Brexit can best be understood as a civil war within capitalism(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Brexit can best be understood as a civil war within capitalism
https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1329701729328357379
30 comments
This is a list of points without much justification. It reads like the author is just pushing their own ideology and projecting it onto what's happening to the UK. Then around point 16 he straight up jumps into conspiracy theory teritory when he talks about "money's overlords". Kind of disappointing that this post somehow made it to the front page.
It would very naive to believe extremely wealthy interests did not play a very large part in Brexit. One example of such dark money is the funnelling of half a million euro through Northern Ireland [1] to influence London voters.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-...
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-...
Of course wealthy interests played a role. And there's also evidence of foreign interference which was never fully investigated or disclosed. Those are seriously problematic. But they are different from implying (like point 16 in the OP does) that there is an organised global network or wealthy people whose goal is to take over countries and who have taken over Chile and Indonesia and are now happy to add the UK to their list.
From my reading of this, it could also imply an unorganised set of the predatory wealthy all acting within their own self-interest, rather than a conspiratorial cabal.
That such 21st century robber barons are seeking to gain from Brexit is no secret. It is likely this is what the author refers to.
That such 21st century robber barons are seeking to gain from Brexit is no secret. It is likely this is what the author refers to.
It doesn't need to be an "organised global network" as in "sinister people gathered around a shady table". But it's naive to think the mega-rich don't use their immense power to influence entire countries and the fragile democracies therein.
He seems pretty on point to me. And he offered more explanation than you just did. Care to defend your position?
Actually he talks about "money's warlords", which from context refers to those who would have control in a plutocracy.
The author seems to confuse "Brexit can be viewed through the prism of" with "Brexit is". He provides evidence for the weaker claim, but then treats the issue as if he has proven the stronger claim.
I highly recommend reading Dominic Cummings directly to see the level of thinking exhibited by one of the Brexit architects. For example, https://dominiccummings.com/2019/02/21/on-the-referendum-29-...
I highly recommend reading Dominic Cummings directly to see the level of thinking exhibited by one of the Brexit architects. For example, https://dominiccummings.com/2019/02/21/on-the-referendum-29-...
George Monbiot is a well-known leftist book author and commentator in the UK, who regularly writes for the Guardian.
I find this analysis interesting and on point but wonder why he wrote it on Twitter as a series of tweets instead of as an article in the Guardian.
I find this analysis interesting and on point but wonder why he wrote it on Twitter as a series of tweets instead of as an article in the Guardian.
Audience is different on Twitter.
"Civil war within capitalism" literally makes no sense. There is no such thing.
In fact if you were to try to associate civil war with economic system. Brexit is 'civil war against socialism' A no deal with the EU harms not the UK but it harms the EU. Worse yet, it harms the Eastern EU that much more whereas France and Germany benefit. That's why no-deal is going to happen.
In fact if you were to try to associate civil war with economic system. Brexit is 'civil war against socialism' A no deal with the EU harms not the UK but it harms the EU. Worse yet, it harms the Eastern EU that much more whereas France and Germany benefit. That's why no-deal is going to happen.
> Brexit is an opportunity not just to rip up specific rules, which it overtly aims to do, but also to tear down the uneasy truce between capitalism and democracy under which pro-social rules are set and enforced.
wut.
The EU may be many great things, but democratic it is not - particularly when compared to a democratic national government.
wut.
The EU may be many great things, but democratic it is not - particularly when compared to a democratic national government.
Why is not democratic?
I'd say Brexit is a change from one set of rules to the other, but I would not call EU or GB free markets or capitalist states, as major parts of economies are heavily regulated, including agricultural and money sector (central banking). I dislike decentralisation as war analogy, it is anything but war.
Can you give examples in history of capitalist states?
I guess capitalist state is an oxymoron. Either you have capitalism or a state.
"What Is Capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy."
"What Is Capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy."
Brexit is seasteading.
18. A no-deal Brexit will be devastating for millions of people in the UK. But it’s not about us. We are just the grass that gets trampled in capitalism's civil war.
Is this really a capitalism civil war? Instead it sounds like a war between opposing entities for control of the definition of capitalism. Per the tweets, neither are actual capitalist, but distorted knockoffs. The winner of the war gets to crown themselves the kings & queens of capitalism. Accurate or not.
Is this really a capitalism civil war? Instead it sounds like a war between opposing entities for control of the definition of capitalism. Per the tweets, neither are actual capitalist, but distorted knockoffs. The winner of the war gets to crown themselves the kings & queens of capitalism. Accurate or not.
It’s about keeping the spoils not crowning.
>Per the tweets, neither are actual capitalist, but distorted knockoffs.
There are no "actual capitalists". There are only "really existing capitalists" - everything else is a no true scotchman, because those types are not some rare exceptions, but the norm for centuries...
There are no "actual capitalists". There are only "really existing capitalists" - everything else is a no true scotchman, because those types are not some rare exceptions, but the norm for centuries...
I've got a wild theory, so hear me out. Maybe Britain wanted to be governed by a set of law's made by British people?
and the british electorate could have used its power in controlling the levers of one of the most pampered and privileged members of the eu to keep laws friendly to british business in the same way they've done it since thatcher, but apparently that wasn't good enough
This was already the case before Brexit, via Parliamentary sovereignty.
If what you said was actually true in practice, then why would people be mad that they were leaving?
Losing access to the schengen zone travel and trade wise is a big deal. IIRC EU market is largest single market, or was. 'The Troubles' was really devastating and people rightfully fear going back.
Various reasons, e.g. losing the perceived economic benefits of a free trade zone with the rest of the EU countries.
EDIT:
I can't reply to the comment below for some reason, so here's what I was going to say:
Much of the EU's unpopularity amongst the Brexit-supporting section of the UK's population comes from it repeatedly being used as a convenient scapegoat for domestic political issues, and the country's most-read newspapers printing decades of nonsense ("EU bans yogurt and cheese from school dinners", "EU bans straight and bendy bananas", etc.) that were taken as fact about what a broken institution it is.
Brexit was really just the end result of a spectacularly successful sustained propaganda campaign.
EDIT:
I can't reply to the comment below for some reason, so here's what I was going to say:
Much of the EU's unpopularity amongst the Brexit-supporting section of the UK's population comes from it repeatedly being used as a convenient scapegoat for domestic political issues, and the country's most-read newspapers printing decades of nonsense ("EU bans yogurt and cheese from school dinners", "EU bans straight and bendy bananas", etc.) that were taken as fact about what a broken institution it is.
Brexit was really just the end result of a spectacularly successful sustained propaganda campaign.
[deleted]