Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Monday, 4 May 2009
Stop the BNP!
In the forthcoming Euro Election on 4 June Peter Cranie is the Green Party's candidate. He is in a straight fight for 4th place with Nick Griffin leader of the British National Party (BNP). The BNP represents the politics of hate and it would be a disaster if Griffin got elected
Here Peter Cranie talks about his campaign:
USE YOUR VOTE IN THE EUROPEAN ELECTION - VOTE GREEN TO STOP THE BNP
Here Peter Cranie talks about his campaign:
USE YOUR VOTE IN THE EUROPEAN ELECTION - VOTE GREEN TO STOP THE BNP
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Public good, private bad
People who have followed the posts on this blog will know that I have been explaining how privatisation benefits the rich at the expense of the poor but it is probably worth pulling it all together in one post so here goes.
Privatisation of public services has been a key part of the neoliberal Thatcherite project of the past thirty years. Privatisation of public services makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. This neoliberal project is all about dumping costs onto the poor whilst creaming off more of society's wealth for the rich.
So how does it work? Quite simple really but it has to be bolstered by one big crucial lie. The lie is that the private sector is always, but always, more efficient than the public sector alternative. No evidence is ever produced for this but it has been repeated so often over the last few decades that most people accept it as a fact. There is evidence though to show that the private sector is not more efficient than the public sector. Here is an example that comes from the International Monetary Fund! (IMF) - see this paper. Here is a quote you might find interesting:
But it’s much worse than just this. Because we don't have competing public services (i.e. you only have one waste collector in your local council area) - what you end up with is a private monopoly. Once the public sector alternative has gone what happens if the company providing the service goes bust? Well it has to be bailed out. Why? Because even if you wanted to you couldn't just bring in another company to take over at short notice – wheelie bins have to be emptied. We are also sold a lot of guff about competitive tendering as if hundreds of companies were competing for every public service contract. This simply isn't the case and contracts are awarded to one of a few usual suspects.
What we end up with is a very cosy private monopoly replacing the public service and easy money for the people who own the company. In time, costs can be hiked up to increase profits and all this is at the taxpayer’s expense. No private company could ever compete with an efficient public sector alternative. Why? Because the public sector alternative does not have to make a profit therefore it will always offer better value for money. In addition, the public sector can always borrow money for investment at a lower rate of interest then the private sector which again saves the taxpayer money. The reality is that the most cost effective way to deliver public services is the public sector option. That is the way services should be delivered, paid for collectively by all of us and delivered without the profit motive.
Of course, it is an essential part of the privatisation project that the public sector is excluded from competing with the private sector because it is unacceptable to the privatisers for the public sector to be seen to provide better value for money and competing successfully. That is why everything has to be privatised. And that is why the public sector is now being privatised by stealth - slowly but surely. Once the Tories get into power they will have the confidence to accelerate this process because they will claim that they are eliminating 'public sector waste' and delivering ‘better value’ in a time of budgetary restraint.
Privatisation of public services is basically a racket. Its hard for people to understand that their government would want to institute a system which costs them more, reduces their employment opportunities, dumps costs onto local communities and only benefits capitalists but that is the kind of government we have. That is what New Labour stands for. In the long run we will all have to pay more for less and those who benefit will be the better off.
Privatisation of public services has been a key part of the neoliberal Thatcherite project of the past thirty years. Privatisation of public services makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. This neoliberal project is all about dumping costs onto the poor whilst creaming off more of society's wealth for the rich.
So how does it work? Quite simple really but it has to be bolstered by one big crucial lie. The lie is that the private sector is always, but always, more efficient than the public sector alternative. No evidence is ever produced for this but it has been repeated so often over the last few decades that most people accept it as a fact. There is evidence though to show that the private sector is not more efficient than the public sector. Here is an example that comes from the International Monetary Fund! (IMF) - see this paper. Here is a quote you might find interesting:
“….the empirical evidence and the theoretical debates do not support this assumption. There is a consistent stream of empirical evidence consistently and repeatedly showing that there is no systematic significant difference between public and private operators in terms of efficiency or other performance measures. The theory behind the assumption of private sector superiority is also being shown to have serious flaws”.
But we do need to consider what is meant by 'efficiency'. Normally it is taken to mean that the private sector can deliver public services at a lower cost - as if that was all that mattered anyway. The fact that the private sector can deliver services at a lower cost is questionable to say the least. But let’s consider what happens when a public service is privatised. A private company moves in and takes over the service and the workforce that delivers it. The company needs to make a profit so the first thing it does is to cut the workforce and lower the terms and conditions of the remaining workers. Workers have their pay, holidays and pensions slashed. The cost of resulting unemployment and low pay is pushed onto the taxpayer and the cost of the profit is pushed onto the remaining workforce. In fact the employer is literally taking money out of the pockets of its new employees and giving it to shareholders - hence a direct transfer of money from the poor to the rich. This is not lower cost delivery it is dumping the costs onto workers and the wider society. Its not efficiency - it is legalised robbery.But it’s much worse than just this. Because we don't have competing public services (i.e. you only have one waste collector in your local council area) - what you end up with is a private monopoly. Once the public sector alternative has gone what happens if the company providing the service goes bust? Well it has to be bailed out. Why? Because even if you wanted to you couldn't just bring in another company to take over at short notice – wheelie bins have to be emptied. We are also sold a lot of guff about competitive tendering as if hundreds of companies were competing for every public service contract. This simply isn't the case and contracts are awarded to one of a few usual suspects.
What we end up with is a very cosy private monopoly replacing the public service and easy money for the people who own the company. In time, costs can be hiked up to increase profits and all this is at the taxpayer’s expense. No private company could ever compete with an efficient public sector alternative. Why? Because the public sector alternative does not have to make a profit therefore it will always offer better value for money. In addition, the public sector can always borrow money for investment at a lower rate of interest then the private sector which again saves the taxpayer money. The reality is that the most cost effective way to deliver public services is the public sector option. That is the way services should be delivered, paid for collectively by all of us and delivered without the profit motive.
Of course, it is an essential part of the privatisation project that the public sector is excluded from competing with the private sector because it is unacceptable to the privatisers for the public sector to be seen to provide better value for money and competing successfully. That is why everything has to be privatised. And that is why the public sector is now being privatised by stealth - slowly but surely. Once the Tories get into power they will have the confidence to accelerate this process because they will claim that they are eliminating 'public sector waste' and delivering ‘better value’ in a time of budgetary restraint.
Privatisation of public services is basically a racket. Its hard for people to understand that their government would want to institute a system which costs them more, reduces their employment opportunities, dumps costs onto local communities and only benefits capitalists but that is the kind of government we have. That is what New Labour stands for. In the long run we will all have to pay more for less and those who benefit will be the better off.
Friday, 24 April 2009
How to beat capitalism
Historically socialists have followed the' Marxist' model. By that I mean capture the power of the state and use it to control the means of production. By doing this you can put power into the hands of the people and liberate them from exploitation by the capitalist class. There are basically two ways of doing this: Communism, and democratic socialism. Both have so far failed. Communism, in the Soviet Union, liberated workers and greatly improved the condition of women, but failed to find a successful alternative economic model and degenerated into a dictatorship rather than a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Democratic socialism, whereby socialist parties have come to power through elections, has simply failed to control capitalism, again largely because the parties failed to pursue an alternative economic model and were content to 'manage' capitalism through social democracy. I know some people will argue those parties weren't socialist but that's another argument too complex to go into in this post.
There is a pattern here. The key thing is the economy and the creation of money. Having a capitalist economy and a socialist - or social democratic - government doesn't do much for most of the population apart from ameliorating the worst excesses of capitalism. It is certainly preferable to right-wing 'free' market alternatives but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. For a long time, capitalist entities like the big corporations have been more powerful than governments. Many corporations have turnovers which are larger than the GDPs of well-developed nations. Now, through global entities like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - in which secretive panels of 'experts' are able to overturn national legislation, they have formally elevated commercial interests - the right to make money - above democracy, above all our democratic rights.
What the credit crunch has shown us is the true power of these capitalist entities. The mask has slipped. The 'free' market model has come unstuck through de-regulation, and selfishness and greed - the twin engines of capitalism. We, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, the low paid, and the working and middle classes, have been forced to bail out capitalism. The losses have been nationalised and the gains are still in the pockets of the people who brought the system down. That is socialism for the rich and the market for the rest of us.
In his book, The Great Transformation, written in 1944, the socialist economic historian Karl Polanyi explained how economies work. He said that they are 'embedded' in society. By this, he meant that they are inseparable from the way we live. They are what we do. This may sound obvious but classical economists, such as Ricardo, have tried to separate the economy from society as if it exists separately in its own right. This is crucial because it allows conventional economists to ignore social and environmental concerns. They just don't figure on the balance sheet. Economists routinely ignore human suffering and environmental degradation caused by capitalism. This helps to give capitalism economic validity because it becomes simply about making money - forget about people and the environment. This is why economists are able to make ludicrous statements like - "It benefits all of us if production is moved to countries where labour costs are lower" - really? Does it? Who does it benefit? Not the people who have lost their jobs and the communities that are devastated. Of course, there have been dissident economists like Marx and E F Schumacher who wrote 'Small is Beautiful - a study of economics as if people mattered'. But Schumacher and Marx have been completely ignored by capitalist academia and media.
Democratic socialists have made a similar error to the economists because they have assumed that politics is also separate from the economy. If you have political power you can change things. But as we have seen that is not true, not unless you change the fundamental basis of the economy. What socialists and progressives need if they are really going to change society is economic power. Capitalism can only be beaten economically. Therefore we need an alternative economic model and we need to start to build that model now. But what is an alternative economy? It is one where the means of production are owned and controlled by the people, and the creation of money is under democratic control.
For the means of production, there are basically two options: Nationalise industries or put them directly into the hands of workers to run and control themselves. Total nationalisation and state control, as in the Soviet Union hasn't worked well because people are not empowered and often they have little incentive to produce anything. They end up still as workers controlled by bosses. The real alternative is economic democracy. This is something that can be achieved through co-operatives. By co-operatives, I mean businesses owned and controlled by the people who work in them. Not possible? Think again. There are already many such successful businesses around. One example is the Unicorn Grocery, a worker-owned co-operative in Chorlton, which is thriving. There are many other examples.
Some cynics will no doubt say that this can only happen on a small scale but I don't believe it. There is nothing to stop larger scale businesses from being run in this way. The co-operatives in Mondragon in Spain provide us with an example of large-scale worker-owned and controlled businesses. Even models like John Lewis and Gore-Tex, which are not wholly worker-owned co-operatives in the sense that the Unicorn Grocery is, offer us a better alternative than voracious capitalists such as Tesco.
The beauty of the co-operative model is that we don't need a revolution or a socialist government to get started. There is nothing to stop people from starting co-operatives now. I have given examples in other posts such as the workers in Argentina who took over factories and started running them as going concerns during the economic crisis there.
In addition to this, we have to put the creation of money, and the control of its supply under democratic control. We need to ensure that only the state, through state-owned banks, rather than private sector banks, can create money. Alongside this, we also need to ensure that there are smaller local and regional banks. We also need a decentralised energy production system where locally owned companies generate energy from renewables and a centrally controlled energy distribution system.
None of this means that we shouldn't bother with socialist or political parties or be trying to get progressive governments elected. Changing our economic model isn't going to happen overnight. We need the support of governments who are friendly and can help with investment. In the shorter term nationalisation of the banks, railways, water, power generators, education, and health is essential for moving us away from a capitalist economy. It's a long haul but this is the only way forward. You cannot beat capitalism politically - it has to be done economically. Socialists and progressives need to start thinking seriously about building a new economy and making it happen - now.
There is a pattern here. The key thing is the economy and the creation of money. Having a capitalist economy and a socialist - or social democratic - government doesn't do much for most of the population apart from ameliorating the worst excesses of capitalism. It is certainly preferable to right-wing 'free' market alternatives but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. For a long time, capitalist entities like the big corporations have been more powerful than governments. Many corporations have turnovers which are larger than the GDPs of well-developed nations. Now, through global entities like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - in which secretive panels of 'experts' are able to overturn national legislation, they have formally elevated commercial interests - the right to make money - above democracy, above all our democratic rights.
What the credit crunch has shown us is the true power of these capitalist entities. The mask has slipped. The 'free' market model has come unstuck through de-regulation, and selfishness and greed - the twin engines of capitalism. We, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, the low paid, and the working and middle classes, have been forced to bail out capitalism. The losses have been nationalised and the gains are still in the pockets of the people who brought the system down. That is socialism for the rich and the market for the rest of us.
In his book, The Great Transformation, written in 1944, the socialist economic historian Karl Polanyi explained how economies work. He said that they are 'embedded' in society. By this, he meant that they are inseparable from the way we live. They are what we do. This may sound obvious but classical economists, such as Ricardo, have tried to separate the economy from society as if it exists separately in its own right. This is crucial because it allows conventional economists to ignore social and environmental concerns. They just don't figure on the balance sheet. Economists routinely ignore human suffering and environmental degradation caused by capitalism. This helps to give capitalism economic validity because it becomes simply about making money - forget about people and the environment. This is why economists are able to make ludicrous statements like - "It benefits all of us if production is moved to countries where labour costs are lower" - really? Does it? Who does it benefit? Not the people who have lost their jobs and the communities that are devastated. Of course, there have been dissident economists like Marx and E F Schumacher who wrote 'Small is Beautiful - a study of economics as if people mattered'. But Schumacher and Marx have been completely ignored by capitalist academia and media.
 |
| Karl Polayni: realised that society and economy are indivisible |
For the means of production, there are basically two options: Nationalise industries or put them directly into the hands of workers to run and control themselves. Total nationalisation and state control, as in the Soviet Union hasn't worked well because people are not empowered and often they have little incentive to produce anything. They end up still as workers controlled by bosses. The real alternative is economic democracy. This is something that can be achieved through co-operatives. By co-operatives, I mean businesses owned and controlled by the people who work in them. Not possible? Think again. There are already many such successful businesses around. One example is the Unicorn Grocery, a worker-owned co-operative in Chorlton, which is thriving. There are many other examples.
Some cynics will no doubt say that this can only happen on a small scale but I don't believe it. There is nothing to stop larger scale businesses from being run in this way. The co-operatives in Mondragon in Spain provide us with an example of large-scale worker-owned and controlled businesses. Even models like John Lewis and Gore-Tex, which are not wholly worker-owned co-operatives in the sense that the Unicorn Grocery is, offer us a better alternative than voracious capitalists such as Tesco.
The beauty of the co-operative model is that we don't need a revolution or a socialist government to get started. There is nothing to stop people from starting co-operatives now. I have given examples in other posts such as the workers in Argentina who took over factories and started running them as going concerns during the economic crisis there.
In addition to this, we have to put the creation of money, and the control of its supply under democratic control. We need to ensure that only the state, through state-owned banks, rather than private sector banks, can create money. Alongside this, we also need to ensure that there are smaller local and regional banks. We also need a decentralised energy production system where locally owned companies generate energy from renewables and a centrally controlled energy distribution system.
None of this means that we shouldn't bother with socialist or political parties or be trying to get progressive governments elected. Changing our economic model isn't going to happen overnight. We need the support of governments who are friendly and can help with investment. In the shorter term nationalisation of the banks, railways, water, power generators, education, and health is essential for moving us away from a capitalist economy. It's a long haul but this is the only way forward. You cannot beat capitalism politically - it has to be done economically. Socialists and progressives need to start thinking seriously about building a new economy and making it happen - now.
Mark Thomas supports the Green Party - here's why
Mark Thomas has been an active campaigner against the kind of selfish 'free' market capitalism which lead to the credit crunch and the current recession. Here he speaks for himself about why he supports the Green Party:
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
The Green Party Promises £165 per week pensions
The Green Party's policy on pensions is great news for pensioners in the UK. See the GP news release below:
Today, on National Pensions Action Day (Monday 6 April), the Green Party announces its key election pledge for pensioners - a £165 a week non-means-tested citizens' pension for every pensioner in the UK. The pledge will form part of the Green New Deal for Older People, which the Green Party will launch in the build-up to this year's elections (1).
Jean Lambert MEP, the Green Party's spokesperson on social affairs, said today:
"The Green Party today celebrates Pensions Action Day with possibly the best action a political party could take for British pensioners: a policy that would lift all our pensioners out of poverty."
The National Pensioners Convention (NPC) have been calling for a pension at or above the official poverty level, which is defined as 60% of median population earnings less housing costs.For 2007/8 this would have meant a single person’s pension of £151 per week - compared to the actual full state pension of £90.70 and a pensions credits guarantee level of about £120 a week. The NPC has recently pointed out that:
- Between 1997 and 2006, the number of British people living in severe poverty – defined as living on less than 40% of median population income – increased by 600,000.
- Last year the poorest quarter of UK pensioner households saw their incomes rise by less than 1%, well below inflation. The poorest single pensioners saw their real incomes drop by 4%.
- At least 15% of UK pensioners – over 1.5m older people – are living in persistent poverty (below 60% median population income for three out of the last four years).
- Pensioner poverty in the UK has risen in the last year by 300,000 - equivalent to 822 people a day - and now reaches 2.5m (1 in 4 older people). Two thirds of these pensioners are women.
Jean Lambert, who was elected in 1999 as London's Green MEP and now sits on the European Parliament's Inter-Group on Ageing, commented:
"If the other parties are unwilling to lift pensioners out of poverty, then it's clear pensioners will need to elect Greens to fight their corner. Voting Green is about building a better future - and that includes a secure economic future for older people."
Jean Lambert MEP will lead the Green Party delegation in support of the NPC demonstration in London. She will be joined by Darren Johnson AM, the Green Party's trade & industry spokesperson and its parliamentary candidate for Lewisham Deptford, and Cllr Romayne Phoenix of Lewisham Borough Council.
Thursday, 9 April 2009
The G20 Protests
Being someone who has attended demonstrations and taken part in pickets I have experienced police brutality first hand. For example, during the miners strike I was kicked on one picket line and on another one the pickets, including women - some with young children in pushchairs - were taunted by the police - this included throwing stones at us - they wanted to provoke a response so they had an excuse to pile in and give us a beating. On that occasion nobody on our side reacted - we continued to picket peacefully.
So, our police have a history of battering demonstrators - it even happened on the Countryside Alliance demo when we had the amazing sight of toffs being battered by police on our tellies. There is no doubt that some police officers enjoy the chance to exercise gratuitous violence with impunity. Why impunity? - because they always get away with it. Hardly surprising when the they get unconditional support from the 'free' press who always brand protesters as violent/anarchist/loony leftist/ terrorist agitators. Clearly the press were looking for a good riot on April the first. If you watch footage of the protests you will see that in many shots there are more photographers than protesters.
The police know that a good ruckus is great PR for them. They can provoke trouble and batter people and then claim that they need more powers, equipment and money to deal with 'public disorder'. Governments, who slavishly support the police and their operational independence, are only too happy to oblige.
So we come to the sad death of Ian Tomlinson who followed in the footsteps of Jean Charles De Menezes and Blair Peach. The Guardian's video footage shows him being batoned and knocked over from behind by a riot policeman as he walked away peacefully. Did this assault contribute to his death from a heart attack several minutes later? No doubt there will be many arguments about that over the coming months.
One thing is certain though, if a demonstrator had assaulted a policeman and he had died a few minutes later from a heart attack, that demonstrator would have been arrested and would now be on a murder charge.
So, our police have a history of battering demonstrators - it even happened on the Countryside Alliance demo when we had the amazing sight of toffs being battered by police on our tellies. There is no doubt that some police officers enjoy the chance to exercise gratuitous violence with impunity. Why impunity? - because they always get away with it. Hardly surprising when the they get unconditional support from the 'free' press who always brand protesters as violent/anarchist/loony leftist/ terrorist agitators. Clearly the press were looking for a good riot on April the first. If you watch footage of the protests you will see that in many shots there are more photographers than protesters.
The police know that a good ruckus is great PR for them. They can provoke trouble and batter people and then claim that they need more powers, equipment and money to deal with 'public disorder'. Governments, who slavishly support the police and their operational independence, are only too happy to oblige.
So we come to the sad death of Ian Tomlinson who followed in the footsteps of Jean Charles De Menezes and Blair Peach. The Guardian's video footage shows him being batoned and knocked over from behind by a riot policeman as he walked away peacefully. Did this assault contribute to his death from a heart attack several minutes later? No doubt there will be many arguments about that over the coming months.
One thing is certain though, if a demonstrator had assaulted a policeman and he had died a few minutes later from a heart attack, that demonstrator would have been arrested and would now be on a murder charge.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Green Party Spring Conference 2009
The spring GP conference was held in Black pool last weekend. I went down for the Friday and Saturday sessions. It was odd being back in Blackpool after such a long time, The place isn't at its best in March but it is certainly suffering at the moment with many shops closed and boarded up. No doubt some will re-open when the season starts but the whole place looks badly run down.
The conference was held in the Winter Gardens, which have seen better days, but also have a faded grandeur. On the Friday we had a speech by party Leader Caroline Lucas which can be seen here. Caroline attacked the government for failing to take steps to implement a Green New Deal which will provide much needed employment and investment in infrastructure to help combat climate change.
A number of motions were passed including:
C01 - Alternative Economic Strategy - which commits the party to campaign for an emergency programme of economic and social reconstruction, based on the proposals of the Green New Deal pamphlet, but broadened and reinforced to transform fundamentally the current financial and industrial system.
C02 - Migration - which noting that migration is going to be an important issue in the forthcoming European elections, and the need for a progressive and humane policy, the migration policy of the European Green Party was adopted as our own.
I attended a workshop given by the Green Economics Institute. Miriam Kennet gave us an interesting talk which revealed she has has recently been invited to give talks to various government departments on green economics including GCHQ! I'm not holding my breath waiting for the spooks to go green!
On the Saturday I attended two workshops on Transition Towns and Climate Ge0-engineering. The first included a discussion about the situation in Totnes and we talked about our ongoing frustration with green activists who don't want to get their hands dirty by getting involved in real politics. The Climate Ge0-engineering workshop focused on Biochar - that's charcoal to you and me. It seems there are plans to plant millions of hectares of monoculture forest around the globe, then chop them down and pyrolise the biomass to produce fuel and bury the resulting biochar in the soil. There is a very good article by George Monbiot in today's Guardian which exposes this potty idea. Biochar has the potential to do enormous damage so lets hope the article helps to sink it.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
One Law for All - Stop Sharia Law in the UK
On 7th March a rally was held in London to protest against the creeping adoption of sharia law in the UK. Sharia law is reactionary, regressive and misogynistic. At its extremes it can lead to people being stoned to death or executed. Proponents of sharia such as Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury have claimed that sharia should be used for the settlement of civil matters and our anti-secular government is sympathetic to this idea thinking that it will improve social cohesion. This is totally misguided.
It is unacceptable to have a parallel legal system, overseen by sham courts, which will deny UK citizens their basic human rights. The adoption of sharia is merely pandering to extreme political Islam. At the rally A C Grayling said -
'Once you start fragmenting society, once you start allowing different groups in society to apply different standards, you get very profound injustices and it is almost always women who suffer these injustices. We have to fight hard to keep one law for everybody.'
And he is absolutely right. If you want to find out more and help stamp out this injustice visit the One Law for All website by following this link. Complacency is not an option.
It is unacceptable to have a parallel legal system, overseen by sham courts, which will deny UK citizens their basic human rights. The adoption of sharia is merely pandering to extreme political Islam. At the rally A C Grayling said -
'Once you start fragmenting society, once you start allowing different groups in society to apply different standards, you get very profound injustices and it is almost always women who suffer these injustices. We have to fight hard to keep one law for everybody.'
And he is absolutely right. If you want to find out more and help stamp out this injustice visit the One Law for All website by following this link. Complacency is not an option.
Sunday, 8 March 2009
Our fundamental freedoms are under threat from organised religion
I am an atheist. I always have been except when I was young enough not to know any better. It's never bothered me that other people are religious, even though I think the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - are a bad thing, until recently. The fact is that, worldwide, religion is in decline except where it has been re-inforced by force in theocratic countries like Iran. As religion gets pushed into a corner it becomes more strident, more extreme, less tolerant (and those religions have never been good at tolerance), and more violent.
The response of Islam has been to threaten with death anyone who 'defames' - i.e. criticises it - such as Salman Rushdie for writing the book The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was famously subject to a fatwa - a death sentence - by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for offending Islamic sensibilities. To their credit the British government of the time protected Rushdie though one wonders if the same would happen today. The violence and bullying of the Muslims has , to some extent, worked. When the infamous Danish Cartoons of Mohammed incident occurred, provoking a violent Muslim backlash, many Western governments failed to rush to defend free speech. The European Union was notably silent.
Now Christians, having seen the success of the Muslims, are jumping on the bandwagon. They haven't resorted to violence yet - except in the United States where abortion clinics have been attacked and doctors and nurses have been threatened and killed - but they have resorted to a vindictive and dishonest campaign against atheists and those who seek to undo religious privilege in the UK. A good example of this was a recent post on CiF in which Mary Kelly said that Christians were being persecuted in the UK. This is typical of the line that British Christians have adopted. Kelly starts her post by writing that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor - head of the Catholic church in the UK - is being elevated to the House of Lords and then goes on the talk about Christians being persecuted????? The persecution claim is simply untrue. Why? Well, the Queen is head of the Church of England, there are 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, Christians control thousands of schools in the 'state' education system. Need I say more? What is happening here is that Christianity is declining. The only bit that is growing is, like Islam, the more extreme evangelical wing. As it declines it becomes more strident, and in the case of Christians apparently, more dishonest.
Meanwhile the Muslims appear to be using all the means they can to silence dissenters or critics of their religion. Fifty seven Muslim countries, the largest block in the United Nations, are attempting to pass a binding resolution which would outlaw 'defamation' of religion. The aim is to silence anyone who dares to criticise Islam - globally. The UN used to be the global defender of freedoms with its Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Now it is in danger of becoming the enforcer of theocratic tyranny. If you want to know more watch this video with Christopher Hitchens.
I have no doubt their are decent Christians and Muslims who deplore both the dishonesty and the tyranny but we never seem to hear from them. Its time for them to speak out and defend human rights and the benefits to all of living in a secular society. If they don't their religions can only become more extreme, more violent and more irrelevant to the majority of humans on the planet. Meanwhile, if you value your freedom to think for yourself you can help fight the religious threat to your freedom by joining and supporting the National Secular Society.
The response of Islam has been to threaten with death anyone who 'defames' - i.e. criticises it - such as Salman Rushdie for writing the book The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was famously subject to a fatwa - a death sentence - by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for offending Islamic sensibilities. To their credit the British government of the time protected Rushdie though one wonders if the same would happen today. The violence and bullying of the Muslims has , to some extent, worked. When the infamous Danish Cartoons of Mohammed incident occurred, provoking a violent Muslim backlash, many Western governments failed to rush to defend free speech. The European Union was notably silent.
Now Christians, having seen the success of the Muslims, are jumping on the bandwagon. They haven't resorted to violence yet - except in the United States where abortion clinics have been attacked and doctors and nurses have been threatened and killed - but they have resorted to a vindictive and dishonest campaign against atheists and those who seek to undo religious privilege in the UK. A good example of this was a recent post on CiF in which Mary Kelly said that Christians were being persecuted in the UK. This is typical of the line that British Christians have adopted. Kelly starts her post by writing that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor - head of the Catholic church in the UK - is being elevated to the House of Lords and then goes on the talk about Christians being persecuted????? The persecution claim is simply untrue. Why? Well, the Queen is head of the Church of England, there are 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, Christians control thousands of schools in the 'state' education system. Need I say more? What is happening here is that Christianity is declining. The only bit that is growing is, like Islam, the more extreme evangelical wing. As it declines it becomes more strident, and in the case of Christians apparently, more dishonest.
Meanwhile the Muslims appear to be using all the means they can to silence dissenters or critics of their religion. Fifty seven Muslim countries, the largest block in the United Nations, are attempting to pass a binding resolution which would outlaw 'defamation' of religion. The aim is to silence anyone who dares to criticise Islam - globally. The UN used to be the global defender of freedoms with its Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Now it is in danger of becoming the enforcer of theocratic tyranny. If you want to know more watch this video with Christopher Hitchens.
I have no doubt their are decent Christians and Muslims who deplore both the dishonesty and the tyranny but we never seem to hear from them. Its time for them to speak out and defend human rights and the benefits to all of living in a secular society. If they don't their religions can only become more extreme, more violent and more irrelevant to the majority of humans on the planet. Meanwhile, if you value your freedom to think for yourself you can help fight the religious threat to your freedom by joining and supporting the National Secular Society.
Saturday, 7 March 2009
The Age of Stupid
I don't usually promote or review films or books on this blog but this is a special case. The Age of Stupid is a film where the action takes place in 2055, on an earth ravaged by climate change. Pete Poselthwaite stars as a man living alone who looks back at archive footage of 2008 and wonders why we didn't do more to combat climate change.
He is not alone. There are many of us now who wonder why so little action is being taken by our government, and other governments. We have a climate change minister and bill and the promise of 'green' jobs being created by the government, but little in the way of positive change. What's more the government appears to want to renew 'business as usual' which not only means fat cats snouts in the trough but an endless quest for growth which the environment cannot sustain.
Hopefully, The Age of Stupid will influence more of the undecided that they need to adapt their lives by reducing carbon outputs, developing more local, resilient economies and demanding real government action.
The Age of Stupid premiere's on Sunday 15th March and can be viewed in cinemas around the country.
He is not alone. There are many of us now who wonder why so little action is being taken by our government, and other governments. We have a climate change minister and bill and the promise of 'green' jobs being created by the government, but little in the way of positive change. What's more the government appears to want to renew 'business as usual' which not only means fat cats snouts in the trough but an endless quest for growth which the environment cannot sustain.
Hopefully, The Age of Stupid will influence more of the undecided that they need to adapt their lives by reducing carbon outputs, developing more local, resilient economies and demanding real government action.
The Age of Stupid premiere's on Sunday 15th March and can be viewed in cinemas around the country.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Back to the workhouse
Well, it had to happen. New Labour's mission to take us back to the nineteenth century is nearing completion with the latest welfare reform package. The claim that the reforms are there to help people back to work rings very hollowly indeed. Lavish handouts to bankers contrast with the battering that those who the bankers have made redundant can expect.
The whole package, modeled on the American workfare system, amounts to the privatisation of welfare in the UK. And guess who designed it? David Freud a banker and chum of Gordon Brown's who has since defected to the Tories. While bankers still get their taxpayer bailout bonuses the unemployed are expected to subsist on a humiliating £60.50 per week, and for this, they will have to jump through a number of degrading hoops. Single parents, with children as young as one, will be dragooned into seeking work. If we had a decent child care system like they have in Sweden it would be far easier for single parents to look for work with the confidence that their children were being properly cared for but no such luck in Gradgrind Britain.
When I was unemployed in the 1970's unemployment benefit, payable to people for twelve months, was an entitlement - not a hand-out. I'm sure that the million-plus people who lose their jobs for no fault of their own in the next year will appreciate New Labour's 'generosity'. I suppose at least they are not being expected to sweep the streets wearing Day-Glo vests with 'unemployed' or 'welfare recipient' blazoned across them - not yet anyway.
The whole package, modeled on the American workfare system, amounts to the privatisation of welfare in the UK. And guess who designed it? David Freud a banker and chum of Gordon Brown's who has since defected to the Tories. While bankers still get their taxpayer bailout bonuses the unemployed are expected to subsist on a humiliating £60.50 per week, and for this, they will have to jump through a number of degrading hoops. Single parents, with children as young as one, will be dragooned into seeking work. If we had a decent child care system like they have in Sweden it would be far easier for single parents to look for work with the confidence that their children were being properly cared for but no such luck in Gradgrind Britain.
When I was unemployed in the 1970's unemployment benefit, payable to people for twelve months, was an entitlement - not a hand-out. I'm sure that the million-plus people who lose their jobs for no fault of their own in the next year will appreciate New Labour's 'generosity'. I suppose at least they are not being expected to sweep the streets wearing Day-Glo vests with 'unemployed' or 'welfare recipient' blazoned across them - not yet anyway.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
What is wrong with protectionism?
Have you noticed how Gordon Brown and other world leaders have been banging on recently about the dangers of protectionism? Apparently, protectionism is bad and if we became protectionist that would make our difficult economic position even worse. Before we look at protectionism its worth remembering that these are the same leaders who supported the neo-liberal economic policies which have caused so much damage to people's lives recently - so would you trust them to get this right?
For these are the very same people who support globalisation, and globalisation is a system of economic imperialism in which the giant capitalist corporations loot the riches of poorer nations - minerals, oil, coffee, rubber etc - whilst being able to freely exploit their people as cheap labour. Globalisation is presented to us as an inevitable development of international and national economies, but there is nothing inevitable about it. Globalisation is maintained by capitalist rules enforced through the WTO, IMF and World Bank. Globalisation increases world poverty by moving wealth from the poor to the rich.
So what about protectionism? Well protectionism - trade and tariff barriers - was what made us - Americans and Western Europeans - relatively wealthy. We practiced it a century or so ago and built up our economies in the process. Now we seek to deny that opportunity to developing nations by forcing them to open up their markets to the big corporations and by privatising their infrastructure. No wonder Gordon and Co. are so keen on knocking protectionism. Protectionism is bad for capitalists but good for the developing world.
In a recent excellent Guardian article, Larry Elliot slayed the myth of the evils of protectionism and showed that it is necessary for economic development:
The same article showed that the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff - oft quoted as worsening the Great Depression - did nothing of the kind.
The truth is that protectionism is bad for the economic exploitation inherent in the globalisation project. That is the real reason why Gordon and the G7 are against it. But countries have an absolute right to protect their economic infrastructure from the chill wind of capitalist exploitation and the race to the bottom in terms of labour and environmental standards. Cheap labour is simply unfair competition. We need fair trade, not free trade.
For these are the very same people who support globalisation, and globalisation is a system of economic imperialism in which the giant capitalist corporations loot the riches of poorer nations - minerals, oil, coffee, rubber etc - whilst being able to freely exploit their people as cheap labour. Globalisation is presented to us as an inevitable development of international and national economies, but there is nothing inevitable about it. Globalisation is maintained by capitalist rules enforced through the WTO, IMF and World Bank. Globalisation increases world poverty by moving wealth from the poor to the rich.
So what about protectionism? Well protectionism - trade and tariff barriers - was what made us - Americans and Western Europeans - relatively wealthy. We practiced it a century or so ago and built up our economies in the process. Now we seek to deny that opportunity to developing nations by forcing them to open up their markets to the big corporations and by privatising their infrastructure. No wonder Gordon and Co. are so keen on knocking protectionism. Protectionism is bad for capitalists but good for the developing world.
In a recent excellent Guardian article, Larry Elliot slayed the myth of the evils of protectionism and showed that it is necessary for economic development:
"The historical evidence is conclusive: free trade is good, protectionism is bad. Except that isn't what the evidence actually shows. The Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang has demonstrated that no country since the dawning of the modern age has managed to industrialise successfully without protectionism."
The same article showed that the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff - oft quoted as worsening the Great Depression - did nothing of the kind.
The truth is that protectionism is bad for the economic exploitation inherent in the globalisation project. That is the real reason why Gordon and the G7 are against it. But countries have an absolute right to protect their economic infrastructure from the chill wind of capitalist exploitation and the race to the bottom in terms of labour and environmental standards. Cheap labour is simply unfair competition. We need fair trade, not free trade.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
The Paymasters of the Universe
Bankers certainly know how to pay themselves even if they don't know how to run banks. And once again we are being told to lay off the big bankers and their bonuses. Apparently, even though the men and women who bust the world's financial system, did it whilst receiving eye watering billions of dollars, we still need more of the same. You see if we don't pay these people vast amounts of money they may leave. Lets hope they do. Then we may end up with a system which works and protects pensions and savings.
The truth is that there has been a massive bean feast at our expense. Not only bankers and traders but company executives have had their noses in the trough, paying themselves ludicrous amounts of money. But I know that my old granny, bless her, could have run a bank better than that - its not rocket science - and she wouldn't have expected to be paid millions either. Recently on BBC 2 there was a programme where they took a group of people and gave them eight weeks to become city traders. Here is the blurb:
Eight ordinary people are given a million dollars and a fortnight of intensive training to run their own hedge fund. Hedge fund manager Lex van Dam wants to see if they can beat the professionals
It was naff TV, boring really - lots of nose picking and looking a flashing lights on screens, but guess what happened? At the end of the series at least half of them had done OK. From what I can remember only two were outright failures. You see being a trader isn't rocket science either.
What has been going on is a racket. One which those who benefited have ended up costing ordinary people millions in lost jobs, houses and pensions, not to mention the harm to future generations. We have been shafted. The perpetrators should be made to pay compensation by handing back most of the billions they pocketed. Those who committed fraud, and there must be some, should go to gaol. There is absolutely no way that we should stand for any return to business as usual. We must do all we can to prevent it. Support Put People First and join the demo on 28th of March if you can.
The truth is that there has been a massive bean feast at our expense. Not only bankers and traders but company executives have had their noses in the trough, paying themselves ludicrous amounts of money. But I know that my old granny, bless her, could have run a bank better than that - its not rocket science - and she wouldn't have expected to be paid millions either. Recently on BBC 2 there was a programme where they took a group of people and gave them eight weeks to become city traders. Here is the blurb:
Eight ordinary people are given a million dollars and a fortnight of intensive training to run their own hedge fund. Hedge fund manager Lex van Dam wants to see if they can beat the professionals
It was naff TV, boring really - lots of nose picking and looking a flashing lights on screens, but guess what happened? At the end of the series at least half of them had done OK. From what I can remember only two were outright failures. You see being a trader isn't rocket science either.
What has been going on is a racket. One which those who benefited have ended up costing ordinary people millions in lost jobs, houses and pensions, not to mention the harm to future generations. We have been shafted. The perpetrators should be made to pay compensation by handing back most of the billions they pocketed. Those who committed fraud, and there must be some, should go to gaol. There is absolutely no way that we should stand for any return to business as usual. We must do all we can to prevent it. Support Put People First and join the demo on 28th of March if you can.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Ever heard of the World Social Forum?
If you hadn't I wouldn't be surprised. You see our great 'free' media has pretty much ignored it completely. There was an interesting post on CiF which I read today but that is all I have seen. Contrast this with the wall to wall coverage of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
The reason why the World Social Forum, which was attended by 100,000 people, hasn't made the papers is because it presents an alternative to the world capitalist domination which is celebrated so avidly annually at Davos. Rupert Murdoch, owner of associated newspapers, is a regular attender so its no surprise that his papers aren't keen to lavish column inches on the World Social Forum.
This years World Social Forum was held in Belem, Brasil and hosted by President Lula. In all five South American leaders, including Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales attended the forum and criticised the failed neo-liberal economics of Rupert and his wealthy chums in Davos. There is an excellent quote from Lula in the posting I referred to above:
"The economic crisis affecting Latin America, cried Lula, was not caused by "the socialism of Chávez" or by "the struggles of Evo" [Morales, the president of Bolivia], but by the bankrupt policies and lack of financial control of wealthy states outside the continent. "And who is the god to whom they have appealed?" he asked rhetorically. "Why, the state!""
Nice to see gloomy faces at Davos and Lula sticking two fingers up to them. Maybe with our crumbling economy next year the capitalist press will have to start taking some more notice of the World Social Forum. Whether they like it or not.
The reason why the World Social Forum, which was attended by 100,000 people, hasn't made the papers is because it presents an alternative to the world capitalist domination which is celebrated so avidly annually at Davos. Rupert Murdoch, owner of associated newspapers, is a regular attender so its no surprise that his papers aren't keen to lavish column inches on the World Social Forum.
This years World Social Forum was held in Belem, Brasil and hosted by President Lula. In all five South American leaders, including Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales attended the forum and criticised the failed neo-liberal economics of Rupert and his wealthy chums in Davos. There is an excellent quote from Lula in the posting I referred to above:
"The economic crisis affecting Latin America, cried Lula, was not caused by "the socialism of Chávez" or by "the struggles of Evo" [Morales, the president of Bolivia], but by the bankrupt policies and lack of financial control of wealthy states outside the continent. "And who is the god to whom they have appealed?" he asked rhetorically. "Why, the state!""
Nice to see gloomy faces at Davos and Lula sticking two fingers up to them. Maybe with our crumbling economy next year the capitalist press will have to start taking some more notice of the World Social Forum. Whether they like it or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)