[PEN-L:30157] Re: UK --> euro?

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree this article presents an apparently hopeless strategical
position

My understanding is that Jonathan Michie has links to the left of the
Labour Party (not that that is difficult these days), and maybe he feels
that he cannot say in this article anything more explicit about what
should be done. Also, because, as has been pointed out on another list,
he is apparently partly funded by one of the Sainsburys, a British social
democratic monopoly capitalist grocery chain. 

This leaves the article as making a negative case for a negative reform -
that progressive people should resist the attractions of moving to a full
capitalist monetary union with the rest of Europe, and stay with the
attractions of the present late capitalist conjuncture of British
imperialism. 

The arguments are a mixture of eclectic reasons about restrictions on the
ability of labour power to get better conditions under capitalism. They
neither put forward a positive strategy nor address the main political
reasons for joining a single currency, which are geopolitical. 

Yes Britain will always be tempted to be USA's airstrip 1 but there are
signs it is working out that its influence is to limited in this
role.

About the arguments presented here, although they leave out any
capitalist arguments about greater competitiveness from a large economy,
which is true, and can lead to lower relative prices of commodities,
strangely for a left wing article it even finds itself commending the
constitution of the Bank of England as more democratic than that of the
European Central Bank.

Yes it is true that in a large economy if there is not a mechanism for
redistributing capital to the periphery, the price of labour falls in
economically disadvantaged areas, and the price of land rises in the
areas of greater economic actitivy. But devaluation is also a fall in the
relative price of labour internationally. Ant that is what he argues the
left should hold on to. Let us be frank then if we accept the limitations
of this article, that what is at issue is how to manage capitalism, and
for the left how to get the best conditions for labour power within the
different policies for the management of capitalism. Devaluation is not
the most sovereign act of the proletariat. 

About budget deficits the arguments here accept the limited perspectives
of current practice, and are therefore not even reformist, but jjust to
do with reforms. The idea of cutting deficits at times of relative
economic expansion and increasing them during recessions, is not
mentioned.

This article does not consider that the Maastricht criteria were
constructed in the 90's under the influence of the neo-liberal arguments
that nothing could or should gainsay the domination of the international
financial markets. These rules are man made, and it is not at all
impossible that the right wing governements coming to power in Europe,
still with their largely christian democratic traditions, will put them
to some extent into reverse. After all it is Bush himself who strikingly
cut through the anathema of budget deficits to try to kick start the
economy.

At the same time, the article does not address the arguments that
European labour markets are inflexible.

Overall my feeling is that this article is not even reformist.

Chris Burford

London



At 10/09/02 14:42 -0700, you wrote:

> Obviously, I can't tell the UK
> what to do, but based on the following article, they have no choice but
> to (1) apply to become a U.S. state (or four); and (2) change its name to
> "Airstrip One." 
>
> ------------------ 
>
> The currency that spells cuts 
>
> Joining the euro would mean a squeeze on jobs, services and
> pay. That's why the European elite won't change the rules 
>
> Jonathan Michie 
> Tuesday September 10, 2002 
> The Guardian 

etc.