Prime Minister in October 1922. Nazis rose to power in 1933 in Germany. Mussolini convened a meeting of his cabinet and immediately decided to privatize all the public enterprises. On December 3, 1922, they passed a law where they promised to reduce the size and function of the government, reform tax laws and also reduce spending. This was followed by mass privatization. He privatized the post office, railroads, telephone companies, and even the state life insurance companies. Afterward, the two firms that had lobbied the hardest: Assicurazioni Generali (AG) and Adriatica di Sicurtà (AS), became a de-facto oligopoly. They became for-profit enterprises. The premiums increased, and poor people had their coverage removed.

In January 1923, Mussolini eliminated rent-control laws. His reasoning ought to be familiar since that is the same reasoning used in many contemporary editorials against rent control laws. He claimed rent control laws prevent landlords from building new housing. When tenants protested, he eliminated tenants’ unions. As a result, rent prices increased wildly in Rome, and many families became homeless. Some went to live in caves. Once more, these policies allowed landlords to increase their profit and holdings while they severely hurt the poor.

To remove “government waste,” Mussolini removed the federal government from remote areas in Italy. This meant that rural farmers, peasants, and workers no longer had the protection of the federal government against abuse from agribusiness. Instead, they were entirely under the mercy of big businesses.

Hitler’s economic policy was Mussolini’s policy on steroids….  In 1934, Nazis outlined their plan to revitalize the German economy. It involved reprivatization of significant industries: railways, public works project, construction, steel, and banking. On top of that, Hitler guaranteed profits for the private sector, and so, many American industrialists and bankers gleefully flocked to Germany to invest.

The Nazis had a thorough plan for deregulation. The Nazi’s economist, stated,” The first thing German business needs is peace and quiet. It must have a feeling of absolute legal security and must know that work and its return are guaranteed. The interferences In a business which occurred at first, perhaps as a result of too much zeal, have become intolerable.”

Emmanuel Macron Wants to End France’s Welfare State

[Jacobin, via Naked Capitalism 12-9-19]

….other major mobilizations have failed to bring success, most significantly past battles against pension reforms in 2003 and 2010. But the protracted resistance to neoliberalism really has had a lasting impact — explaining why France’s welfare state has proven much more resilient than those of nearly all other Western countries. To the despair of its domestic elite and of high-ranking bureaucrats in the European Union and OECD, France tops the table for government spending as a share of GDP; at nearly 55 percent, its spending level ranks ahead of all Scandinavian countries and stands about 10 percent higher than Germany and the OECD average.

Macron’s presidency, overwhelmingly supported by the French capitalist class and its European counterparts, was from the outset meant to bring that “French exception” to an end. The first year and a half following his election looked as if he would succeed. A wave of tough neoliberal reforms swept across nearly all areas of economic and social activities: the school system has been subjected to a “choice” agenda, while rail and public transport have been opened up to “competition” and sold off to the private sector.

Yves Smith, December 11, 2019 [Naked Capitalism]

The officialdom has been shaken out of its Versailles 1788-level complacency by much-derided “populist” revolts, and more recently, 1848-like revolts, including a general strike in France. It has been revealing, and not in a good way, to see people who ought to know better serve up tepid reform programs…. the coercive nature of capitalism has only gotten more intense in the neoliberal era as social safety nets have been gutted. As we pointed out in 2013:

One issue I’ve long been bothered by is the libertarian fixation on the state as the source of coercive power. The strong form version is that the state is the only party with coercive power (and please don’t try denying that a lot of libertarians say that; there are plenty of examples in comments in past posts). Libertarians widely, if not universally, depict markets and commerce as less or even non-coercive. 

What is remarkable is how we’ve blinded ourselves to the coercive element of our own system.

….Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, but an earlier this week, How to reform today’s rigged capitalism, was like Hamlet without the Prince. It followed up on an earlier article, which focused on what he saw as the causes of rising inequality: falling productivity growth, stagnating innovation, rising debt levels and finanicization, concentrated corporate power, which in turn fosters rentierism and tax evasion.

Notice what was missing? The fall in labor organization and bargaining power. The deliberate and successful attack on a muscular and effective state. It may seem hard to believe, but as recently as the 1960s, people went into public service not for the revolving door opportunities but to make a difference and in senior positions, for the prestige.

Needless to say, resetting the balance of power between workers and capital, by improving labor rights and strengthening social safety nets, is barely to be found on Wolf’s list of fixes.

Class war and economic disequilibrium

Open Thread

Use the comments on this post to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

TINA trauma

*** MANDOS POST ***

I have been thinking about writing another post about Britain and Brexit for some time, but every time I’ve started it, there’s been literally another new dramatic twist, so I stop. But now it seems like a corner is being turned. What the corner really is, we’ll still have time to find out. Even today, I thought I would wait until the real British election results had come in. But the exit poll gives such a wide margin for the Tories that it seems a little pointless. Even if a miracle happens, and the Tories are reduced to a minority…in what world does it make sense that the result should be so close?

Either way, I repeatedly tried to suggest, gently at first, but eventually more strongly, that Labour’s strategy has been based on a set of misconceptions driven by a certain kind of well-intentioned, passionate left-wing politics that has briefly managed to get a little bit of its day in the sun, with its perhaps now-declining control of Labour. From this viewpoint, the issues that drive the rise of right-wing politics are really just matters of economic self-interest. Questions of identity, ideology, and anything that is in the sphere of the political that cannot be traced (even through an imputed, popular subconscious) to an economic or class conflict are just distractions–un-things. One can see this painfully in the way that Corbyn and his team have handled Brexit — despite words, constantly signaling ambivalence about the issue, wanting to talk about other things, wanting to treat Brexit as though it were just another extension of a wished-for popular economic uprising.

This strategy has pleased no one. It’s now nearly a cliché to say that Brexit is the matter at hand, the only truly salient object. And Brexit is not reducible to economic matters, even through the “false consciousness” route of tracing identity conflicts to latent economic conflicts.

But this fact put Corbynite Labour on the horns of a dilemma. Full-throated rejection of Brexit, and endorsement of the emotional core of the Remain argument (the view that the Brexit referendum was a frontal attack by Nazis, more or less), yields up the economic reductionism and requires diverting attention from the emotional core of the economic left, compassion for the welfare recipient, compassion for those in need of hospital beds, and so on. Full-throated acceptance and support of Brexit, on the other hand, while superficially aligning with a traditional Labour constituency, also comes at a steep price: There is no credible way to support Brexit that does not also traduce the cultural direction of the Labour left, because the traditional Labour voters who support Brexit are not only doing so for economic reasons, but for reasons of cultural identity apart from economic need and in solidarity with people from classes with otherwise antagonistic economic interests.

Labour has failed to transcend this dilemma. Their “strategy” has been to signal that membership in the EU is something that they reluctantly accept–if they can’t get a better deal outside the EU. Implicit in this is the belief that there is a “place” for Britain outside the EU that is better than inside, but merely one different from what the Tories envisions: a post-neoliberal nirvana, freed from the (somewhat hypothetical, in the non-Eurozone-UK’s case) chains of the EU’s neoliberal bureaucracy. This is not a credible message, because it is extremely difficult to envision what that would look like in the big picture, under any kind of plausible terms of an EU departure. It pleased no one and alienated both Remain and Leave-now-ex-Labour voters.

Why is there no credible halfway position? The reason why is that, actually, the EU is a neoliberal institution. Its main bodies were formed during the the rise of the neoliberalism, and its staff are trained in neoliberal ideology. It just happens that, as a neoliberal institution, it is designed to accommodate the residual aspects of European social democracy, and, crucially, it exists in the context of an international order that is even more neoliberal. That is, any departure from the EU involves getting drop-kicked into a variety of neoliberal systems that are not designed to accommodate European social democracy– quite the opposite. The neoliberal EU, with its free movement and Excessive Deficit Procedures, is a buffer against a more neoliberal global order.

At this point, on this blog, when somebody points out that there is no solution to this problem that involves treating it as an economic conflict or a battle against neoliberal ideology or whatever, there is often a chorus in the comments section cynically needling, “There Is No Alternative, amirite?” This whole Labour situation gives me an opportunity to propound a theory about this: “TINA trauma,” an affliction that prevents much of the economic left from doing anything other than make a surprisingly conservative demand to roll back neoliberalism to a pre-neoliberal halcyon idyll, in one form or another.

