There's been a lot of controversy about Josef Stalin recently. In Eastern Europe, as they commemorate the beginning of the Second World War 70 years ago, there has been a right royal row going on about how Stalin was as bad as Hitler, and therefore the Soviet Union must have been as bad as Nazi Germany. The Poles have been trading verbal blows with the Russians. The zealots of the right would have us all believe that the Soviet Union was equably to blame with Nazi Germany for the war. But it wasn't, and Soviet communism was in no way equivalent to the Nazism.
Stalin was a brutal dictator who did immense damage to the Soviet Union. On the eve of the war he authorised a secret non-aggression pact with the Nazis - the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact . Its worth quoting from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about the pact:
"The Soviet Union had been unable to reach a collective-security agreement with Britain and France against Nazi Germany, most notably at the time of the Munich Conference in September 1938. By early 1939 the Soviets faced the prospect of resisting German military expansion in eastern Europe virtually alone, and so they began searching about for a change of policy"
The pact was a pragmatic, if cynical, piece of diplomacy on the part of the USSR because it divided eastern Europe into spheres of influence, including the division of Poland. But at the time there must have been doubts that the USSR could resist a German invasion. Following the outbreak of war the USSR carried out a massacre of Polish army leaders and intellectuals at Katyn. Non of this is forgivable but it does not mean that Soviet communism was as bad as Nazism.
Some people would have us believe that a simple body count is all you need to decide if one regime was as brutal and corrupt as another. But nothing in politics or history is that simple. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions in the Soviet Union. Many of those people were good communists who had supported the revolution. In the 1930s leading Bolsheviks such as Zinoviev were eliminated by Stalin in a series of show trials. Zinoviev and the others confessed in open court that they were counter revolutionaries. They undoubtedly did this because of torture but also, I believe, because they wanted to preserve the revolution and believed that in the longer term they would be exonerated.
After Stalin's death the new Soviet leader Khrushchev denounced Stalin and exonerated those who had been executed. Lenin in his last Testament said that Stalin should have been removed as general Secretary of the Communist Party. Stalin was condemned by Soviet communists.
So where does that leave us with Hitler and Stalin? Hitler embodied Nazism. He was the only leader of the Nazis and responsible for policies which lead to the murder of six million Jews, and many hundreds of thousands more socialists, communists, homosexuals and Roma. The total has been estimated at somewhere between eleven and seventeen million. He was the undoubted aggressor in the Second World War. He has never been denounced by any of the the Nazi leaders or their successors. In fact he is revered by them.
Twenty million Russians died in the Second World War. That is very hard for us to begin to imagine. That is why they call it the Great Patriotic War, and that is why Stalin is still seen by some in Russia as a great leader. Winston Churchill was a fervent supporter of the British Empire - how many people died because of the Empire? In fact there was no doubt that as Prime Minister during the Second World War one of his main aims was to preserve the Empire. He also deployed troops against striking miners in 1910. He is still regarded with respect in Britain as a great war leader.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Monday, 31 August 2009
Its high time to tame the market
Well, at last a regulator has had the guts to say we should rein in 'free' market financial capitalism. Not only that but he said that much of what it does is "socially useless". Of course it is perfectly possible to argue that all it does is socially useless, and unnecessary to boot. Lord Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), had the nerve to suggest that financial transactions should be taxed. It would be better if most of those transactions were eliminated all together, and lets not forget that it was 'light touch regulation by the FSA, lauded by Gordon Brown, that lead to the economic crisis in the UK.
Of course there were predictable howls of rage from the British Bankers Association and plenty of flak from so called 'economists'. I understand that Lord Turner is a wealthy man. That's good for him because his comments amounted to a resignation letter and I don't doubt that he will soon be receiving his P45. Deputy business Editor of the Sunday Independent Simon Evans weighed in with an article entitled 'Turners anitdote would kill, not cure, the city" - lets hope so. Evans is typical of the conventional business media hacks who marvel at the market in the good times, then expect the state (i.e socialism') to ride to the rescue when the excesses of greed threaten chaos. He says that "failing to save Lehman's last year was a terrible mistake" - but why should taxpayers be expected to prop up the rich who serve no socially useful purpose. Those who live by the sword should die by it. He then goes on to say "But I don't know how to temper the City's greed" and rubbish any idea of a Tobin tax.
Well Simon, some of us do know how to temper the greed of capitalists. The intervention by the state, in the UK to the tune of £1.4 billion of taxpayers money, was the right thing to do in the short term. The rotten system of financial capitalism needed to be propped up to prevent greater harm to the people of the UK. But that was a first step. It should have been followed by the nationalisation and break up of the banks. Along with mutual societies such as credit unions, the state, subject to democratic control, should have a monopoly of credit, and banking services. The financial services sector has had a history of malpractice and ripping off the British people. Remember the mis-selling of pensions and endowment mortgages, and the ridiculous charges that they levy on ISAs and overdrafts?
We are being taken for a ride. Capitalist banks are socially irresponsible institutions who believe they should only be answerable to the market and not wider society. When they crash we suffer the consequences. Of course the imposition of any tax on financial transactions in the UK would make these money grubbers flee abroad. That is what they always threaten to do if democratically elected governments don't do as they are told. That is why we need international socialism to bring these people down. We need to assert control over our own lives by putting democracy above commercial interests, and ending the domination of the capitalist exploiters. That is what socialism is all about.
Of course there were predictable howls of rage from the British Bankers Association and plenty of flak from so called 'economists'. I understand that Lord Turner is a wealthy man. That's good for him because his comments amounted to a resignation letter and I don't doubt that he will soon be receiving his P45. Deputy business Editor of the Sunday Independent Simon Evans weighed in with an article entitled 'