ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE….OF DEATH!

 

          Saturday’s Daily Telegraph Book Review featured The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells, editor of New York magazine, who shows through many facts and statistics that it is already too late to do anything about massive and ultimately fatal climate change. ‘Since 1992, we have done more damage to the planet than in all the millennia before…’ We are, in fact, doomed, and there’s nothing we can do about it. But the message here, according to reviewer Simon Ings, is: ‘the  human spirit persists.

          ‘Wallace-Wells thinks as much. When he thinks of his own children’s future, denizens of a world plunging ever deeper into its sixth major extinction event, he admits that despair melts and his heart fills instead with excitement. Humans will cling pluckily to live on this ever-less habitable earth for as long as they can. Quite right, too.’

          Thus we already have the configurations of the ultimate bourgeois response to the spectacle of capitalism having in effect destroyed the world: look upon this as bringing forth the ultimate sublimity of human heroism.

          So we have gone from climate-change denial to the embrace of extinction. (‘Thanks for pulling up the ladder behind you, Dad,' the children of this author might have said.) Forget about saving the world and concentrate on saving your own soul. Thus the result of several dozens of decades of exposure to Christian theology (as well as some Eastern teachings to the same effect) maintaining the fundamental reality only of the individual human soul, or – in capitalism – ‘rugged individualism’. Just as the response of many to what once seemed the likelihood of mass nuclear destruction was to plan one’s own family bunker with all mod cons and the necessary machine-guns for repelling stragglers. A far better bet than marching on the streets with CND. Thus the eternal dogma of the primacy of the individual as expressed by the ME generation, amongst other ideological manifestations, represented today by the ME’s of the great capitalist and corporate world, who have incidentally  brought about most of the carnage of nature, even simply through share ownership, whether in mining, drilling, motorcar manufacture, intensive agricultural monocultures, chemical companies or energy-hungry electronics. And in the ceaseless search for the cheapest labour on the planet. Anyhow, don’t think anger, or guilt, or fear: think personal beatification through sacrifice of life, like the Christian martyrs of old – and it helps too if you believe in the ‘life’ to come, so that death doesn’t really matter.

          And nor does it matter if societies collapse. Did not our dear departed Margaret Thatcher once inform the world that ‘there’s no such thing as society’?

          Children are growing in number who have a somewhat different take on all this. Protests have erupted from children in over 60 cities in the past week, demanding Change Now! And ‘Hey ho, fossil fuels have got to go.’ This movement appears to be gaining momentum.

          Only kids, of course. The Daily Mail has been quick to point out that ‘the Left’ has ‘hi-jacked’ the movement. So patronise but don’t blame the kids themselves: blame their manipulators, who see this as the chance to bring in socialism. That includes all adults who want to use their own power and knowledge and experience to give strength to the children’s movement, which obviously can’t see all this through on its own. Centuries ago, the Children’s crusade came to early grief trying on its own to save Jerusalem from the Muslims.

          Meanwhile our own Prime Minister Theresa May and her education secretary Damian Hinds have deplored the children bunking off school and not attending to their studies even if many children are saying that they will make up for lost school hours. Nonsense! They should be on the education factory floor at all times if production is to remain profitable. At least May and Hinds have the honesty to blame the children themselves.

          Ridicule and smear are also in order: as written by Ron Liddle in this week’s Sunday Times: ‘Those kids on the march had no idea of the issues surrounding global warming. If they did, they’d have told Mummy not to pick them up in the 4 x 4 once the march had ended.’ What reputable journalist smears children en masse?

          The Labour Party, typically in potentially divisive social situations, sought to adopt a more Guardian approach. As commented by the shadow education secretary Angela Rayner (who didn’t seek to be beastly to the children): she’s ‘inspired’ by the young people taking action, ‘But I hope it can evolve so we can build on its success without the loss of time in the classroom.’ (Morning Star, February 16^th-17^th.) Never mind the loss of time in saving the earth. In other words, stop demonstrating (that is, since it is useless and ineffective if it’s only done on Saturdays or Sundays or in half-term). Feel the passion but don’t act on it in a manner which is in any way disruptive. Where would women like Angela Rayner be today without the Pankhursts?

          Thus we run the gamut of strategies – uncannily like all the invective against any workers’ strike action since time immemorial – for undermining the resolve of children who are perfectly aware of the facts and have a childish wish to live.

          Thank goodness relatively few children read the newspapers, though a fortunate few may have read the Morning Star, the only paper that supports them in full. But they’re all Lefties over there whose ulterior motive in working to save the planet lies in expropriating those who have largely caused its premature decay.

          Which might, with action now, be ameliorated or slowed. Given half a chance, Nature can show astonishing resilience. Look at Chernobyl today. Kids, take a crack at it. Alternatively, look forward to your mass deaths in good time with ecstatic delight.

CORBYN IN SIGHTS
(corrected 14.2.19)

           One has been expecting a general onslaught upon Jeremy Corbyn from the mainstream media for some time, especially since charges that he was a Czech spy during the Cold War, that he has been friendly with (Leftwing) dictators and supported IRA terrorism during the Troubles seem not to have stuck, alas, for lack of proof. And because these charges fly in the face of all that we know of Corbyn’s long career in politics.

          His rabid anti-Semitism has also failed to take hold (especially since he appears to have celebrated Seder last year with constituency Jews) for  the Right-wing Press can never quite decide whether he wields sinister dictatorial powers within Labour or is too weak to combat the insidious anti-Semitism in which the Party is saturated. Since the anti-Corbyn tendency could never quite determine the answer to this conundrum the anti-Semitism story has thrived and waned and thrived again depending on how desperate the Labour Right is to get rid of Corbyn.

          Apparently the Labour Party became controlled by a vicious cabal of anti-Semites when Ed Miliband – a Jew – was elected its leader prior to Jeremy’s succession. At that time the Press made great play with Ed’s apparent inability to eat a bacon sandwich (it is understood that Jews are forbidden to eat pork, so this was quite 'funny')  while Ed’s late father Ralph Miliband (respected Marxist scholar and a former Belgian refugee from Nazism) was emblazoned in Daily Mail headlines as ‘the enemy of Britain’.

          With the collapse of all faith in Mrs May’s zombie Tory government and thus an increasing likelihood that Labour under Corbyn may well come to power, sooner or later, it has finally come time for the Press to unleash the dogs of war on him and throw everything at him that they can possibly find. And so the Mail on Sunday, for 10^th February 2019. In page after page of diatribe we find, amongst other things, that his two ex-wives have a very low opinion of him and his ‘joylessness’ – which according to commentators makes him poor prime ministerial material. One wife said he once forced her to spend a night in a tent, which surely disbars him from any further participation in politics.  And he insisted on a family outing to visit Marx’s grave at Highgate Cemetery: an odd and inhumane thing for a lifelong and dedicated socialist to want to do.

          I would hate to think what any ex’es of mine would have said about me in retrospect; I don’t suppose on the whole that ex-husbands and ex-wives come off well in marital recollection, or their ex-spouses wouldn’t have divorced them. The fact that Jeremy has long been happily married to a third wife and has three fine adult sons who love him is not mentioned in this trashing expedition in the Mail. Are these denunciations the best the Mail can come up with? There must be a lot of cleanly-scraped barrel bottoms stored somewhere.

          As for his ‘joylessness’, I don’t see Theresa May as a barrel of laughs, either, which is part of her problem in politics. Even an entrance of dancing at the last Tory Conference did not exactly result in offers from ‘Strictly’. But we could hardly call Tony Blair or David Cameron joyless. On the contrary, they proved to be urbane, able to speak with easy empathy, personable, jokey and to be one of the chaps, as well as having a reasonable dress-sense and able to use the right cutlery at the annual Lord Mayor’s Mansion banquet. And what Prime Ministers! Still, it is not a proper comparison since Jeremy is not yet a Prime Minister.

          Then I got to thinking: which Prime Minister would we most have liked being married to? Margaret Thatcher? Apart from the devoted Denis and the besotted late Alan Clark I should imagine the majority of male voters, whatever their politics, would have shrunk back from such a prospect. Edward Heath? This confirmed and grouchy bachelor would scarcely seem love’s young dream. What about the philandering David Lloyd George? Or indeed Winston Churchill – not a philanderer but he drank too much and must have been a pain to live with, as the subsequent histories of his children (if not the ‘treasure’ Clemmie herself) would seem to confirm. The Mail on Sunday also accuses Jeremy of being wholly incompetent over his own finances, thus hardly likely to steer the nation to prosperity. We might rejoin that at the least he has been presenting honest and straightforward books to HMRC and is one of the few politicians who even informs the public of what taxes he actually pays. Again, in contrast to Churchill, whose extravagance was not held back by constant threats of bankruptcy and who had to labour mightily to keep a jump or two ahead of the bailiffs. Prime Ministerial material? Forget it!

          Worst of all, perhaps, Jeremy Corbyn cannot, it seems, distinguish the taste between Heinz baked beans and other brands!

          What kind of person can pretend to be the leader of this great country who cannot tell the difference between different sorts of baked beans?

          Well, let’s see how far this devastating onslaught hits home.

         

STOCK TAKE

 

          Going through my back files I find blogs of mine that are unlikely to merit much further attention, for a number are somewhat thinnish, ephemeral in a journalistic  sense or now no longer of so much contemporary interest.

          Since each according to their own taste, however, I’m not deleting anything previously posted. Instead I offer a guide to blogs that I think are worth visiting or re-visiting for one reason or another, either because of subject or quality or both.  A few I consider of some importance. I won’t mention the others not listed here. Or you can be ornery and read only the blogs I don’t list.

          And so I proceed backwards from the present blog as follows:

Selected List – Backwards to 2016

My Plan for Brexit

Saving the Planet

REVIEW:  A Radical History of the World by Neil Faulkner

Sneaky Tories?

‘What If?’

His Dark Materials

Aesthetics: Marxism’s Achilles Heel?  (Warning: a biggy.)

History and Drama (Another biggy.)

A Modest Proposal: a Fable for Our Times

Spinoza Was Right!

Bootle’s Wand

The New Devil’s Dictionary

Look Familiar?

A Marxist at the Movies 4 – Spectacle

Spivvy Banks

Owen Jones and Banks

REVIEW: Fictitious Capital by Cedric Durand

Pangloss Is Back

Crisis? What Crisis?

A Marxist at the Movies 3 – Interlude

A Marxist at the Movies 2 – The Hollywood Eye

A Marxist at the Movies 1 – Jon Boorstin

Concentrating the Mind Wonderfully: Ulysses S Grant

Cardigan Rightwinger Strikes Again

REVIEWS: Out of the Night by Jan Valtin / Decline of American Capitalism by Lewis Corey

‘We get signals the system is under stress’…

Moments in History

At It Again

You Couldn’t Make It Up

Fundits

In Praise of Teachers

Where is This Leading? (2)

A Crisis in Ideology

Re-reading Reading Capital

Where Is This Leading? (1)

What Is Total Revolt? (Warning: a major essay – quite lengthy)

REVIEW: Paul Mason and Armageddon

The Queen, Rationality and Economics

The Conundrums of History

The Historical Materialist and the Concept of History (Warning: of Considerable Length.) For what it’s worth, I consider this the best piece I’ve ever written, and the only one with bibliography. Admittedly the intended readership is academic but I write it as presenting an intellectual boxing-match, a rumble in the Marxist jungle of the late 1970s between the late British historian EP Thompson and the late French philosopher Louis Althusser, both avowed Marxists: who hit the canvas first? Though in fact the two never met and it’s probably just as well they didn’t. I think any ordinary reader can be gripped by a death-struggle even if the material being struggled over is only partially understood. A lot of those who follow the ponies avidly don’t know anything about horses except their form, if that.

+

Various essays on historians and history theorists….

 

 

 

MY PLAN FOR BREXIT

 

          It is only now, in Britain’s true hour of need what with Mrs May’s catastrophic defeat for her Brexit plan in the House of Commons, that I feel called upon to present my scheme, the only one that will spare this country years of rancour and internecine backbiting while falling in with the best traditions of British freedom, democracy and individualism.

          It proposes neither Leave nor Remain. That is, for the nation taken as a whole. Or even for one nationality or another within that nation taken as a whole.

          Instead, it proposes that each of us takes a personal decision to either Leave or Remain.

          I decide to Leave; you decide to Remain, and so on, up and down the land. Instead of anonymous ballot papers in voting booths, each of us receives a pre-paid postal ballot: a slip bearing our National Insurance Number and two boxes labelled Remain and Leave, one of which only is to be ticked by the recipient. This is accompanied by a solemn declaration to be completed by the recipient’s signature and date. There is also the option to reply electronically, directly on-line via smartphone.

          Each of us will then receive detailed instructions according to how we have ticked one or other of the boxes either physically or electronically.

          People who declare themselves Remainers will continue to live their lives as in Britain under the EU; those declaring themselves Leavers will be required to follow particular instructions in the light of (say) a no-Deal breakaway. Thus Remainers will continue to travel to EU countries unhindered at borders, and to continue to enjoy – for example – continental wines and Camembert at the old prices, while self-declared Leavers will be required to show passports, present their returning luggage for HM Customs inspection and pay whatever duty is levied on wines, cheeses, cricket-bats imported from Italy and so on. On the other hand, Leavers will be protected in their UK jobs from incoming EU economic migrants while Remainers will be open to replacement as required by EU citizens seeking jobs and careers in the United Kingdom. Remainers will find purchasing (EU) continental property and settling on it no problem while Leavers will have as foreign nationals restrictions placed upon their continental activities such as property-holding, and having to guarantee a minimum private property ownership valued at £1 million before permanent residence in an EU country is permitted.  

          Rules of a similar nature will apply to every individual business, company and corporation with premises in the United Kingdom according to the decision either to Remain or to Leave taken by their respective proprietors, boards of directors and shareholders.

          Status as Remainer or Leaver will be statutorily reviewed every two years from date of submission, and after the first review, every two years or at the request of the parties concerned, or in either case as the result of a Court order.  Courts will take these stated declarations to Remain or Leave into account in the adjudication of relevant individual court cases and legal rulings. It is possible that a special Court of Settlements will be instituted specifically to address disputes arising from Remain or Leave positions.

          Political parties will not be required to state a Remain or Leave position but to act freely under the law as traditionally maintained.

          Looking at it this way: we generally get along with one another whether we individually choose to be Masons or Rotarians or members of other lodges and societies. Muslim halal butchers serve (in the main) Muslim customers, but do not have a necessarily restricted customer base. Roman Catholics drive our buses and trains. Hindus are QC’s. Religion and other beliefs and practices, if within the bounds of legality, are the private business of those who hold to them, and our society chugs along regardless. Remainers can join together as they wish, as can Leavers, or people can assemble together regardless of being either or none (though it is difficult to know what a ‘none’ position would be, but there we are). Of course there will be stiff penalties if bullying and violence break out as between Remainers and Leavers, subject to the laws already existing with regard to causing affrays.

          No ‘national’ issue need be involved if, instead of (say) Scotland voting as a whole to Remain while England votes Leave, thus necessitating considerable revision of the Act of Union, we merely find that a lot of individual Scots vote to become Remainers while, no doubt, fewer Scots vote to become Leavers, but this places Scotland as such exactly where it was before – inside the Union. And this would be the case even if the opposite result were to come about, since the issue concerns individuals, not nations as such. Similarly with regard to Northern Ireland and Wales. What happens on the Irish border will depend upon the predominant allegiance of the personnel on duty at the time. Thus the border will be an open one at some times, and at others (depending on the balance in the duty roster) it will be closed.

          I can find nothing wrong with this plan and urge everyone reading this to give it their fullest attention and to adopt it.

          The fact that meanwhile I will be emigrating to New Zealand has no bearing on the issue.

SAVING THE PLANET

 

          Unusually for me it is an article of 14 December 2018 in the (London) Daily Mail that gives me pause for thought.

          Headlined ‘Why organic plants may be WORSE for the planet’, researchers led by Stefan Wirsensius of Chalmers University of Technology  in Sweden have published a report based on the calculation of the amount of carbon dioxide stored in forests that could be released into the atmosphere as an effect of deforestation to make room for more organic farming. Their finding is that up to 70% more carbon dioxide is emitted from this source as forests are cleared to provide more land for organically–grown crops: without chemical fertilizers more land is needed to grow the same quantity of food because the soils yield less otherwise. Wirsensius claims that ‘Organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 per cent bigger climate impact than conventionally-grown peas…With winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 per cent.’ While even organic meat and dairy products are worse than their conventionally produced equivalents, from ‘a climate point of view.’

          Although vegan diets are not in themselves to blame for anything, it is true that some features of faddish food markets have proved highly detrimental to ecological and social balance.  The avocado market is in some crisis; apart from the fact that growing avocados requires vast amounts of water from a planet that’s drying up, it has been overwhelmed by demand from Waitrose shoppers and their kindred around the world, a demand it cannot hope to meet long-term. And those who eat quinoa as part of a locally-sourced natural diet are denied it by a market driven by its popularity amongst self-same Waitrose shoppers and others. Yet we have a ready supply and rich variety of fresh vegetables and fruits that are locally-grown relative to ourselves, both in greengroceries and in farmers’ markets all around the country. Could demand not lead also to the encouragement of vegetable and fruit varieties locally-sourced that have become rarities because they are no longer fashionable (or even very appetising without some knowledgeable preparation)?  It is true also that much of our fruit and veg displayed in supermarkets – and flown or driven in from great distances - is only this side of manky, rather older than we may have thought. Amongst anything else, wrapping produce up tightly in plastic gives this stuff a sheen it would not otherwise deserve.

          We also have a strange and ambiguous attitude towards energy use, which is related to environmental factors such as CO2 because ever-greater energy demand also produces undesirable environmental effects. It is true that we utilise energy much more efficiently than we used to, and it is also true that solar, sea and wind are going to provide a much higher percentage of energy sources than at present. But the need for more energy itself is ever greater, and we are still predominantly dependent upon fossil fuels, including the dreaded fracking (the latter has made the USA virtually energy self-sufficient).

          Electric cars on the road are not polluting in the way that internal combustion engines so notoriously are, but the production of requisite batteries does present environmental issues, and the National Grid presently does not even know where all the much-greater demand for electricity for our traffic is to come from.

          Then we have smartphones whose increasing miniaturisation has raised their energy consumption level to an all-time high: the more sophisticated and miniaturised the instrumentation the more energy it consumes – far more than any ‘old-fashioned’ equivalent, such as a land-line phone. A DAB radio gobbles up fantastic amounts of energy compared to a conventional radio: so much so that customers are encouraged to purchase battery-packs as well so as to save on their household electric bills. Do we need electric carving-knives? Have we forgotten the art of winding up alarm clocks? Why do I need an electric shaver or a single-use throwaway plastic razor instead of a good old safety-razor with a supply of blades? It’s true that hot water is used but not very much. Speaking of which, and allowing for certain occupations where it is a necessity, do we really need to have a hot shower or bath every day? Why not an all-over wash plus a shower or bath once a week? I’ve done this for years and I’ve never noticed people distancing themselves from me, though I may be insensitive.  Obviously not for blogs, which must be typed electronically, but for the drafting of blogs (and for letters I send in the post or any off-line forms) I use my manual portable typewriter. A typewriter is very hands-on – you have to adjust the paper physically and correct errors with certain aids, change ribbons from time to time, stick in carbon paper if you want copies without a photocopier, and manually adjust margins, etc. – but if it’s a manual (as opposed to electric or electronic) it will not have a ‘machine’ look about the results, but rather a human one. It also uses up no energy whatsoever, except human energy – and I have to eat anyhow. Imagine an office block once full of manual typewriters and then think of the same office block years’ later, stuffed with PCs and other devices: and then  imagine the huge increase in that block’s hunger for daily energy since the changeover.  I’m no luddite. By all means use and improve the performance of powered devices that we really need to be powered. But surely we are duplicating perfectly adequate human effort with electrified effort which is just not necessary except in the cases of special needs. Well, our planet has special needs, too.

          We are going to have to alter, radically, our long-held view of what constitutes technological ‘progress’. I don’t see why it can’t be a mix of mechanical with powered. The wind-up radio in the third world has been a great success. (And typewriters are used in many parts of the third world because of the erratic nature of electricity supplies with blackouts that could hamper computer work disastrously. Typewriters are also very secure since they aren’t on the internet.) And we are going to have to eat less and drive and fly less too. We might end up healthier along the way.

          Of course the rich cannot deny themselves any and every ‘labour-saving’ device and electronic gadget available because using up energy is - in fact - what being rich is about.  But that to one side, there is virtually no point in writing or talking about all this unless we engage with the central issue of socialism – socialist democracy and socialist planning. All the demonstrations around the world about global warming will achieve nothing unless capital is appropriated and capitalism as a system destroyed. Look at any capitalist proposal for saving the planet and you will find a list of exceptions to this proposal a mile long.

SEASON’S GREETINGS!

 

          A bit early, though I think ‘Christmas’ actually started around 15^th August, but nevertheless, my greetings to everyone.

          News is moving along so fast that one has a tough time keeping up with it if one is not a seasoned journalist: at present Mrs May looks in deep do-do with even the Daily Telegraph against her: who knows what colour the chameleon Conservative Party will turn into even in just a week’s time? I am not sure whether the British public, taken as a whole, wish to be governed by chameleons, though they are fascinating to watch on natural history programmes, clinging to thin branches and swivelling their eyes.

          So just a general remark here. It looks as if Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, and possibly the US of A are all coming apart at the seams.  Britain and France are falling apart in their own characteristic ways: in France they burn buses; here MPs wave and throw order paper about; in Spain they bring out the army as required. In Germany a predictable fascism Mark II gains mass support in the streets. In Italy a bit of all four is likely; meanwhile Ukraine is trying to start a war engulfing NATO and the whole world so that its economy won’t collapse and its present billionaire president will be able to cling to power. Trump faces a bit of opposition – at long last - for supporting the deaths of tens of thousands of Yemeni children (as does Mrs May) while declaring war on refugees from his government’s own policies in Nicaragua and all points south, a trade war on China and total war on the future of the planet. Perhaps the new Brazil will help him out on the latter here.

          As for the gradual disintegration of various Western European nations, the proverbial slow-motion train-wreck, if not so slow as all that, we might say: ‘So much for austerity!’ And more frankly, ‘So much for fucking up Africa and the Middle East over the past century or two.’

          Happy Christmas, folks, as I said….

 

THE QUAGMIRE

 

          Students of the relationship between the economic base and the political superstructure should be finding these interesting times – even if the rest of us are hiding under our beds. Whether or not we are witnessing the death of the Conservative Party we are certainly seeing a rift among sections of ruling class, at the very least over the details. While the dominant financial side may be optimistic over the latest ‘deal’ proposed by Mrs May which effectively leaves us where we were before if not somewhat disempowered here and there (plus the prospect of a four-year stalemate), there are other levels of business as represented roughly by Tory ‘rebels’ that reckon a cleaner break with the EU will mean wholesale elimination of regulations and the freedom to impose such conditions on a labour market as will render higher profits: to them ‘Brexit’ means a ‘business’ Britain of the more buccaneering kind not seen in this country for perhaps a hundred years and more, and perhaps not since Sir Francis Drake. At the same time, whatever the views on immigration made clear by the ‘Tommy Robinson’ end of the Tory Party, agricultural interests worry at the prospect of a drain on cheap imported labour to pick the fruit, etc. (gone are the days when the urban working class was transported en masse to the countryside for picking ‘holidays’), retail outlets facing for example a severe shortage of better-class chefs, while higher education is confronted by penury without a steady stream of EU (‘foreign’) and well-paying students. On the Labour side, the Right is fearful of the return of a ‘garrison state’ mentality if the Left continues to be determined to have the freedom to nationalise this and that through deficit spending, which cannot be done under increasingly neoliberalised EU law: the former clamours for a dubious ‘people’s vote’ while the latter holds to the referendum long since determining a decisive vote for Leaving: that showed us the ‘people’s will’ truly enough.  Not only would a second referendum conform to the EU practice to force countries to keep holding referenda until the ‘correct’ voting takes place (and there is a view that a second referendum will require a third in time, and so on), but polls indicate that a second referendum might well produce much the same result as the first. At the same time, how practical is the creation of ‘socialism in one country’: how long would it last, how deep would it penetrate our society of capitalism in the long run? A Labour government could – and is likely to - renationalise the Bank of England but it can’t nationalise Goldman Sachs, or (e.g.) Facebook. The Irish ‘problem’ is actually a British one, as it always was. The border question only shows further that a Northern Irish statelet was always a death-trap anomaly and that Ireland as a whole should be a different country. Apparently most British (non-Unionist) voters are almost entirely indifferent to the fate of Northern Ireland and would be glad to be rid of it if it meant a workable settlement overall. As for Northern Irish voters, they voted in the majority (not wanting a hard border) to Remain, as did the Scots, whose interest lies in an EU connection for a semi- or even (possibly in time) Scottish independence.

          Britain is facing the consequences of a nation that sort of ‘growed’ like Topsy whose unity was kept in being by absolutism, later by empire and by a large economy that embraced a country also sustained in spirit by foreign threats of conquest from Philip II, Napoleon, the Axis powers, and possibly the Soviet Union during the Cold War. National unity is cossetted along by a continuing strange obsession over 1940 and the image of Winston Churchill with cigar and tommy-gun, along with Royalty worship, while revivifying the Cold War with Russia today is plainly an attempt by British leadership to prop up national unity in the face of increasingly formidable odds. Faced with world recession and the fact that large parts of Britain are on the wrong side of what is happening globally, with a government either entirely indifferent to domestic massive poverty and hunger or else keen to see through a broken-backed working class, the country is actually crumbling before our eyes like a slow-motion landslide. And, by the way, Spain and Italy are also crumbling, in more spectacular fashion. Not all nation-states were meant to be, or not forever! Pot was calling the kettle black when this week Spain – with Catalonia on its hands – suggested there was no reason why Scotland should not become independent! And Germany has been a fractured country since 1989.

          One plausible scenario is that London should be in reality what it is de facto: in other words, instead of dragging an unwanted country behind it, London should form its own state in which it could be a more free-market version of wealthy Singapore, another breakaway entity. I think this is rather a good idea in some ways. London weighs on England like a stone. Apart from anything else, its ‘independence’ would give Birmingham and Manchester elbow-room to become again the dynamic cities they once were, this time assuming the leadership of at least much of the rest of Britain outside London. Indeed, we could make a packet in negotiated trade relations with London instead of being sucked in by her.  All that finance funnelled into a native British economy instead of being whisked off abroad (and even worse, into tax havens – though the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are that as well!) – at least, up to a point. Scotland would become a natural ally to the non-London English. I don’t think Scotland hates England. I think it hates London. Indeed the British map could come to resemble something like a map of this isle at the time of Alfred the Great (leaving aside the later impact of the Industrial Revolution). Am I joking? Perhaps. If only now were the time for jokes. But something along these lines is serious. We are already well familiar with the term ‘devolution’ and there could well be a build-up of steam behind the idea like nothing seen before, leading to something well beyond it. Major political configurations have been changed in response to recalcitrant circumstances in the past. Although perhaps in many ways an unfortunate example, it remains true that Versailles in 1919 altered the maps of Europe and the Middle East, with lasting effects.      

          Socialism in a country that no longer has any purpose or unity is likely to be a nonstarter. Imagine trying to bring socialism about in the similarly nostalgic and obsolete Austro-Hungarian Empire! But given more localised sovereign entities built on popular loyalty (and immigrant groups are as loyal to their communities as the rest), the possibility of socialism from the ground up and connecting with that of other such sovereign entities around the world is not unthinkable if one sees that socialism, like previous modes, works its way forward in dialectical stages of one kind or another. Marxists need to think out politics more – in relation to economics. This is just a mischievous stab if you like.