The Pre-history of Brexit: Empire, Race and Class in the Road to Brexit
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2023
- The first talk in The Pre and Post-History of Brexit - Race, Class and Finance in the Making of British Economic Strategy Series explored the prehistory of Brexit and its roots in the post-imperial crisis of British industry and the neoliberal approach to British political economy of successive British governments in the 1990's during the high tide of European integration. Damon Silvers focuses on the centrality of issues of race, class and empire to the economic fate of post-imperial Britain.
When the UK joined the EC wages were roughly a third below those on the Continent which in theory offered British industry, at least initially, a huge competitive advantage. Unfortunately, for reasons you refer to, these opportunities were never properly identified or exploited. The necessary and inevitable change of focus away from the 'lost' colonies to Europe was not sufficiently accompanied and supported by a vision or a concept for Britain''s economic future. By and large many of our products, while perhaps good enough for the needs of the Commonwealth , were not of a quality or standard as was required in the more "advanced" markets in Europe. Coupled with a lack of investment due to shareholders greed for dividends, often amateur management by an haughty elite, poor training and the apalling industrial relations alluded to, Britain was never likely to recover from its imperial past
But David,
Those haughty English business-owners needed those dividends.
Do you know what one of those German Rolls-Royces they have to drive cost?
This is most insightful. For many years I wondered why Britain chose to turn away from the Commonwealth, which represented low-hanging fruit (in short: a large captive market for British exports and the pursuit of Britain's little interests while pretending to be "doing good" and to be nurturing relationships with former colonies).Thanks to this discussion that gap in my knowledge has been plugged. The South Rhodesia and Nigeria events of the 1960s are certainly not mentioned in mainstream British media or school curricula anywhere around the world.
Ultimately the one man who has been proved right is Charles de Gaulle. He must have known Britain saw Europe as no more than a trading partner and that it would never buy into the European integration project. Indeed Britain spent the following 40 years doing just that: enjoying the benefits of trade and movement with the EU while blaming the same institution for all its problems, including self-inflicted ones.
Clearly a large portion of Britain does not feel the EU is only a trading partner. Many many (especially young) people felt a part of their identity had been stolen along with brexit.
Yet don't fight back hard enough against the politicians who did it
This is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the UK socio-political-economic system I have ever encountered. Everyone and especially our politicians in this country should see it. Even if most politicians would not understand it, many would just feel the authenticity of this argument. Both political Parties and the political system itself are all far beyond their sell by date. We have to kick the whole system out of the pitch and start again.
Thank you for this excellent lecture series.
With many others, I left the UK in 1976 during the Wilson/Callaghan Premiership frustrated with the blinkered lack of vision and leadership.
The UK felt it was as a blind man stumbling around in the dark, trying to find its way.
Nothing has changed in the succeeding almost 50 years and to this day, the UK with its lack of vision, leadership and direction still stumbles around in the dark.
The UK is by no means the only country stumbling around blindly, which for me is more a reflection of the immaturity, ignorance and incompetence of Mankind.
I agree. But the UK seems to stumble much worse than some other countries at the moment. And I think this lecture gives some very good reasons why that is so.
Absolutely doubt this comment.
@Saveself99 please explain your doubt.
I agree with you, Sue. Unlike you, I arrived in London on Friday 13th September 1976, coming from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Having been born the day before the Fuhrer shot himself while biting on the cyanide capsule after killing his healthy canine and enjoying the death of Eva Prawn (sic) as a honeymoon present. A happy married life, I'm sure. So, yes, neoliberalism is power, not freedom, and always leads to authoritarianism which is our beloved polite word for fascism and Nazi ideology. We sapiens and white supremacist racists and bigots seem to love dictators and being told what to do, what to think, who to hang out with, who to have sex with, who to marry, who to drink with, and fully enjoy hating Them, the Other, because our evolutionary baggage tells us to. Being helpless by choice to take advantage of the plasticity of our brain and actively engage with our newest evolutionary development: the frontal cortex, we happily ignore Global Heating Climate Emergency, nuclear holocaust, dystopia and rush into Mother nature's evolutionary arms as we gleefully cross the threshold into happy extinction as a failed species that could have bucked evolution and survived. I came to Londongrad not to make my fortune, as Dick Whittington did. I came to Europe making Londongrad a hub, not to work or pay tax or a silly TV licence but to repay my non-racist antinationalist sisters and brothers of with taxes and service, never silly Britain. My ancestry goes back 1,000 years before Doomsday Book when the penny dropped in 1909 when my grandparents immigrated to America and never looked back, thereby abandoning generations of monarchical class-system poverty and giving me the 1st education and blessed with a solid comfortable middle class Californian standard of living. As a creative artist and serious high art musician, I followed my 2 callings and my bliss in spite of the silly British Brittunculi 😂 Brexit is the current symptomatic disaster that ended music and art, among everything good in the UK. There's right and there's wrong. Being kind and being committed to a love ethic is the only way to survive as a species. Britain is the "canary in the mine", a "basket case" as Nouriel Roubini's book , "Megathreats" proves that the world has closed dystopia over utopia. But, Teresa May was correct. Utopia doesn't exist ("utopia" means "nowhere"). "A citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere". Well, my country is the world. As Mitterrand said, "Nationalism IS war!". The EU is/was the hope of preventing war and our extinction and saving humanity. It is clear that power and money has, once again, chosen war, destruction, extinction and fully backs British monarchical class-system and white supremacy (single-handedly invented by the English). The overthrow of our hunter-gatherer brains insures the destruction of life and our extinction as a dead man walking failed species. These lectures give chapter and verse of our guaranteed end. Enjoy life short as it is. "Who cares about history, we'll all be dead!" - US president Bush, Jnr.
You don't say which comment you "absolutely doubt". I was just curious, is all.
23:00 he makes the same mistake as nearly everyone, in believing the 1975 referendum was about UK joining the European Economic Community (EEC). The European Communities Act 1972 was when UK was taken into EEC, without referring the decision to the population. The referendum in 1975 was asking the population if UK should remain in EEC or withdraw.
Interesting detail. Often countries are taking life changing commitments and arrangements without asking the people who are concerned, recent examples include CPTPP or Paris Agreement.
He also didn't get to the part where Economic Union morphed into Surrender your army into a joined-up thing.
@@laurisafine7932Risible bollocks. Anyway, what's wrong with being in a military union as well as an economic one? We are in NATO, after all, which is a military union.
Do you also feel we should remove ourselves from the UN as well?
@@markdnffc 1. Tax rebate. 2.Yes, post haste.
At about 1:18:51, I've often wondered about this. We in the US complain that manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, but the real problems are much closer to home. The fact that increased profits by workers in the US are have not resulted in higher wages.
Rand corp completed a study that quantified approximately $50T was effectly looted out of the middle class since 1980 or so in the US. That's money, wealth, health and prosperity they would have been. Minimum wage is miraculously flat; median income is about 1/3rd the value; highest incomes grew literally thousands of times. Homes on average are 10 times higher, roughly the same for food. We were deliberately left in the dust by an ideology of greed. These aren't natural market forces. Natural market forces would mean the cost of labor would keep up with the cost of everything else. Median income is supposed to be $180k rn. Minimum wage could have kept up with that, and depending on where you are in the country rn, anywhere from $25-40/hr. And the ruling elites and billionaires would still be able to live in the lap of luxury with their highest incomes goong around 20-40 times median income - vs whats currently an average of 2000-4000 times more. Something ain't right and it's almost too obvious. The money pays for the politics, and the politics let's the money do what it wants, knives out for the public sector and middle class, and a boot in the face for the lower class. Average people start going hungry (like in UK...) or fighting an existential war, we'd be looking at some real serious precursors to some French revolution conditions, and theyre telling us to eat cake. He touched on the offshore wealth in another recent lecture. At least for US, it's estimated that the interest payments on our offshore wealth alone is the entire US tax base, at least based off of 2016 numbers. At least 12-15% of all the global money supply is just chilling tax free, growing, bankrupting country after country. Mass tax evasion. We're in very, very deep, deeper than we'll ever know. The communists were pretty shit when it came to implementing humane policies, but they knew exactly what they were fighting against, global capital imperialism, or whatever you want to call it, a rotten exploitative system that has now virtually enslaved all of humanity. Buys the water and mineral rights from under our feet, sells it back to us, keeps us on the meter, and wants us to worship it as the only game in town therefore they have to be the good guys. Imagine the length of the gallows to resolve all this mess...
Try to hire minority people to do anything. Try to substitute teach in an urban school. You'll modify your liberal view. There are deep chasms of culture and lifestyle. There are millions who want nothing more than to take your money, screw all day and take drugs. True: most of them do not want to work. Don't presume they think like you.
It was Edward Heath (Conservative PM) who took Britain into the Common Market, NOT Wilson (Labour).
Yes. He signed it.
Very compelling lecture. As someone who consumes informative CZcams content 1-2 hours per day, I rate this *****. I found profound new knowledge and better understandings of neoliberalism and global social and economic struggles. You have a new dedicated follower. Thank you
One of Britain's key union leaders in the 1970s was Vic Feather - he was also largely responsible for the post-war union reorganisation in West Germany.
Fascinating! Thank you so much for publishing this 🙏🏻
Someone should explain that “Free Trade deals” are actually about managing how trade happens.
The only truly ‘free’ trade is inside a Single Market and Customs Union.
Excellent discussion. Professor Silvers points out the productivity gains that occurred over 40+ years in the United States that were completely captured by capital. Labor rates in aggregate were flat and I would argue lost ground to moderate inflation. There are great graphs available that show the rise of neo-liberal power at the point in time where the trend line diverged in a big way: Reaganomics. Google wage vs productivity. I'd give you the URL except that all my past efforts have been deleted from youtube.
One has to wonder how capital in the US was able to so absolutely dominate wage growth and export its poison to the British commonwealth and the rest of its empire. Capital was very well organized by well funded think tanks and labor was not informed enough to understand the implications of supply side economics let alone push back. Reaganomics was part of a full court press that started in the economic departments of almost every college and university in the US. The US university system's primary export is and was market fundamentalist graduates. What I like to call gentlemen "C" economists.
At the same time, the FED's mandates were changed by the monetarists from combating bank runs to achieving "full employment". Full employment is a euphemism for wage suppression by increasing demand for labor by lowering the cost of labor in aggregate. This is only part of the reason wages are flat lined while productivity skyrocketed.
At the same time, Microsoft and others got into education in a big way and courses for Microsoft office suite products became economic drivers for education. Workers literally donated to capital vast amounts of time, money, and effort learning to use technology that often was obsolete by the time they learned it just to stay employed. The technology was moving that quickly. They were told that they would receive a higher wage if they donated their time, money, and effort, but in reality even IT wages barely kept up with inflation with long bouts of unemployment between retraining. Employers unwilling to pay for training were literally able to capture the productivity gains without paying for it.
