“High skill, high wage” & state “transition” - a history in six tweets
In 1977 Erich Honecker, still trying to build back better after 30 years, issued a labour code for East Germany.
Rules for a high skill, high wage, low immigration, innovative, centrally planned economy. /1.
1977 being the 60th anniversary of the October Revolution, Leonid Brezhnev gave a speech.
The USSR & its allies were in transition. The struggling “actually existing socialism” so far achieved was only a step on the way to true communism. A further 60 years would be needed. /2.
Of course, Honecker & Brezhnev also ran low emigration policies, severely restricting their citizens’ freedom movement.
The “anti-fascist protection wall” was there, they emphasised, to protect patriotic workers against foreigners.
All very confusing. /3.
But we can be grateful their legacy hasn’t been lost.
Over 40 years later the spirit of Erich & Leonid lives on.
If the US is anything other than fully committed, at great scale and in the pre-eminent leadership role, in NATO, Europe, the US and the world face disaster.
Bookmark that. /1.
More importantly, stop this madness.
There isn’t a way out of this, any more than there is a way of avoiding gravity on the surface of the Earth.
Cutting down US military presence in Europe has been a huge mistake. Successive US administrations are guilty. /2.
That needs to be reversed. It’s a large part of the reason for the mess we’re in. Globally, as well as in Europe.
Waiting a couple of years into a world war before committing to do anything about it is a stupendously bad idea, and grotesquely costly in lives and treasure. /3.
Donald Trump saying “Ukraine is finished” once again, starkly, highlights the question of what the world’s first & only (with the possible exception of Britain), & still remaining, hyper power would do geopolitically under his leadership.
But it isn’t just about Trump.
A 🧵/1.
I’ll be unashamedly Eurocentric.
There’s a broader & deeper story, of course. But Europe is a vital part of it.
The decision the USA has to make, as it did in the 1940s, & repeatedly at intervals after that, is whether it cares about Europe, & if so how much of it, & why. /2.
Does that include all of western Europe? Does it extend to central Europe? And eastern Europe? If so, should Ukraine be part of what the USA cares about (in the 40s that didn’t really play a role, given Ukraine’s status within the USSR)? And if so, how much of Ukraine? /3.
Brexit ripped us out of our $19 trillion GDP domestic market & reduced us to one a 6th of it, thumped our economy, fractured the UK, threw our governance into chaos, & generated perilous geopolitical effects.
And (if you mean it seriously) wildly naive about what actually takes place, legally (although you’d say “in my opinion this is unconstitutional”: good luck!) in the USA.
Still, if we just look at England/UK: yes, there are many concerns. /1.
I never said or, I hope, implied (to a fair, reasonable reader) that there weren’t.
For example (not the subject of my already long 🧵which focused on the way criminal incitement & freedom of expression relate) I personally deeply dislike revocation of citizenship. /2.
But you know that’s a thing in the USA as well, including for natural born citizens.
Involuntary self-revocation (in the guise of “voluntary relinquishment”) of citizenship sounds about as Kafkaesque as it gets.
But there it is, lurking malignantly in the Land of the Free. /3.
Twitter’s full of people trumpeting near zero understanding of English law or of the convictions in respect of the violence of the last 10 days or so.
Nor does the US 1st Amendment mean what many (often Americans) seem to think.
Frustrated? Maybe this will be some use.
A🧵/1.
“Incitement” was an offence under English common law pretty much forever.
In 2008 the Serious Crime Act 2007 replaced common law “incitement” with statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime.
Incitement in respect of specific statutory offences remains. /2.
“Assisting” means roughly what you probably think it does. But, for clarity, it doesn’t require direct presence at the scene of the crime being “assisted”, or actions which are themselves part of that crime: if they assist the commission of it, that’s a criminal act itself. /3.