When Margaret Thatcher propounded TINA, at the time she was making a normative or aspirational claim. The success of that program has traumatized the left into a kind of mental/strategic paralysis, which finds them eternally trying to prove her wrong, posthumously. Yet, decades later, the hegemonic control of the neoliberal gestalt has transformed that claim from an aspiration to a mere statement of fact. What can anyone think it means for an ideology to become “hegemonic”? It means it has successfully constrained the future to pass through its institutional bottleneck. TINA is now fact. We are all neoliberals now, and whatever comes next, if anything is there to come next, is going to bear some of the features and some of the scars of neoliberalism.

If UK Labour–and indeed the global left as a whole–is to recover from the UK Tory victory, it needs to accept that the only way out is “through,” or not at all. The left needs to get over its TINA trauma.

Britain’s Election Today

Jeremy Corbyn

(Update: polls show a likely strong Conservate majority. If correct, that’s going to cause a lot of suffering and, likely, the end of the remains of the British welfare state. So be it, this is what Brits voted for. A pity, but you can’t save people from themselves.)

So, it’s Britain’s general election. This is probably the most important British election since Thatcher was first elected. Both Johnson and Corbyn, if they win, will change the nature of Britain. Corbyn will increase human welfare massively, prepare for climate change, nationalize various natural monopolies and so on. Johnson will continue the privatization of the NHS, will drive down wages, will be cruel to anyone who needs assistance.

Johnson will Brexit in a way designed to allow Britain to drive down environmental, labour and human rights standards as well as to allow Britain to sell off large parts of what remains of its patrimony to foreign interests (primarily American.) Corbyn’s Brexit will be designed with the opposite goals: to make it possible to be better than the EU, not worse.

None of this is hyperbole, and this is not something I will be wrong about, whoever wins.

The campaign has been a complete disgrace, with the UK media, including the BBC, pushing Johnson and the Conservatives hard, and smearing Corbyn as an anti-semite, when his entire life has been devoted to causes like anti-racism. But standing up for Palestinians, as if they are human, is verboeten, because anti-semitism has come to mean “opposes Israel’s evil actions.”

Polls are all over the place, but show a Conservative lead. On the other hand, there has been a vast swell of first time voting registrations, and how they vote and if the youth vote comes out will matter.

This is a two way race (minus the SNP in Scotland). If you want a mean, cruel Britain you should vote for Johnson. If you’re not scum, you should vote for Corbyn. There are a few ridings where tactical voting may help, but do your research. In most cases it’s the Conservatives or Labour.

This election is perhaps the clearest I have seen in my entire adult life. Corbyn is, whatever his flaws, as close to a Saint as will ever have a chance of being in charge of a major country. Johnson is a serial liar and nearly completely callous.

If Corbyn does win, Labour needs to restructure the media as one of its first orders of business. If Johnson wins, well, it’ll be good for rich people and their senior lackeys. If you’re poor, sick, or handicapped, brace yourself for a lot more misery. If you’re middle class, understand your odds of staying the middle class just dropped.

Watching the election has been very instructive, because the sheer scale of the establishment’s hatred of Corbyn and willingness to lie nonstop indicates just how terrified of him they are, and thus indicates he’s actually worthy of support. They’re doing this because they know he will change the very nature of how Britain runs in ways that mean they will have less power and less wealth. He’s the first person in a position to be Prime Minister of Britain since Thatcher who actually wants to change Britain from Thatcher’s consensus (Blair didn’t, he embraced it.)

It’ll be interesting, and revealing, to see what the British voters choose. Corbyn hasn’t run a perfect campaign, and he clearly mishandled the politics of Brexit, but at the end of the day, he’s the better choice, and voters have responsibilities as well. (Plus Boris is comically awful.)

If you’re British, you know who I think you should vote for. I’ll go further, anyone who votes for Johnson and the Conservatives is a bad person. I admit no exceptions. This isn’t an election between evils, it’s an election where the choice is good or evil.

Choose.


Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 2 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén