The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
Brexit Reveals Jeremy Corbyn to be the True Moderate
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If there is an upside to Brexit, it is this: it has made it increasingly hard to present Jeremy Corbyn, contrary to everything the corporate media has been telling us for the past four years, as anything but a political moderate. In truth, he is one of the few moderates left in British – or maybe that should read English – politics right now. The fact that still isn’t obvious to many in Britain is a sign of their – not his – extremism.

Brexit has brought into sharp focus, at least for those prepared to look, the fanaticism that dominates almost the entire British political class. Their zealotry has been increasingly on show since the UK staged a referendum in 2016 on leaving Europe that was won by the pro-Brexit camp with a wafer-thin majority. The extremism has only intensified as Britain approaches the exit deadline, due at the end of October.

The feud has usually been portrayed this way: The UK has split into two camps, polarising popular opinion between those who feel Britain’s place is in Europe (Remainers) and those who prefer that Britain makes its own way in the world (Brexiters). But it has actually divided the British political class into three camps, with the largest two at the political extremes.

On the one side – variously represented by the new prime minister Boris Johnson and many in his Conservative party, as well as Nigel Farage and his supporters – are those who want Britain to break from Europe and rush into the embrace of the United States, stripping away the last constraints on free-market, ecocidal capitalism. They aren’t just Brexiters, they are no-deal Brexiters, who want to turn their back on Europe entirely.

The other side – variously supported by many Labour MPs, including the party’s deputy leader Tom Watson, and the Liberal Democrats – are those who wish to stay in the secure embrace of a European bureacracy that is nearly as committed to suicidal capitalism as the US but, given the social democratic traditions of some of its member states, has mitigated the worst excesses of free-market fundamentalism. These UK politicians aren’t just Remainers, they are Remainists, who not only refuse to contemplate any weakening of the bonds between the UK and Europe but actually want those bonds to tighten.

Suspending parliament

And as the divide has deepened, it has become clear that neither side is prepared to pay more than lip service to democracy.

On the Brexit side, Johnson has suspended parliament, an institution representing the people, that is supposed to be sovereign. Like his predecessor, Theresa May, he has repeatedly found there is no legislative majority for a hard or no-deal Brexit. He has faced an unprecedented and humiliating series of defeats in parliament in the few days he has been prime minister. So now he has swept parliament out of the way in a bid to run down the clock on a no-deal Brexit without legislative interference.

Watson and the Remainists have been trying a counter-move, arguing that the referendum is no longer valid. They believe that new voters, youngsters more likely to support Remain, have come of age in the three years since 2016, and that more information about the true costs of Brexit have lately swung support to their side. They want to ignore the original referendum result and run the ballot again in the hope that this time the tide will turn in their favour.

The reality is that, if Johnson drives through a no-deal Brexit by ignoring parliament, or if Watson gets to quash the first referendum result to engineer a second, it is likely to trigger civil war in the UK.

The first option will drive Scotland out of the union, could very well reignite the sectarian “Troubles” of Northern Ireland, and will have English urban elites in open revolt. The second option will ensure that large sections of the English public who voted for Brexit because they feel marginalised and ignored are up in arms too. Their trust in politics and politicians will sink even further, and there is the danger that they will turn in droves to a crowd-pleasing autocrat like Johnson, Farage or worse.

Zealotry vs compromise

In these circumstances, anyone responsible would be looking to find common ground, to understand that political compromise is absolutely necessary to stop Britain breaking apart. And that is exactly what Corbyn and the largely ignored and maligned third camp have been trying to do.

They want to honour the spirit of the vote by leaving the EU but hope to do so in a way that doesn’t cut the UK adrift from Europe, doesn’t prevent the continuation of relatively free trade and movement, and doesn’t leave the UK exposed and vulnerable to serfdom under a new US master.

For many months Corbyn has been calling for a general election as a way for the majority of the public, having chosen in the referendum what they want to do, to now decide who they want to negotiate how Britain departs from Europe. But even that realistic compromise has not satisfied the fanatics within his own party.

Because the zealots of the right and the immoderate centre dominate the political and media landscape, this approach has barely registered in public debates. Corbyn’s efforts have been misrepresented as evidence of muddled thinking, ambivalence, or his covert opposition to Europe. It is none of those things.

Caught in the spider’s web

The common argument that Corbyn is a Brexit wolf in sheep’s clothing draws on the fact that, like many democratic socialists, such as the late Tony Benn, Corbyn has never been enamoured of the unelected European technocratic class that is misleadingly termed simply “Europe” or the “European Union”.

ORDER IT NOW

Rightly, socialists understood long ago that the more Britain was locked into Europe’s embrace, the more it would become caught like a fly in the spider’s web. At some level, most people have started to recognise this, if only because finding a way to leave Europe, even for Brexiters, has proved so inordinately difficult.

Just like banks were too big to fail in 2008 so they had to be bailed out with our, public money to save them from their private malfeasance, the publics of Europe have incrementally had their sovereignty transferred to an unelected and centralised bureacracy all in the name of pursuing freedom – of movement and trade, chiefly for global corporations.

We haven’t noticed, it is true, because for decades our own, domestic politics has come in one flavour only – support for our little corner of the global neoliberal empire. Till recently the consensus of Britain’s ruling elite, whether of the right or of New Labour centrists, was that being a player in Europe was the best way to protect their – though not necessarily our – interests on that global battlefield. Now, as the neoliberal empire enters a period of terminal decline, this same elite are bitterly divided over whether the US or Europe is the best guarantor of their wealth and influence continuing a little longer.

Iron fist in velvet glove

But Britain and the world’s problems – whether in the shape of impending economic meltdown or environmental collapse – cannot be solved from within the neoliberal paradigm, as becomes clearer by the day. New political structures are desperately needed: at the local level to foster new, more decentralised economic models, free of corporate influence, resource-stripping and unnecessary consumption; and at the global level to ensure that such models reverse rather than perpetuate the ecocidal policies that have dominated under neoliberal capitalism.

To start on that path will require the democratisation of Britain. The fear of Benn and others was that even if a truly socialist government was elected, its ability to make real, profound changes to the political and economic order – by bringing much of the economy back into public or cooperative ownership, for example – would be made impossible within the larger framework of European corporate managerialism.

We have been given glimpses of the iron fist Europe’s technocrats wield beneath the velvet glove in the treatment of Greece over its financial troubles and the Catalan independence movement in Spain.

The attitude of Corbyn and other democratic socialists to Brexit, however, has been wildly misrepresented by the other two camps of zealots.

In Benn’s time, it was still possible to imagine a world in which neoliberalism might be prevented from gaining a tyrannical grip on our political imaginations and on national economies. But things have changed since then. Now the issue is not whether Britain can stop being locked into a European neoliberal order. It is that the UK, like everyone else, is already in the stranglehold of a global neoliberal order.

Not just that, but Britain has willingly submitted to that order. As the zealotry of most of the political class demonstrates, few can imagine or want a life outside the neoliberal cage. The debate is about which corner of that suicidal, ecocidal global order we prefer to be located in. The Brexit row is chiefly about which slavemaster, America or Europe, will be kinder to us.

Inside the leviathan’s dark belly

In this context, there is no real escape. The best that can be done, as the moderates in both the Brexit and Remain camps realise, is loosen our chains enough so that we have room once again to contemplate new political possibilities. We can then breathe deeply, clear our heads and start to imagine how Britain and the the world might operate differently, how we might free ourselves of the tyranny of the corporations and heal our planet of the deep scars we have inflicted on it.

These are big matters that cannot be solved either by binding ourselves more tightly to European technocrats or by cutting loose from Europe only to chain ourselves to the US. The Brexit feud is an endless theatrical distraction from the real questions we need to face. That is one reason why it drags on, one reason why our political class revel in it, John Bercow-style.

Strangely, it is the Remainists of the immoderate centre – typified by commentary in corporate “liberal” media like the Guardian – who so often claim to lament the fact that the left has failed to offer a vision, a political future, that might serve as an alternative to neoliberalism. But how can such a vision emerge from deep inside the leviathan’s dark belly?

Hiding in ideological life-rafts

It goes without saying that the Atlanticists cheerleading Brexit are up to no good when they speak of “taking back control” and “reclaiming our sovereignty”. They demand those powers only so they can immediately surrender them to a US master.

But the much-maligned leftwing, soft Brexit – a version that wishes to distance Britain from Europe without pretending that the UK can stand alone on the global neoliberal battlefield – also has use for such language.

This version of taking back control isn’t about spitting in the face of Europe, blocking the entry of immigrants, or reinventing the imagined halycon days of empire. It is about recognising that we, like the rest of humankind, are responsible for the crimes we have been, and still are, committing against the planet, against other species, against fellow human beings.

Chaining ourselves to an unelected, distant European technocratic class that simply follows orders – implementing the requirements of an economic system that must end in the destruction of the planet – is cowardice. We can more easily shelter from that truth when we cede our political and economic powers to those compelled to carry out the (il)logic of neoliberalism.

Standing a little outside Europe is probably the best we can hope to manage in current circumstances. But it might give us the political space – and, more importantly, burden us with the political responsibility – to imagine the deep changes that are urgently needed.

ORDER IT NOW

Change has to happen if we as a species are to survive, and it has to happen soon and it has to happen somewhere. We cannot force others to change, but we can recognise our own need to change and offer a vision of change for others to follow. That can begin only when we stop shielding ourselves from the consequences of our decisions, stop hiding in someone else’s ideological life-raft in the forlorn hope that it will weather the coming, real-world storms.

It is time to stop acting like zealots for neoliberalism, squabbling over which brand of turbo-charged capitalism we prefer, and face up to our collective responsibility to change our and our children’s future.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Brexit, Britain, Jeremy Corbyn 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. A123 says:

    The author summarizes the problem in a concise way:

    Rightly, socialists understood long ago that the more Britain was locked into Europe’s embrace, the more it would become caught like a fly in the spider’s web. At some level, most people have started to recognise this, if only because finding a way to leave Europe, even for Brexiters, has proved so inordinately difficult. … the publics of Europe have incrementally had their sovereignty transferred to an unelected and centralised bureacracy all in the name of pursuing freedom – of movement and trade, chiefly for global corporations.

    Unfortunately, his proposed solution is:

    The best that can be done, as the moderates in both the Brexit and Remain camps realise, is loosen our chains enough so that we have room once again to contemplate new political possibilities.

    This solution, as good as it may sound, is inconsistent with the problem.

    The chains are controlled by the unelected bureaucrats of the EU. And, those enemies of democracy value their unelected powers over all other causes. They will not allow any loosening of the noose they have thrown around the neck of the UK as that would be a direct threat to their primacy. The EU wants the people of the UK to suffer in chains for daring to have free will. The intransigence and corruption of the EU oligarchy is clear for all to see. Fortunately, there is a positive way forward.

    No Deal Brexit — Breaking the Chains of EU Slavery

    “Project Fear” keeps predicting doom, but just the reverse is true. No Deal Brexit will inevitably lead to economic success. And, once the UK again proves that free people can successfully resist the Axis powers that dwell in the dark heart of the EU, additional nations will join as Allied Forces against the threat of German led National Socialism.

    The Axis Power’s brutality aimed at the freedom seeking, Yellow Vest, movement in France shows that some bloodshed is inevitable in the Cause of Liberty. Hopefully, the price will be be much lower than the last time the Socialism of Axis Nations was defeated.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Lol
  2. plantman says:

    This might be the most muddled, contradictory and upside-down article Cook has ever written.

    On the one hand, Cook acknowledges that the EU is an abominable prison state run by unelected bureaucrats who have zero regard for working people, but on the other, he argues that ‘wanting to break free is a sure-sign of extremism’.

    Got that?

    Here’s Cook–

    “We have been given glimpses of the iron fist Europe’s technocrats wield beneath the velvet glove in the treatment of Greece over its financial troubles and the Catalan independence movement in Spain.”

    Okay, so Cook sees that the EU is an “iron fisted” tyrant, but fighting to leave is a sign of extremism?? Isn’t that what he’s saying?

    Here’s more:

    “socialists understood long ago that the more Britain was locked into Europe’s embrace, the more it would become caught like a fly in the spider’s web. At some level, most people have started to recognise this, if only because finding a way to leave Europe, even for Brexiters, has proved so inordinately difficult.

    Just like banks were too big to fail in 2008 so they had to be bailed out with our, public money to save them from their private malfeasance, the publics of Europe have incrementally had their sovereignty transferred to an unelected and centralised bureacracy all in the name of pursuing freedom – of movement and trade, chiefly for global corporations.”

    So now Cook admits that the EU is an inescapable trap that eviscerates sovereignty and independence, but leaving without a deal is a sign of extremism? Is that it?

    “Now the issue is not whether Britain can stop being locked into a European neoliberal order. It is that the UK, like everyone else, is already in the stranglehold of a global neoliberal order. Not just that, but Britain has willingly submitted to that order. As the zealotry of most of the political class demonstrates, few can imagine or want a life outside the neoliberal cage. The debate is about which corner of that suicidal, ecocidal global order we prefer to be located in. The Brexit row is chiefly about which slavemaster, America or Europe, will be kinder to us.”

    So we all live in a cage, according to Cook, but trying to break out of that cage is extremism, right?

    Wrong. The people who support Brexit aren’t choosing one cage over another. The people who support Brexit simply realize that their freedom and the authority of their own Parliament has been thoroughly compromised by their attachment to the EU Uberstate.

    Here’s Cook again:

    “large sections of the English public who voted for Brexit because they feel marginalised and ignored are up in arms too. Their trust in politics and politicians will sink even further, and there is the danger that they will turn in droves to a crowd-pleasing autocrat like Johnson, Farage or worse.”

    Yes, they will move towards Farage and why wouldn’t they? Corbyn has already said he would not support the will of the people as indicated in the referendum, so naturally people are going to support candidates who will do their duty and respect the vote. What other choice do they have?

    Corbyn says there is “no mandate” for a no-deal Brexit. And, he’s right of course, but the referendum did not stipulate “deal or no deal”. The referendum said withdrawal or no withdrawal. And withdrawal won, so get on with it, man.

    And, besides, as Corbyn knows, the reason there has been no deal, is because (as Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis noted) “you can’t negotiate with the EU, because the EU doesn’t negotiate.” They dictate policy and the nations either click their heels and obey or get kicked to the curb.

    Who would choose to be a part of a vile, undemocratic corporate slave state like the EU??

    Johnathan Cook, apparently, but the majority of the people voted for freedom. Can we really call that “extremism”???

    I don’t think so.

  3. Corbyn’s current position is actually insane and far from moderate.

    He proposes this:

    1) Labour will renegotiate a “better deal” with the EU, just like Johnson claims.

    2) Labour will put this deal up for a referendum against Remain. No Deal is not an option.

    3) Labour will campaign, it has announced in advance, for Remain!

    So how do you negotiate a deal that does not blow chunks when you have (a) promised to campaign against it so you want it to lose and (b) have excluded walking away from the negotiating table???

    This is simply an indirect path to revoking Article 50.

    Corbyn may well have been a moderate on Brexit a year or two ago, but he has allowed himself to be bullied progressively by Watson & Co.

  4. I would like to add that it is strange to talk about Hard Brexit as extremist neoliberalism. Thatcher campaigned for Entry into the European Community and derided the Labour Left, then Eurosceptic, as extremist. Even in her later Eurosceptic years, she was only opposed to the political trappings, whereas Hard Brexit seeks to rid Britain of the economic trappings of Europe. Also, Farage was one of the few people who stood up for Greece at the height of the crisis while “Socialist” finance ministers chided them and participated in the fraud and robbery and “Socialist” and “Green” MEPs sat silently. The EU is far more neoliberal than Trump and shed its “social democratic” window dressing with the end of the Cold War.

    Cook: “the much-maligned leftwing, soft Brexit – a version that wishes to distance Britain from Europe without pretending that the UK can stand alone on the global neoliberal battlefield”

    —Soft Brexit IS the City of London’s Brexit! Soft Brexit means remaining in the free trade zone with its regulations. When Brexit first passed, Corbyn and McDonnell made sounds like this was the end of free movement and free trade. Corbyn, after all, WAS a Left-Hard Brexiter at least through the 90s. With Keir Starmer, however, Labour has become the Voice of the Rothschilds.

    The only left-wing (as in Old Bennite Left) Brexit is a very Hard Brexit indeed.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  5. an institution representing the people

    “Representing the people” = supporting globohomo
    “Representing the people” DOES NOT = doing what their constituents want and voted for

    Thanks for clearing that up

  6. plantman says:

    I think most people would agree that a “soft Brexit” is a great idea. Trade agreements would remain in place, it would be much less disruptive, and the EU would not suffer a Lehman type meltdown (which is still a possibility)

    But here’s the thing: No one is offering a soft Brexit , and for good reason. The EU wants to make leaving the EU prison state as excruciatingly punitive as possible so none of the other groveling countries think they can leave too. That’s what this is all about, scaring the other european leaders into submission.

    Great democracy, eh, scaring the sh** outta people so they fall line?

    Corbyn (like Bernie Sanders) is a huge disappointment, and I used to love the guy. But what a fraud! He’s so inspiring when he’s blabbering about the struggles of working people and the evils of “austerity”, but then he shrugs off the results of a referendum that doesn’t jibe with his own internationalist (Globalist) agenda.

    What’s that all about??

    Farage is right: The old Liberal-Conservative paradigm is dead. The new politics revolve around Remain or Leave. This is the defining issue of our time; Do you want to be a part of the glorious NWO that shovels trillions to fatcat bankers and voracious multinational corporations or do you want to strike a blow against their global police state?

    Brexit might be an imperfect way to fight back against this monstrous 1984-type future, but at least it’s a start.

  7. Svevlad says:

    Britain has an infinite amount of options, but in reality, they are one option:

    Get fucked

    It’s not the climate change or muh capitalism or whatever, it’s just that the asabiya reserves ran out, and that the nation-state is being replaced by the civilizational bloc. Meanwhile Britain is not even a nation-state – therefore it gets doublefucked

  8. Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.”

    LOL! Gellhorn was a hardcore leftist. If not a Communist, a pro-Communist sympathizer. She thought journalist objectivity was “crap” and used her “activist Journalism” to push the “party Line”. She never criticized the USSR, covered up the Left-wing atrocities in Spain, thought Castro and Allende were just dandy, and hated anyone who breathed a word of criticism for Israel.

    If she was alive today, she’d be calling the Brexiteers “racists” and “Antisemites”.

  9. Corbyn is a globalist who wants to stay in the EU, because it will create a left-wing England full of foreigners who will mindlessly vote Labour. And give the UK a lot of EU judges and Bureaucrats who will destroy any attempt by the English people to stop Globalization and Socialism.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  10. @Honesthughgrant

    Globalism and socialism are mutually exclusive concepts. Or if it is not, then it is government by the corporations and corporate elites running the economy. But Mussolini called that fascism not socialism. He even had a name for it: estato corporativo, the corporate state.

    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Honesthughgrant
  11. Smith says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    Wrong, socialism = communism per Marx. And for Marx, there is no nation or border, in fact, a stateless, moneyless society.

    Also for the OP, Jeremy Corbyn is a fucking snake and traitor, I’m glad he reveals that he’s anti-Brexit all along so now nobody (including his Labourites) trust him, typical of communist.

  12. Many Brexiteers thought that after the referendum many other European countries would also hold referendums and that it would spark a big resistance movement against Brussels, in reality it just made the other EU countries rally round Brussels even more and made the EU stronger. A lot of them think that the US/Trump is going to give us a good trade deal when they are the most anti-British of the lot. The US is the country that funded the IRA, if the Irish are not happy with Brexit in any way, Britain will get NOTHING from the US and a sizeable proportion of the US public themselves will demand the US government gives Britain nothing. This is what most Brexiteers don’t understand, they don’t understand the sheer level of anti-Britishness they are up against.

    The problem with Brexit is that most Brexiteers have the delusion that Britain is liked and that other countries actively want to negotiate and trade with Britain when in reality most foreigners are instinctively against Britain in any given scenario involving another country, in this case the EU/multiple countries. As much as I hate to say it I think from a practical point of view Britain may be better off negotiating with the world from within the EU. Brexit relies too much of the assumption that other nations will show us good will but I just can’t see that much good will is there.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    , @Lol
    , @Gordo
  13. @plantman

    Thank you, plantman, for posting that. You saved me from the trouble of having to comment.

  14. @England patriot

    There’s really only one thing you need to understand here: neither Brussels nor Washington are going to save Britain. Only Britain can save Britain. Or are you not a nationalist?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  15. @plantman

    Yonathan Koch is more deluded than Paddy Cockburn.

  16. plantman says:

    Some compelling results from the recent ComRes survey—

    “Irrespective of whether or not I voted to leave, the 2016 Ref result shd be respected” agree 54% incl 35% of 2016 Remain voters, 27% of Lib Dems, 33% of Lab voters @ComRes for @Telegraph

    “If the Government cannot get a Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, they should leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement (i.e. without a deal)”

    Agree: 42%
    Disagree: 38%

    By ratio of 2:1, voters think it’s ‘fundamentally undemocratic’ for some MPs to try and prevent Brexit given that Govt promised before #EURef to implement the result’ (50% to 26%, 24% DK), incl 29% of Remain voters @ComRes for @Telegraph andrew hawkins

    The argument that the 2016 EURef result shd be respected gets almost universal support among BXP voters (97%), plus massive support from Leavers (87%) and Con voters (85%) @ComRes for @Telegraph. Pretty clear that these folk wouldn’t take revoking A50 very well…
    https://summit.news/2019/09/12/poll-majority-of-brits-including-a-third-of-remainers-want-brexit-vote-respected/

    I wonder if this poll will help Cook rethink his theory about “extremism” ??

  17. @Mister Bob

    Thatcher campaigned for Entry into the European Community and derided the Labour Left, then Eurosceptic, as extremist.

    Thatcher was Minister of Education in Heath’s government when Britain entered the EEC. Anything Heath’s government purported, was the opposite of reality.
    Cook’s statement that “socialists” were against entering the EEC is only half true. The biggest critic was the “evil racist” Enoch Powell, who predicted pretty much, what the EEC would become in the EU. Of course because of his “racist views” in warning of the “unforeseen consequences” of an insane immigration policy, his warnings of the consequences of joining the EEC were ignored, even if the could be seen.
    I really can’t get my head around Bercrow and the “rebels” in Parliament, or for that matter Corbyn’s move on this. In labour relations, you bargain for a collective agreement, and take it to the members for ratification. If they reject the deal, the only option to make changes, is to vote to strike, and set a date, unless a better deal has been reached that is “saleable” to the members. Parliament (the members) has voted 3 times on the same turd May bargained, and have rejected it 3 times. They had set the “strike deadline” as October 31, but now are whining “let’s extend the deadline for a better deal”. Why would any employer, or the EU be interested in bargaining if the members are asked to vote twice more on a once rejected deal when the members are too “chicken” to play brinksmanship?
    There will never be a “better deal”, because the employer (EU) knows the employees (Parliament) don’t have the jam to enforce their own deadline.

    • Replies: @Lol
    , @byrresheim
  18. @Smith

    Wrong, socialism = communism per Marx. And for Marx, there is no nation or border, in fact, a stateless, moneyless society.

    Marx stole and twisted Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s concepts. Cooperatives were to succeed finance capitalism, as the worker owning the means of production means just that. Marx saw cooperatives as an interim step to the state owning everything, which is why Proudhon, and other contemporaries referred to Marx as “the tapeworm in socialism”.
    Marxism is NOT socialism. Back in the 60s and early 70s, my city had declared socialists and communists running for city council. They detested each other. The elected socialists were small business owners, the elected communists were Jewish lawyers, arguing for their latest tribal “charity” to be funded by the public.

  19. Greg S. says:

    On the Brexit side, Johnson has suspended parliament, an institution representing the people, that is supposed to be sovereign. Like his predecessor, Theresa May, he has repeatedly found there is no legislative majority for a hard or no-deal Brexit. He has faced an unprecedented and humiliating series of defeats in parliament in the few days he has been prime minister. So now he has swept parliament out of the way in a bid to run down the clock on a no-deal Brexit without legislative interference

    Absolute bollocks, as they say.

    The author disingenuously “forgets” that the man he is trying to smear as anti-democratic and authoritarian offered parliament the chance to go to the people with a general election to get a new mandate on how to proceed, and it was the author’s beloved Labour MPs who said “no thanks.”

    So the author seems be all about “democracy,” except when democracy means letting the people decide something. We can’t have that, now can we?

    • Agree: byrresheim
    • Replies: @Lol
  20. Lol says:
    @A123

    Considering a majority of EU citizens oppose any deal with the UK that doesn’t involve freedom of movement and that you allegedly mind unelected EU bureaucrats calling shots, why do you keep begging for a deal instead of just leaving?