Market fundamentalism was pushing deregulation for Wall Street and the chambers of commerce. Monetarism was being pushed by banksters. Reaganomics and the so called neo-cons were driving public policy. Financialization started running a muck everywhere and gaining power. Wealth inequality was growing with each tax break and it was all funded with public debt. Damn I miss the 60s and Keynesian economic public policy.
Amazing lecture, thanks
I find your honesty, directness, and thoroughness make you the most compelling professor from which I have had the honor to learn.
The last question was as good as the lecture :)
fascinatory
I'm coming to this series right after tim snyders modern history of ukraine lectures. I'm kind of using them as a tool to place that conflict into a greater economic context as well. Very interesting. Thanks for posting!
Same. What else would you recommend ? Thank you
Great series, got me to voraciously read Gary Gerstle book on the rise and fall. Part 4 coming any time soon?
Interesting lecture. It could do with a pinned comment with links to the previous and future episodes of this series.
Great lecture. I was genuinely puzzled by the Brexit vote by industrial workers, who by voting for Brexit, were shooting themselves in both feet. The trade union story, where workers said, "why didn't you tell us then!" is remarkable. How could they not have known? As Prof Silver says, there were not enough trusted sources of information with the demise in union strength. This made union workers vulnerable to the lies peddled by the right wing tabloids.
The problem is that they are just thick. if they had a little bit of the intelligence they'd be asking why we are not treated and paid like Germans or French.
They voted to compete with Chinese, Indian workers and they really want it because they cry for all EU laws to go.
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Aaaaaaaak
❤aaha
T
Excellent
Great stuff. Charts need to be larger.
Wilson was told that the RAF would not fight the Royal Rhodesian Air Force the latter being commanded by officers that served with the RAF in WW2.
What a Magnificent Professor...Why the Hell isn't Professor Silvers Front and Centre to a much larger part of the Western World...My Goodness We Need Him...!!!
Amazing lecture series!
Excellent and insightful lecture.
I love this series. It gives me ammo for when some neoliberal shill or parrot starts slamming unions or "big government".
A revelatory lecture, thank you! One correction: Nehru didn't weigh in on the crisis in Southern Rhodesia. He had died the previous year, 1964.
Great lecture though. 💯🎯
Wow... just wow
Is this the first one? They need to be numbered!!
Great lecture, Thanks.
But one error in the text. @46:04 the text reads "LEAVE", but you say the word "remain". From the graph, clearly "remain" is correct word. ie:
"No Parliamentary Constituency that had more than 25% of its workforce in industry voted REMAIN in 2015"
Absolutely fantastic lecture!
Brilliant lecture! I was really struck by how perfectly this talk didn't, and didn't need to mention post-financial-crisis austerity policies or the proliferation of social media as a tool of propaganda...
Instead, we can focus on key historic events which contribute to those more recent phenomena but do a much better job of telling a clear and far-reaching story, much more compelling than the very offensive "collective insanity" explanation which underlies so much brexit related public discourse.
Freedom of movement led to wage stagnation and extra competition for jobs, housing, etc. People had a chance to change that. It really is that simple.
Wage stagnation is a choice of those who control wages... It doesn't help that they'll happily save a buck by *also* exploiting foreign labour, but it wasn't workers who kept wages down it was bosses who prevented rising profits from ever benefiting those, of any race or country of origin, who actually do the work.
@@itsPenguinBoy The bosses could keep wages low because of an endless supply of cheap labour.
It is capitalism at it`s finest. The bigger the labour pool, the lower the wages, then bigger profits for the shareholders.
This is not an accident. It is designed for this to happen.
@@clownofthetimes6727 The "endless supply" of cheap labour doesn't affect it as much as you think. Wages are kept low with or *without* immigration... You're blaming the wrong group.
@@itsPenguinBoy Except wages went up after Brexit in the sectors affected by cheap labour.
It is simple maths and simple demand and supply. You can say what you want but I have witnessed it and do not need any graphs or charts. When we have more labour the wages stagnate with the only wage growth done is when the government raises the minimum wage.
This is the system we are in. It is not left nor right. It does not recognize individual people. It is capitalism. I do not like it and voted to change the system we were in. other people voted for more of the same, more capitalism.
In short to have freedom of labour not to impact wages you would have to get rid of capitalism and that defeats the whole point of freedom of labour.
On a final note how have the capitalists got you fighting their battles for them?
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying supply and demand doesn't exist, or even that the wages you've seen going up haven't gone up for the exact reasons you're saying. I am not asking you to discard what you know, but I am asking you to add to it.
Any sectors where things have improved, they haven't improved enough to make a dent on the big picture (which is why it's important to *look* at the big picture). Our standard of living is crashing, our household incomes, at all levels, apart from top 10% are flatlining.
Many of the things we are facing would be happening with or without membership of the EU, which is why now everyone, regardless of which way they voted needs to turn their attention to the actual culprits.
Brexit had to happen because of the *way* the UK reformed industry with the help of the common market.
It could have been a long term force for good, but instead it was a short term cash-cow which helped us though the 80s and 90s, AND created a smokescreen for massive power grabs by those who were getting richer while many were doing 'ok', so that when things did come crashing down in 2008 'ok' became 'tough luck mate'.
That's the whole point of this lecture and it's why I really liked it. Not insulting anyone for how they voted but highlighting the problems we're facing, where they came from and how to fix them.
Personal experience can only get us so far; we have to share our knowledge with eachother, build trust, build movements and broaden our opinions. So yeah, this kind of conversation, this kind of lecture, plus graphs and that.
Also important in British Empire history is apartheid South Africa, the largest gold producer in the world at the time & key source of wealth for many FTSE40 companies, withdrawing from the Commonwealth in 1960.
And this slide at 44:58, where is says LEAVE, should, it in fact, say REMAIN?
The point of the lecture is…1:20:53
I guess there is a little error on the slide about Support for Europe. Where says "No Parliamentary Constituency that had more than 25% of its workforce in industry voted LEAVE in 2015", should be "... voted STAY in 2016".
The previous elections were in 2015, which is where the numbers are from, so the date is correct but you are right about the "Leave" part. It should be "Remain".
Hey! I wrote a tune that starts like that ringtone! 59:57
Basically he is pointing to the fact that the British tory government are as thick as they look.
lol
It’s usually not that simple.
You are right, some of them have deep psychological problems.
They're not so much stupid as out of touch with the majority of the UK population. They can't see beyond their Westminster bubble.
The same can be said for intellectuals and academics who are also estranged from the majority of everyday people lives and trapped in their ideological bubble.
The Brexit vote burst both bubbles.
@@BreezeTalkPeople are looking for simple answers to explain away the Brexit vote.
Accusations of racism, nostalgia or stupidity are simple and easy answers to explain away very complex, deep issues in a society outside of Westminster and academia, that have caused much of the population to vote for Brexit.
This is a truly amazing lecture, imagine what the UK would have won if they had engaged in a different way with their fromer colonies.
A wide ranging and perceptive lecture. I've no problems with an American academic sharing his expertise on this subject (from his closing remarks I think his stance would be compatible with a Clintonesque or Obamesque Think tank's deliberations i.e. in favour of an entrepreneurial society with both a big and small D democratic orientation - but I personally have no problem with that). However at some stage it would be worth having other transnational contributions - a British academic on the US or Europe. The observation made around 53 minutues in that in the absence of alternatives to neo-liberalism and authoritarism, the latter has a distinct advantage can be applied more widely and I'm thinking specifically of France's current political difficulties. There might be value in considering the post Brexit world in the context of the other destablising challenges - and Timothy Snyder who has been mentioned in other comments has been very helpful in this regard.
Once again an excellent lecture.
Oh, I think Thatcher started implementing American financial policy after seeing both Commonwealth and Blocks from France for joining the commonwealth forced UK into Americas arms, would that be correct?
Typo?
As I understand it. Because Britain had incurred huge debts for its war efforts and had to be bailed out with loans by the US which were only finally paid off at the end of 2006, strict conditions were imposed; the pound sterling had to lose its hegemony to allow the dollar to take over as the new global currency hegemon and the pound to ride on the back of the dollar; Britain,s Colonies had to open their markets for American goods and services. That was the start of the loss of the British Empire to America; much the same as you had with Zeus in replacing his father Cronos and Yahweh in replacing his father, El. The US insisted that Britain hand over all its assets, domestic as well as overseas, private as well as public; for example, if Lord and Lady Astor had money and assets in America, they were to be handed over to pay for the loans; which annoyed Keynes. Michael Hudson: Superimperialism; Origin and Fundamentals of US World Dominance, and Changes in Superimperialism on CZcams.
@Marc van den Boogaard I would've thought the interest on the debt alone would've been compounded, so would've taken years to pay off. Many nations have been put in debt and paying interest in perpetuity. It's the way for the US to gain control over others and their resources. In the case of Britain, "The United States' economic superiority and financial opportunism during and immediately after the second world war destabilized Great Britain's economy in the postwar due to the financial implications of the Anglo-American loan held against the indebted empire. The Anglo-American loan encouraged Great Britain to acquire more debts through economic subordination to multilateral trade and to revoke its title as the 'Great World Power' Jessica Solomon - Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History.
@@sirfrozsomji3984 The US would've been fine to let the great empire to fall to Germany as well?
Great lecture, however, would like to point out that Newcastle is just outside Sunderland.
"Imposed change", yes, but to say that the Leave vote was made up largely of people who understood that it was imposed as a result of neo-liberal policies agreed by the EU is to give voters a better understanding than most of them had. The UK followed the events of 2007/8 with "austerity"; I think that made many people's lives worse than, say, the EU's regulation concerning minimum wages and foreign contractors. That so many laid the blame on the EU was the result of efficient propaganda, and centuries of the British class structure.
This is excellent. I have a view on Britain's slide based on shear opportunism and desperation and vanity. Very glad you addressed racism. The consequences of passports and mobility seems to allow people to happily cruel themselves.
At the heart of all this (the politics the industrial relations) is the British class system. If you can't get past the class system, the country economically speaking, is set to under-perform and fail in a globalised (neo-liberal) market. I think it's no conspiracy to conclude that this is understood by the elite in the UK but the idea is to make enough money and insulate oneself from the decline.
To make and keep enough money
And keep ineffective democratic structures going long enough to ensure that whenever they're superseded (universal suffrage; female suffrage; first-past-the-post), the successor is equally ineffective.
And the economic stagnation was also a function of high housing costs whether rental or purchase driven by the UK selling its residential housing market out to investors. Housing takes so much out of the pocket of the average person that they stagnate at best fall behind at worst. They fail to realize equity without engaging in the slavery that is landlordism. They have to get a buy to let mortgage on yet another house and exploit someone else to gain equity fast enough to be able to pay off one property before they die. This is just one input to the function but it is a factor that should be talked about.
Germany and Japan never outsourced their industry because they lost the war and knew what happens when workers can shift from center to far left or far right. Thus, the elites respected the unions. In US and UK, there was no such a fear.
This lecturer gets it completely wrong when he says there was a referendum 'to join' the common market in 1975, Britain by this time had already joined in 1973 - having joined contrary to Britain's constitution (joining was an act of treason.) The referendum in 1975 was whether Britain should stay in the so-called common market - on assurances that there would be no essential loss of sovereignty.
Can you tell us the name of your colleague who has written Effective Bureaucracies. I cannot a reference to it anwhere.
Competing in an open, globalised world.
How does free trade actually work?
The early neoclassical economists took the rentiers out of economics.
Hiding rentier activity in the economy does have some surprising consequences.
The interests of the rentiers and capitalists are opposed with free trade.
This nearly split the Tory Party in the 19th century over the Repeal of the Corn Laws.
The rentiers gains push up the cost of living.
The landowners wanted to get a high price for their crops, so they could make more money.
The capitalists want a low cost of living as they have to pay that in wages.
The capitalists wanted cheap bread, as that was the staple food of the working class, and they would be paying for it through wages.
Of course, that’s why it’s so expensive to get anything done in the West.
It’s our high cost of living.
Disposable income = wages - (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages, reducing profit.
High housing costs have to be paid in wages, reducing profit.
The playing field was tilted against the West with free trade due to our high cost of living
The early neoclassical economists had removed the rentiers from economics so we didn’t realise.
Western firms off-shored to places with a low cost of living, where they could pay lower wages and make more profit, e.g. China.
We never understood free trade; we do need tariffs to level the playing field.
It was always going to work against us.
When we were in the EU, we were competing against other uncompetitive Western nations, which is what we needed with our high cost of living.
India was not, in 1945, the Empire's largest territory. It had the largest population, is what he wanted to say.
You almost said Canada
There was a lot of anti European racism during and after the Brexit date. When I visited I was shocked by the experiences of Eastern European workers who were leaving Britain because their children were being abused at school. People were openly asked in the streets when they were going to leave. About a million left, reportedly, since Brexit. Brexit made open racism " respectable" and official. Britain's ruling caste has old imperialist outlook that "divide and rule " works for them and British workers have a historic attitude that inequality is good for them. The US Gov through its agencies has learned from Britain that you can't have an empire without divide and rule strategies.
Where is the name of the speaker?
At 0:17, Rosemary
you can only sell the family silver once.
It's a little rich for an American to sneer at Canada, Australia and New Zealand as being "settler" countries.
The Prime Minister of Canada at the time of Rhodesia's UDI was Lester Pearson, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work following the Suez Crisis and introducing the concept of armed peacekeepers. He was also responsible for resisting U.S. pressure for Canada to send troops to Viet Nam.
To portray an opposition to armed intervention in Rhodesia as a racist backlash from a "settler" "white" dominion demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of Canadian foreign policy in the 1960's. To blame, in part, Pearson for Wilson's refusal to impose majority rule by force smacks of desperation to preserve Wilson's reputation.
Bit of a curate's egg. The overall explanation is plausible with a clear political position. But there are too many key statements made that lack justification ( although I accept that in a time restricted presentation, some supporting detail must be forgone). Many of the historical political and economic policy decisions made re Europe, commonwealth & the UK economy , lack nuance & an understanding of the myriad of factors affecting decisions. It is always easy in hindsight to point out mistakes and errors. There are also numerous historical factual errors.
Certainly the key position that the de-industialisation of large swathes of the industrial Midlands & North, left an embittered & resentful populous, especially as many of the people who profited from Europe & globalisation, appeared to hold them in disdain if not outright contempt.
The EU wanted to tighten tax, UK account holders didn’t want to…?
All the big banks, big corporations, big employers, the CBI, were strongly in favour of remaining in the European Union.
Moving on. Interesting subtext; The US played a pivotal role in interfering in the Portuguese elections in the early months of 1975, even supporting moderate socialist parties against the communists by channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum and to key moderate media outlets. The CIA got involved also, encouraging the armed forces to act, promising them total support with clandestine arms shipments if the country descended into a civil war. This brought an end to the leftist Junta's hold on power. - "When the clever see danger: U.S. Covert Action in Portugal" Cullen Nutt. It's an irony when you had the US screaming about possible Russian interference in the American elections during the Trump Era.
Damon Silvers
Good series, interesting argument
However your lecturer slide 45 minutes says
No Parliamentary Constituency That had
more than 25% of it workforce in industry voted LEAVE in 2015
Shouldn't this be REMAIN ?
Basically i think the Class War was ameliorated by the post war consensus
then a shift in US dollar/gold/pound policy meant UK ruling class had to smash the Unions
or face a full fledged left alternative
Labour as usual led the betrayal with In place of strife and Social Contract
and then Tory Ridley Plan set up a deliberate series of attacks on Unions with
Anti Union Laws and an engineered Recession causing
mass unemployment 3.8-4 million but add in long-term sick and it looks more like 5M
All dependent on North Sea Oil revenues
The petite bourgeoise were embolden the Falklands was a winner
So 1978 Fire Fighters 1979 Haulage Workers Dockers
1980 -1984 Bakers Steel Rail Ship Yards Car Workers Murdoch Sun
then Labour and Trade Unions failed to adequately support the miners
I bet that's in the Clore Building. We were lectured there when it was new, which was nice for us in the Politics and Society Faculty, but I couldn't help but think that it was also going to be whored out for corporate events and "research", like our faculties (sic) were increasingly.
04:36 *...harked back, but we usually put in present perfect, like harks back. Neoliberalism or monetarism harks back to Fiscal-type policies of the 19th Century. The children harken the bell, obviously; the only case to use harken in actual English. Hark, the herald angel sings.
