British fuel crisis
EARLY in September militant blockades mounted at oil refineries
* European Union / Britain
We need another "treaty" for another Europe, starting from a concrete critique of neoliberal Europe. It can be done from both inside and outside the EU. Each people can decide what suits it best - and draw the balance sheet, step by step, with across Britain, by small farmers and small and self employed road the others. hauliers, protesting about the price of fuel, almost brought the
All in the same boat
On all these questions, East, West and South, we are all in the same boat: the neoliberal logic at work in the world challenges social gains both here and there. Here as there, we cannot simply defend these threatened "gains" and the existing public sector against privatization without a radical critique of bureaucratism, and without redefining other mechanisms and criteria of management of these services. That is the meaning of the struggles and debates against the Europe of Maastricht inside the EU itself: on questions of social security or public services, on employment. These debates and struggles need to be made known in the East.
We must also multiply on a European scale the associative and trade union networks struggling against the ravages of neoliberalism. For the alternatives are not simply questions of ideas. Another Europe is "theoretically" possible, even with the Euro. But the Maastricht Euro is not an "error" that can be fought with the sole arguments of debate. Only changes in the relationship of forces could impose anoth er logic. But for that we also need new common projects forged in struggle. There will be no left alternative in the East, if it does not exist first in the EU as it is.
The people of Eastern Europe as in the West are concerned by the absence of democracy in the current projects of European construction. A single currency? To do what? For what choice of society? With what control of the peoples concerned over their future? The debates on federalism or confederalism, majority vote or consensus have no meaning so long as we do not know what common project is being pursued. * 1.Karol Modzelevsky, Quelle voie après le communisme, L'Aube, 1995, p.87 2. Op. cit, p.84 3. The state sector accounted for more than 80% of arable land (except in Poland and ex-Yugoslavia where it was in the order of 20%), with a share of the workforce stretching from 12% (Czechoslovakia) to around 30% (Rumania) and a share of GDP between 15 and 30%. 4. See notably L. P. Mahé, J. Cordier, H. Guyomard, T. Roe, "L'agriculture et l'élargissement", Economie internationale, n°62 2è trimestre, 1995. 5. Economie internationale, Op.cit, p.249. 24 International Viewpoint #325 November 2000
TITHIN five days of the start of the protests petrol was unobtainable, emergency services were under threat, factories were beginning to close, and the shops were starting to run out of food. The rapidity of the shutdown was unprecedented, and Tony Blair's New Labour government was completely unprepared. It was then shaken to the core as its popularity plummeted from 20 points ahead of the Conservatives in the polls to seven points behind
The attitude of the left in Britain to the crisis has involved knee jerk reactions from opposite ends of the spectrum. Some saw the movement that erupted as simply one of small employers, to which the labour movement should offer no support at all. Others have seen the protests as a new emergence of working class struggle, which has to be recognised and built on.
Both of these positions are wrong. The blockades were not protests by the working class, of course. Very unusually for Britain the protestors were crisis-ridden sections of the petty bourgeoisie, who have turned against new Labour as higher fuel prices have been added to the unremitting pressures of the market which they face every day. Many of these people became self employed as the result of Thatcherite deregulation and outsourcing in the 1980s, and now work endless hours in deregulated markets and are struggling for survival against small profit margins. But does this mean we cannot give them any kind of support? No. We should support progressive movements of the petty bourgeoisie in defence of their interests against big business when such conflicts arise.
Protests by small farmers are not new. The strength of the pound against the Euro is a major problem for farmers in Britain as prices for their products are consistently undercut by cheap imports. They had been campaigning for more subsidies: but they joined the fuel protest despite the fact that their own (red) diesel carries no tax at all.
country to a halt. ALAN THORNETT
However there are genuine problems for small farmers who are not part of the growing agribusiness sector. They have been hit by a range of big business interests, from banks to fertiliser manufacturers. And they have been squeezed by the supermarkets who play the global market and force them to cut their prices, even selling at a loss to keep their contracts. To compound the crisis, small farmers have suffered a series of body blows from a succession of food safety crises triggered by the unscrupulous activities of the feed manufacturers deregulated under Margaret Thatcher — the most obvious result being the BSE ("mad cow") scandal.
### Crisis
Small haulage companies and owner drivers face a European-wide crisis in their industry. This however is not caused mainly by fuel prices, but by the way the industry was deregulated, beginning in the 1980s. Even those regulations that still exist are flouted by most of the industry, particularly owner drivers, in the struggle to survive. This deregulation has led to the cut-throat competition which now exists in the haulage industry as part of the globalised economy.
There were of course a range of dubious backers and manipulators behind these protests. We do not support these forces: but we do support the stated aims of the protest both in terms of a reduction in the tax on fuel, and in alleviating the crisis facing small farmers, small hauliers, and owner drivers, which are at the core of the action.