    And considering the effects of hard brexit are a rounding error for the EU’s economy, there’s no reason for the EU to compromise against the will of the majority of her citizens. So keep begging like harlots as the entire world laughs at your impotence.

    • Replies: @A123
    , @Rutger Spuds
  21. Lol says:
    @Greg S.

    How about you let the people decide on brexit now that Farage’s delusional idiocy is quite obvious? I see that the Breshiteers are scared of referendums though. Lol

  22. Lol says:
    @Curmudgeon

    It looks like Heath has been as full of shit as Farage’s verbiage where most Europeans will want any deal with the UK because they own VW stock rather than the reality of most Europeans opposing any trade deal with the UK that doesn’t include freedom of movement.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  23. Lol says:
    @England patriot

    What do you expect from idiotic English peasants though? That they get how geopolitics work when they kept swallowing Farage’s worldview where most continental Europeans give a shit about car exports to the UK? Lmao

  24. @Smith

    You obviously did not understand a single word I said.

    Globalism is corporate not state. State is socialist not corporate. But when the corporations take over the government, what do you call that? Mussolini called corporate takeover or merger with the government, fascism. And his term for that situation was estate corportivo, the corporate state.

    Marx certainly did not intend for the government to be taken over by corporations so he would not at all agree that a government of , by, and for the corporations is socialist.

  25. A123 says:
    @Lol

    Considering a majority of EU citizens oppose any deal with the UK that doesn’t involve freedom of movement and that you allegedly mind unelected EU bureaucrats calling shots, why do you keep begging for a deal instead of just leaving?

    I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have been suggesting that a No Deal Brexit is necessary, inevitable, and profitable. From #1 above:

    No Deal Brexit — Breaking the Chains of EU Slavery

    “Project Fear” keeps predicting doom, but just the reverse is true. No Deal Brexit will inevitably lead to economic success.

    _____

    This assertion on your part is reflective of your delusional mental state.

    … the effects of hard brexit are a rounding error for the EU’s economy,

    The UK is the #2 or #3 economic power in the EU (1).

    Answer this question specificially, “What nation will pay the share of the EU budget previously paid by the UK?”

    Germany has been desperate to force the UK to stay in so the taxes keep flowing. The lack of UK money from No Deal Brexit will inflict a near fatal body blow to the EU as Germany can either:
    — Carry 100%, sending their economy further into recession (possibly depression).
    — Cut EU expenditures exacerbating the death spiral of the Euro currency zone.

    Portugal and Ireland are also likely to have brutal dislocations if the unelected elites in Brussel’s get the hard “Punish the UK” borders they want.
    ____

    So keep begging like harlots as the entire world laughs at your impotence.

    The entire world is pointing at your Islam infested Germany and are laughing at your Merkel/Soros created dumpster fire of a nation.

    Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Germany.

    PEACE 😇

    ______

    (1) https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-largest-economies-eu/

  26. Gordo says:
    @England patriot

    Many Brexiteers thought that after the referendum many other European countries would also hold referendums and that it would spark a big resistance movement against Brussels, in reality it just made the other EU countries rally round Brussels even more and made the EU stronger.

    Other EU countries will leave once we leave. First we must leave rather than just talking about it.

    No-one is rallying around Brussels other than their satraps and a few mentally deranged individuals.

    • Replies: @A123
  27. @Curmudgeon

    Bercrow comes across as a friendly, humourous, mean bully.

    Strange how many people fall for this type or at least pretend to.

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  28. Nodwink says:

    Yes, the Brexiteers are delusional, but their biggest delusion is that Britain is some sort of global powerhouse, in comparison to the EU. Their minds are stuck in the 19th century.

  29. @Digital Samizdat

    Being in the EU does not prevent Britain saving Britain (from what?).

  30. A recent British technological lead was Bluetooth. It (& GSM & Wifi before it) only emerged because of EU mediated standards agreements. The Brits and the Scandanogs own the basic technology in these areas thanks in no small part to EU regulatory power.

  31. @davidgmillsatty

    That’s the dumbest comment. Ever. Expected response “Oh but TRUE socialism means….” Go peddle it to somebody else.

  32. A123 says:
    @Gordo

    Other EU countries will leave once we leave. First we must leave rather than just talking about it. No-one is rallying around Brussels other than their satraps and a few mentally deranged individuals.

    I prefer slightly different phrasing.

