Capitalism in crisis can no longer afford its old institutions. This is causing conflict and increased tension in the bourgeois state, which must be painfully reorganised in order to correspond with this epoch of austerity. In short, the British capitalist state is eating away at itself, causing greater instability both in Britain and on a global scale.
Capitalism in crisis can no longer afford its old institutions. This is causing conflict and increased tension in the bourgeois state, which must be painfully reorganised in order to correspond with this epoch of austerity. In short, the British capitalist state is eating away at itself, causing greater instability both in Britain and on a global scale.
When it comes to bourgeois democracy, all the traditional parliamentary parties are in decline. The Establishment, and even Parliament itself, is discredited through countless corruption scandals. Bourgeois morality is at an all-time low. Scandal after scandal, normally suppressed, escapes through the cracks that are opening up as the state convulses.
The crisis of the bourgeois state also hits Britain’s armed forces. A recent Royal United Services Institute report forecasts £35bn budget cuts over ten years, to meet the the government’s austerity programme. This means 30,000 military and 13,000 civilian workers sacked, and the cancellation of projects that could see the closure of related industries, such as the Clyde shipyards or the British aircraft industry.
The Tory government’s public image as a champion of the armed forces therefore stands in contradiction to the real situation – the champion of a decrepit capitalism limping along, unable even to maintain the illusory image that it is a major player in world events.
The long term decline of British capitalism and British imperialism since the first world war has long been at odds with the British ruling class’ delusions of grandeur regarding its standing on the world stage. It has not been reconciled to its diminished role. Now we witness the decline of US imperialism, which has completely over-stretched its capabilities with its adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also turned the public mood at home against any new conflict.
Similarly, the public in the UK is sceptical towards foreign intervention, having being taken to war in Iraq in 2003 on the basis of nothing but lies by the Blair government. This hostility to British intervention abroad was demonstrated by the defeat faced by Cameron in the House of Commons in 2013 over the question of intervention in Syria. Ordinary working people in the UK are clearly in no mood to take part in further attacks in the Middle East when they are already having to defend themselves against endless attacks from the Tories at home.
To compensate for the limits imposed by the decline of American imperialism, NATO now demands that all member states raise their military spending to a minimum of 2% of GDP. Prime Minister Cameron is more than willing to abide, wilfully playing the role of America’s pet poodle and barking to the sound of his master’s voice.
Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond told the BBC’s Andrew Marr on Sunday that the PM is not prepared to cut the size of the “regular armed forces”. Yet the cuts have already taken their toll since the Tories came to power. Thirty thousand from the Army, Navy and Air Force have been cut since 2010.
The FT reports that, at the very least, 21,000 jobs will need to go in the next parliament if current salaries are to be maintained. Wage inflation is at an all-time low. If schools and hospitals continue to be protected, defence spending becomes one of the most exposed departments to future cuts. It could mean a 10% reduction in the defence budget.
“Protecting the defence budget would send a clear signal and would dispel some of the concerns about British defence spending from our allies in the US, but the reality is that there is a lot of worry in the armed forces that the MoD’s current planning assumptions are not going to be protected and there is likely going to be a significant reduction in capabilities as a result,” says Malcolm Chalmers, the author of the Royal United Services Institute report.
Prestige is an important factor for the imperialist powers in the capitalist world arena. But prestige does not drop from the sky. It must be backed by military force. And for that to be a factor, ultimately the economy decides. The “concerns about British defence spending from our allies in the US” mentioned by Malcom Chalmers, demonstrates the real meaning of British integrity and prestige internationally. It has none. British defence spending is an American concern.
So how does the Prime Minister square the circle? Can he keep NATO and the Americans happy, and at the same time stay faithful to the owners of British debt by keeping up austerity? The Foreign Secretary says “regular armed forces” will be maintained. What does this mean? That those deemed not “front-line” – a military term used recently to cut the civil service support staff – will be sacked? Or wage freezes and cuts? Or a further deterioration of military support and equipment? The state of British military equipment was already shown to be completely inadequate in Blair’s oil wars, where soldiers were sent to the front without body armour.
In the present situation capital cannot serve two masters – NATO and austerity. Either there must be a severe reduction of the “armed bodies of men”, which protect the interests of British capitalism abroad and at home; or there where will be a formal maintenance of army numbers and a sharp deterioration of conditions. Both will undermine Britain’s standing in NATO, and NATO’s standing generally. If Britain commits to match NATO spending plans and protects the defence budget, then the capitalists will come for other areas of spending. There is already a question mark over whether hospitals and schools will remain “ring-fenced” in the next parliament.
This latest report once again exposes British capitalism as a spent force in terminal decline. Capitalism is gnawing away at its entrails, undermining the superstructure that issues from it. It is destabilising the world it polices, and diminishing the means by which to police it.