The blockades centred on the emotive issue of petrol prices. British prices are the highest in Europe, due to the level of tax, and are now punitive against big sections of poorer people who run cars. The protest therefore enjoyed mass support amongst the working class, and linked in to a range of other grievances against new Labour.
The result was an explosion of anger and resentment. People who live in the countryside, and small business people, feel victimised by fuel prices. Small farmers, hauliers and owner drivers are being squeezed out by big business and neo-liberal unregulated market forces.
Of course there is a major environmental problem to be addressed: the issue of car use and road transport is indeed central to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We have to put action against global warming at the top of the political agenda. But we do not accept that environmental protection can be achieved by the current ineffective and regressive tax on petrol. Cutting the use of cars can be achieved only through combining strong disincentives against car use with the provision of alternative forms of sustainable transport.
A comprehensive policy is needed. This should include a major investment in public transport alongside more pedestrianisation, parking restrictions, park and ride, alternative energy sources for the car etc, and a tackling of the all embracing car culture which currently exists in this society. But without viable alternatives that enable people to travel, increases in fuel prices are inelastic and have little effect on consumption. A differential tax on engine size would be a much more useful way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
### Shift
The shift towards indirect taxation (away from income tax), which began under the Conservatives and has continued under Blair, has been widely recognised as unfair and dishonest. People can see that a tax which raises more money for the government the more petrol is sold is flawed as a means of reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. They know that the extra money raised for the government is not being spent on environmental protection. We should call for a turn back towards direct taxation. Reduce indirect taxation. Tax the rich and impose massive direct taxation on the oil companies to pay for an environmentally sustainable transport system: the current tax on oil extraction in the North Sea is the lowest in the world. This should be a first step towards nationalising the oil companies and the banks.
We should link our call for a reduction in fuel tax to a call for a sustainable energy policy and an integrated transport policy
3%a move Quan in Prance 69% more Raan in Germany 77p We are Juan i Spain 0P Too per IP PLA FAIR PLAY ON FUEL FAIR PLAY ON FICT for both people and freight. This must include not only new rail and tram services for passenger travel but a complete reorganisation of freight transport, to switch large quantities of material from road haulage back onto rail.
This crisis is not caused solely by taxation, of course. The oil companies have massively increased their already massive profits: the top five companies are on target to rake in over $30 billion this year, by exploiting both consumers and the oil producing countries. Their role needs to be highlighted by the left. We should defend the right of poor countries which depend on oil exports to sell at a reasonable price. The fact that the price of oil has gone up from $10 a barrel to nearly S35 in the last year is partly a product of the fact that prices have generally been low since 1980. This low price was part of a general fall in world commodity prices driven by globalisation. The left has opposed this in terms of other raw materials - we should not exclude oil from this view.
The protest was a new phenomenon in many ways. The pickets were effective not because they physically stopped anything, but primarily because of collusion between the oil companies, the hauliers, the owner drivers and the police. The oil companies, not the protesters, were the force that made the action so effective. Above all the oil companies are keen to see the government take the blame for high fuel prices while keeping their own rip-off profits intact.
That is why they supported the dispute behind the scenes, forming a bizarre alliance with the hauliers to cut off the supply of petrol and diesel. In some cases tanker drivers were instructed not to go out, even though the road outside was open. Others were given the option to go out.. or go home on full pay! These are
Britain * employers who normally make breaking picket lines a matter of principle, and who would automatically instruct drivers to drive through - and sack them if they refused. Anyone who doubts this should try picketing an oil refinery for any other reason - and see what happens.
### Rule of law
Despite the overwhelming support of working class people for the protest, the trade union leaders were mainly concerned with upholding "the rule of law". They were also worried that French-type direct action methods might be taken up by British trade unionists. Some on the left take a similar line, and argue that socialists should not support movements and protests of the petty bourgeoisie. This idea should be rejected. It is true such movements often attract some nasty political allies, including the far right. But this is simply an added reason for giving them support in order not to drive them in that direction. Such movements can be extremely dangerous if they fall prey to the far right, which may provide charismatic leaders for the cause.
Marxists understand that the petty bourgeoisie is not politically independent as a class (although it can have its own political demands); it gravitates towards the strongest class in society. The working class must therefore defend them against the banks and finance capital, to win them to our side and prevent them allying with the right. Trotsky argued that the working class should always be prepared to establish and lead alliances with the petty bourgeoisie, warning that they will move further to the right if they do not move towards the working class. We say tax the rich, not small business. Abolish VAT, cancel the debts of small businesses and provide them with cheap credit as an alternative to being fleeced by the banks.
Meanwhile the left needs to get to grips with the political issues raised by the fuel blockade and begin to address the problems of the petty bourgeoisie in order to deal with this kind of movement. The politics of the protestors - and their demands - are confused and contradictory, and they offer no easy way in for the left, as some found to their cost when they tried to join the fuel protestors' picket lines. But the left must help to clarify the real battle lines, and press for the wider labour movement to respond. *
International Viewpoint #325 November 2000 25
Debate: A fifth "long wave" of world capitalism?
Jan Malewski*
IN TV no. 322 of June 2000 we opened a debate on the possibility of an end to the recessionary phase of the long wave which began in the early 1970s. We published then the contributions of Maxime Durand and Marc Bonhomme, who both concluded that the conditions were not met for the capitalist economy to reenter the expansionary phase of a new long wave. We publish here two new contributions: that of Gianni Rigacci, who argues that "the capitalist system has not overcome its long wave of stagnation" and that of Henri Wilno, who envisages a "new productive order", or to take up the terminology of Ernest Mandel, an exit from the recessionary long wave.
• IT is indisputable that the first half
The Marxist current owes the hypothesis of 'ascendant, stagnant or declining of the 1970s represented a cleavage epochs of capitalist development" to Leon Trotsky. The Russian economist in the evolution of the world econo-
Nikolai Kondratieff had elaborated a theory of "long cycles": based on a statistimy: we then entered into what some econcal analysis of past periods, he envisaged a regular repetition every 50 years, omists defined as a long wave of stagnaeach cycle having an ascendant phase and a regressive phase. This theory was tion. Nonetheless, since roughly speaking severely criticized by Trotsky, who rejected the idea of "long cycles", considerthe mid-1990s, we note in an increasing ing that the approach of Kondratieff was an erroneous generalization of a for number of regions of the world the signs of mal analogy" with short cycles. Following Trotsky, Ernest Mandel developed the a solid and constant growth, justifying a
Marxist theory of "long waves", considering that if the beginnings of a depresdebate on whether the long wave of stag sive phase of the long wave are due to the accumulation of contradictions which nation is henceforth over and a new wave undermine the mode of regulation during an expansionary phase, the transition of expansion is underway.
to a new expansionary phase involves factors exogenous to the economy: a change in the relationship of forces between the classes, a strengthened bourgeols leadership, a "technological revolution" allowing productivity gains, an enlargement of the market following events of a "superstructural" order (wars,
2. Ernest Mandel advanced some intercounter-revolutions and so on).
pretative hypotheses on the transition from
If the theory of long waves does not allow us to predict changes in the economic one phase to another. According to him, conjuncture - cyclical crises of overproduction, or recessions - it does allow the normal mechanisms of the capitalist medium term predictions on the character of these crises and on periods of system determine the phases of stagnation.
growth (their duration and depth). Thus it also allows us to envisage the condi-
Attempts to maintain an acceptable level tions of the class struggle: the evolation of the industrial reserve army (unemof profit can put off the day of reckoning, ployment) and the margins of maneuver which the employers have to meet the as can state intervention to support social/wage demands of the workers' movement. The expansionary phases of the demand, but not avoid it.
long wave have always allowed the workers' movement to accumulate forces
On the other hand, a long expansionary through victories in partial struggles and, by increasing the confidence of wave can stem from exogenous factors, employees in their collective strength, have stimulated political recompositions outside of the normal functioning of the inside it. On the contrary, if the workers' movement does not inflict a historic system. It can happen following a sudden defeat on Capital in the course of the first years of the depressionary long wave, enlargement of the world market, the disemploying the forces accumulated in the course of the preceding period, the covery of new sources of raw materials, a accumulation of partial defeats leads to a degradation of the relationship of defeat of the working class allowing a sigforces to the detriment of wage-earners (this what we have been able to observe nificant increase in the rate of surplus in the course of the 1980-1990s).
value, or even wars and revolutions.
The economic debate that follows does not, then, concern only the specialists. Its
Experience seems to have confirmed these conclusions have a significance in determining the tasks of the workers' movehypotheses.
ment. *
Since the last decade has seen numer-
• Jan Malewski is a member of the United Secretarial of the Fourth Iaternational and editor of 1Vs French-lan.
ous changes in the functioning of the world economy, an analysis of these changes can guage sister publication. Inprecor.
help us respond to the question that we asked ourselves at the beginning of this longest in the history of the country. Since predicted (more than 5%). It should be article.
3. Let's begin with developments in the three economic zones representing 50% of world GNP:
• In the US, since the first months of
1991 there has been a phase of uninterrupted expansion which is statistically the
26 International Viewpoint #325 November 2000
1994 there have been rates of growth comparable to those of the exceptional 1960s. In the course of the six last years GNP has grown by 25.3%, a very significant growth even if one takes account of the fact that in the 1990s the population has grown by 10%. For this year, record growth is again noted, moreover, that military expenditure no longer plays a role of impulsion: it is, rather, the debts of both individuals and companies, which have reached 140% of GNP and grow by 7.5% a year. As to the foreign trade deficit, it has reached 4% of the GNP. Let's add that similar rates of
----- pull-quotes on this page -----