We use that phrase a lot in current usage, it's not something that has popped into our zeitgeist via MSNBC. It's always something harking back to something else, isn't it. Never "harkens", because that's wrong. I hope he doesn't expect double spacing in his essays and end notes instead of footnotes, because we do things differently at UCL, we do things the normal English way, like with using harks back properly. At least he calls it the 19th Century and not the "1800s", which is the standard in the US now.
26:53, yeah, we have in the UK what we call an adversarial system of labour relations, you know, like the dumb ideas that feed into pluralism in our common atlantic capitalist style, and German neocorporatism, where government (this is when my UCL lecturer did the 3 bubbles with these words in them with lines going between up on the whiteboard), unions and bosses would sit down and carve out a deal, strikes were seen as a failure, although unions often sold their own worker's rights out in order to get a deal, the most important thing; overall as you indicate, productivity and worker protections are a lot stronger in the rhennish-style capitalist economies in Europe today as a result of this, especially when the EC of the EU legislates along with this and we get things like paid paternity leave.
In the US and UK with our adversarial, "pluralist" (sic) system (sic), there needs to be a fight, or strikes in order to get concessions from bosses, the government is neutral arbiter (lol, that's what we see in practice all the time, and not the government totally siding with bosses), so we get the system we deserve in the end if were don't reform it, since we both have versions of Hobbesian tacit agreement or approval of this system. We need another fight or revolution in order to change that, because our systems are adversarial, not neocorporatist, at least, that's what we were told as undergraduates in basic modules at UCL, though the readings seemed to back that up.
Thank you very interesting!
In Sweden the market radicals movement started in about the late 70ies with strong corporate and financial support and also international corporation. In the early 2000 this movement started recruitment of university students advertised for all liberal youth organizations. And pushed forward the most radical students.
So my impression is that this movement is more influential now than ever before and gained prevalence in many areas. So I think in Sweden neoliberal ideas still has strong support by media, liberal political youth and parties.
The socialist Scandinavia was coup'ed by the market religious Anglo f'ckers. It'll take many years to get the market religion out of politics..
English seem incapable of understanding what it means to be an ISLAND nation which had depleted it's resources with wreck less abandon. Empire allowed English to take whatever resources it desired from the rest of their empire
Do you expect them to defeat the laws of nature?
@@tuckerbugeater liberalism has always been at war with human nature!
Depletion of resources wasn't the driver of empire, it was trade turned into greed and thirst for power and control. That applied to many European powers at the time.
The US played a major role in supporting right-wing military dictatorships; the Greek junta for one: "US support for the junta, which was staunchly anti-communist, is claimed to be the cause of rising ant-Americanism in Greece during and following the junta's undemocratic rule" Wikipedia. "Anti-communism backed by the US, was a code word for anti-progressivism, anti-liberalism, and anti-intellectualism that dominated the armed forces and other public institutions of Cold War" - Quora.
He's taking too many questions, and not answering them all...
Excellent, thought provoking lecture.
My one disagreement is the insistence that the neoliberal system was imposed from the top down, especially on the workers. Ever since the Conservatives were elected to power under Thatcher in 1979, the British, especially the English, electorate has taken every opportunity, in elections and referenda, to vote in favour of neoliberalism - and all of the (negative) consequences that follow. One can blame the FPTP voting system for this, yet when the chance was offered to get rid of it in 2011, the electorate decided to keep it. So, far from being imposed from the top down, neoliberalism has been voted for from the bottom up, time after time without fail.
Resources play a key role in neo-liberal governments. Oil has driven US hegemony, as it has in Europe and the UK. Now the African nations are slowly re-organising to use their vast resources ( even cocoa) to squeeze the West. Never forget that the most hated country on the planet is England, followed by the US. In Australia we are happy when we beat you at cricket but in the post colonial world they want to see you on your knees.
*_The speaker is not good enough to explain his thesis in language which the subject demanded._*
Brexit was a working-class resistence against neoliberalism and reaction against the bank bailouts in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
Brexit was the working classes reasserting their voice for democracy.
It's hard for the middle-classes and academics to understand this.
They try so hard to explain Brexit away rather than face the reality of working class people.
working-class resistence against neoliberalism?
reaction against the bank bailouts?
working classes reasserting their voice for democracy?
If only!
The British working classes are predominantly conservative, THAT'S why Wilson didn't send troops to Salisbury, not because of the Canadians. Predominantly conservative and racist.
@@NSBarnettWorking class people are conservative on culture but left on economics and democracy.
Neoliberalism is ruining democracy and their communities.
Brexit was an enormous act of stupidity - but not very surprising.
It isn't new and it's certainly not liberal.
He's the short answer: Brexit was about Economic An卐iety
Not all of "neo-liberalism" is bad (if I understand exactly what it means). Rigid State planning is much worse (Think USSR or Cuba). The villain of the piece is actually lack of fair, transparent and efficient regulation of private industry. I suppose if "neo-liberalism" is defined as global private enterprise with no regulation at all, then "neo-liberalism" is a villain. But that is never the case. There is always some regulation in our modern world, although it is often badly done. The real problem is not then neoliberalism or "globalization", it is how countries regulate it nationally, or how regional blocks like the EU regulate it supra-nationally. What is needed is effective and efficient regulation of private enterprise, that does not prevent private enterprise from staying competitive, trading across borders and creating wealth.
Brexit is a blessing for you guys.
If "you guys" means the EU, your are so right.
Brexit tied up EU trade until they got what they wanted, it allowed Britain to pick and choose trade, laws, and rights...a pick and mix.
It also sent a right wing anti immigrant message across the EU all the way to Scandinavia through the Baltics into the Balkans... Remember political pressure was still in play from the 2008 Financial crisis.
See- Northern Rock.
The war on Syria by America the UK and France, along with the 'Arab Spring ', created a massive refugee crisis, which fed into the right wing policies, talk of a fence around the EU were floated, and the rhetoric started to become reality.
The terrorism that flowed from the influx of Arab nations was never seen as 'people fighting for freedom', those refugees did not get houses or jobs or medical care.
They get tents, in an camp, in the desert. '.
Good luck.
"Frontline" had an excellent documentary on the Arab spring. The role of climate change and subsequent droughts and the influence of food shortages was an interesting factor. For a brief moment it looked inspiring and positive but sadly, didn't pan out for people.
@@lindakelley2676 yes global warming , sure. It definitely had nothing to do with ghadaffi wanting to start an African bank backed by gold and not the dollar. Or the oil and wheat in Syria, or the Suez canal in Egypt, or the war in Yemen...or the British ex intelligence officer who went to head the middle east Twitter office around the same time....
There is plenty of food in the world, but not enough profit unfortunately 😐
I think the professor is making the same mistake most Brits made when it came to Brexit, and that is confuse the necessities and imperatives of business with politics. True, they are inherently interlinked, but they are inherently interlinked under all parties and administrations. True, the administrations can drop the ball and do really stupid things, but this can really only happen when there is confusion that interlinks economic necessity with political propaganda. The British Commonwealth was a failure, but the EU, ,which is essentially a European Commonwealth, works for its members.
I'm not sure the 'Club Med' members of EU would agree with your assertion that the EU "works for its members". EU is now about POWER, not the good of its members.
@@kasegiyabu5030 Doh! Homer! Power? Why would the UK have any interest in that?
@@thomasjamison2050 You comment makes no sense.
@@kasegiyabu5030strange that only English commenters mention that "club Med" members think negatively of the EU.
Since the "Club Med" members themselves are happy to be in them
Greeting from Club Med.
It is freaking delusional to even compare EU nations and their level of integration to the Commonwealth, a club of distant, disparate countries which Elizabeth II looked after as a mere pet project. The Commonwealth might have been a success if it had been able to define its purpose and actions as well as the EU did. It didn't, it was just a hollow past time for an idle sovereign.
Excellent! And yes we need to pay more attention to patriarchy because of the way leaders from Trump, to Xi to Putin implicate gender, masculinity and marginalised sexualities wishing a neoliberal state which is resurgent in terms of patriarchal ideologies.
The hollowing out of the state directly challenges women’s freedom in the public sphere, confines them to early marriage, the home and male authority by restricting reproductive rights among other things, impinges on feminist choices based on dignity, returns caring labour forcefully to women unpaid responsibility by restricting access to public childcare, healthcare, eldercare, and I won’t go on because you know. The gender question is absolutely central to the debacle we’re in.
I agree somewhat but I think it's important to remember that deindustrialization affected men as well. It was the first group that saw their communities and purpose disappear. By refering to them as the patriarchy is objectively wrong, because it would argue that they forced this change on themselves. It risk poison the discourse and not focusing on who own and control a system. They had no stake in forcing this ideology on the broader society. Basic class analysis make it clear where it is not coming from.
@@TheEisel Thanks for the comment but I don’t think you understand what patriarchy is? He has been talking almost exclusively about men for the entire four lectures. I think Maggie Thatcher is the only woman that I even heard being referred to; everything else was centered on men.
Patriarchy isn’t about individuals it’s about structural power and this is a discussion of power in the neoliberal era and how it’s being re-distributed in oppressive ways.
It is you who assumes patriarchy means empathising with women and the way their oppression is privatised and hidden such that it is an afterthought to the main event of men’s lives - and we all wouldn’t want that now would we?
Neither Trump, Xi nor Putin want neoliberalism. They don't want any form of liberalism. They are authoritarian. I agree with your second point about the effects of hollowing out the state but I'm not convinced that gender politics is central. Rather I see it as an indirect and secondary effect of neoliberalism due to the hollowing out of state, education, welfare etc. And as the effects of neoliberalism get worse, these secondary effects get worse as we see for example when authoritarians like Trump or Orbán get into power.
No
@@puretone4970 I believe he goes into the why’s and how’s of this in the second video, entitled understanding Neo Liberalism as a system of power. Can’t recall the exact title but you will find it on this channel and he substantiates this convincingly with evidence. He also specifically mentions China’s movement from the margins to the centre of the neoliberal world order (Tianamen Square Anniversary was yesterday).
If you don’t think gender is central just spare a thought for who will be undertaking the work the welfare state refuses to socialise - public health, child and elder care etc all while juggling paid work and you will see why women are central to the assumptions underpinning the neoliberal agenda. Again I wish he had more time to go into this as it’s not immediately clear what these linkages and assumptions are if you haven’t been studying gender and welfare states in the North or gender and structural adjustment in the global South over the past several decades
We need some large,healthy doses of neoconservatism,but sadly things dont usually work out like they should til its too late.😅😮
Obviously a seriously good lecture, but too long right now. But I will say even now that "Neo-Liberralism" just equals 'same old sh/t' with a different name. Yes, technology can change on a dime, but not politics. I am reminded of John Belushi on Saturday Night Live doing hie 'cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger' skit. But fear not, for the British Empire is still alive and well in its new home in North America where it was able to finally evolve a more balanced system of taxation and representation for a larger population.
I have no idea why anyone would go to the lengths this man does to slander a nation and its people. He must be an extremely bitter and unstable man.
The UK is one of the least xenophobia and racist countries in the world.
I find it absolutely incredible how leaving a 27 country isolationist organisation and rejoin 150 countries of the rest of the world could
Be classed as xenophobia or racist.
Please .let me know why you consider these lies good contexts.
Are you suggesting that Britain, an island with an insular population and corresponding mindset, is _not_ xenophobic? Is not uneducated Britain a glorification of Alf Garnetts?
What a load of nonsense.
Pot pourri
I am ON the road to my future. If you are IN it expect to be run over.
The analysis near the end of this lecture on immigration is factually wrong. The overwhelming resentment was towards the millions of Eastern European immigrants who had entered Britain after 2005 and whose arrival in many towns and cities had added significant pressure on wages, housing, health, education etc. Because of the influx of European workers Britain's population rose from 56 million to 64-65 million, and it's workforce had it's most rapid rise in history from 24 million to 32 million today. This problems caused by such a large and rapid influx was greatly exacerbated by the fact that neoliberal policies in employment, housing and social services prevented any meaningful help being made available to local governments etc. to assist them in coping with the extra demand for such services. Not surprisingly, resentment at such major problems were continuously raised during the many debates on Brexit.
On the other hand, I don't remember a single instance of commonwealth immigration being raised in the Brexit debate period because Britain's stringent visa laws had largely stopped such immigration decades earlier. Indeed, there were frequent examples of ex-Commonwealth immigrants supporting Brexit !
Immigration does not drive down wages, government policies do. Immigration is not the cause for housing crisis, government policy is. Immigration does not cause pressure in health and education, austerity did. Immigrants saved the NHS from underfunding.
I'm Eastern European and the anti-Eastern rhetoric piqued my interest in Brexit, since I'm a proud Eastern European and I'm a European nationalist (I want the EU to unite and form a single country). But let me question some of your statements. You speak of higher pressure on salaries, housing, health and education, ok, makes sense so far, more people mean more demand. But at the same time you acknowledge an increase of the workforce from 24 to 32 million people. First of all, there are only 2.2 million Eastern Europeans in the UK... and 24 to 32 million (your numbers) that means an 8 million increase in workers. Who are the rest of 5.8 million? Because they're not Eastern Europeans. Second, if the number of workers rises that would mean tax income also rises, income which could be used to relieve pressure on housing, health and education. What did the UK government do with that money? Third, Eastern Europeans moving abroad tend to be younger people and younger people are on average healthier. So, how much did the pressure on the NHS come from them and how much did it come from an ageing population, mismanagement and underfunding?
@@octavianpopescu4776 My sense always was that neoliberalism/capitalism was always the opposite of Marxist regimes like Soviet Russia and the Warsaw pact countries and my feeling was that as we grew, they stagnated or stayed stuck behind the iron curtain and that, in many ways, was beneficial to us as it meant that our profit margins increased while theirs stayed the same in managed economies. The movement of former Communist Soviet regime citizens without the freedom to grow capitalism brings into a European economic superstate without borders enabled cheaper work rates if the EU allowed contractors to charge the minimum wage of the country the worker was from rather than the worker was in (undercutting local labour). The very strong perception in UK was that this loss of Soviet walls brought a large influx of people from the less prosperous new European countries into the richer ones and never the other way around.
Europe is wildly disparate economically so could never be one. The Med countries and the eastern block ones have to be subsidised by Northern European giants who offer them a teat to suck on. The original concept was Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands but this has now expanded wildly, UK would have stayed as the seventh.
@@octavianpopescu4776ouch. Your post slaughtered the OP. Well done.
@@garrygibbs8149the EU didn't allow lower minimum wages from the native country. The EU doesn't even have a say on minimum wage in a country.
Your government allowed the exploitstiinnif foreign workforce ar below minimum wage level, because the UK is a corruot country where the politicians are indirectly paid to look the other way when business wants. It's called "the lecture circuit" and "party donations".
Your country also did not use the EU rule of managing the FOM from new memberstates in their first 6 years.
Your country also did not use any of the tools available to manage FOM (90 day rule to get a job)
So as usual "the British perception" is looking at the wrong side.
Every union, or large country is wildly disparate, or do you think the USA and the UK are not as disparate as the EU is? So there is no logical reason to claim the EU becoming a (con) federate state is not going to work based on that argument.
No idea where you get the impression from that Spain was part of the founding 6. And if the idea was that it should not grow past the initial 6, the UK would never have been able to be, and thus not stay, as "the 7th".
None of what you posts give the idea you know what you are talking about. From the onset, the EEC/EU was meant to be what it is now and the direction it's members may decide it will grow into: ever closer union of the people's of Europe. Is Europe restricted to the 6 countries you identified?
First min: Uh oh, an American explaining something British. I do hope his answers aren't Empire and Race...
lol
Too political for my taste
laissez faire economics is a failed philosophy and has been for a very long time. to dress it up in new, intentionally misleading terminology doesn't change this fact.
It surprises me why everybody gets really worked up about recession and inflation data. Inflation has always existed, and people have been using investments to beat the inflation. The stock market return, for example, always beats inflation. I heard of someone who invested $121k last October, and has grown the portfolio by more than $400k. I need recommendations that can give me similar return.
Take a shot every time this bozo says racist
What a load of one sided biased rubbish
Please don’t say UK when you mean to 90% England…
When I was in UK. I saw empty boarded up streets under a constant grey sky, litter everywhere. Homeless people sleeping in doorways. Opioid addicts out of their mind and women so drunk they urinated on the streets. It's a sad declined country
At least we don't open air defecate, glad to hear your asylum claim was rejected
And 5 months since your comment it's got even worse!
Brilliant - British Pakistani born in a Yorkshire. How? See video above.