    “Other EU countries will defy Brussels, once the UK successfully defies Brussels.”

    Leaving is one option. Staying in while defying rules is another:
    — Countries that avoided the EuroZone [EZ] currency trap are well placed to leave. Everyone realizes that the UK will succeed under a No Deal Brexit that ends “EU freedom of movement”, which is why the Remoaners, satraps, and mass migration theologians are fighting so hard.
    — Countries that have given up their national currencies to join the EZ cannot escape simply by exiting the EU. Essentially all private contracts in these nations are denominated in Euros. So, leaving would likely be an austerity trap as businesses are forced to keep using Euros.

    Italy’s best option is to stay in the EU while printing unlimited amounts of Euros to undermine the EZ from within. The ultimate goal:
    — Short term, Forcing Germany out of the Euro.
    — Longer term, Ending the Euro currency in an orderly way.

    The EU/EZ systems, much like the U.N., are faith based. Creations anchored in the mistaken belief of unlimited submission to the supreme ones sitting in Frankfurt (ECB HQ) and Brussels. Neither the EU nor EZ has viable enforcement mechanisms to deal with internal defiance. What good is the EU/EZ fining Italy when the Italian Central Bank responds by printing additional Euros to pay the fine?

    All rational minds accept that the question is no longer, “Will the EU end?” At this point it is about, “When?” and “How?”

    PEACE 😇

  33. @Lol

    Both are/were frugal with reality. The EEC itself was not a bad concept and I suspect that is why the countries originally bought in. It did have, however, its own flaws with immigration. In 1974, I was visiting a university friend in Copenhagen. I was astounded at the number of ME looking people. When I asked my friend about it, he said that after Denmark entered the EEC in 1973, thousands of “Moroccans” (likely Algerians) had come from France, as Denmark’s social benefits were much better. He claimed they were mostly unemployed, were heavily involved in drug smuggling, and appeared to have no interest in fitting in to Danish society. Britain had its own issues with immigration from the former Asian and African colonies, as Powell pointed out.

    The irony of VW, of course, was that during the great patent heist post WWII, the UK was offered VW, and turned it down, thinking their own domestic autos much superior.

  34. I stopped reading after “wafer thin majority”

    This bullshit really has to stop.

  35. @Lol

    The people “begging for a deal” comprise politicians and the permanent state who have no intention of leaving the E.U. in the first place. The E.U. is their pet project and in many cases the work of their lives. They aren’t going to let the people they view with sneering derision get in the way of it. In that respect Britain is no different from most other countries, it’s just that the totally fake ‘negotiations to leave’ bring reality into sharp focus (unless you’re inclined to believe the pantomime, that is).

    The empire which is being formed in Europe will one day go the way of all other empires. And it should be clear that they aren’t enamored of the idea that a province can leave on the basis of a plebiscite; thus, when it ends, it won’t end well.

    You are being presented with a drama and all the actors are playing their part to the same end: the protection of an empire which will soon draw both the military and the policing efforts of the different provinces into single-point command and control. If you want to know who they intend to attack, ignore the ‘Brexit’ charade and “Google” the utterances of Frederica Mogdaline and Ursula von de Leyen. It is all there, hiding in plain sight. The policing aspects will be available for the suppression of internal dissent of which there is rather more than you are being told – and I’m not just talking about Britain.

    History will vindicate the people who voted ‘Leave’ and condemn the puppets who are intent of frustrating that event.

  36. Jeremy Corbyn a moderate? Look at his history. He is a complete lunatic. The description put forward here of what Jeremy Corbyn wants for a deal with the EU isn’t possible. The EU side will not allow it, & we probably won’t get an extension of Article 50 to do it. I do not see Johnson as being authoritarian or wanting to be a US lick-spittle finally dismantling all safeguards & allowing unfettered neo-liberal capitalism to reign supreme. This is a paranoid delusion. In our parliament there is a large group of arrogant weak & pusillanimous people who have the temerity to think they know what’s best for us, whom some would call traitors. These people would lead us down the path to being a region of a totalitarian universal governance where decisions are made for us by unelected people on the basis of what they think is right. This needs to be stopped. Parliament is actually the obstacle. I know it is a bit of an oxymoron, but if suspending Parliament is ultimately the way to protect our democracy & regain the our sovereignty, then so be it.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS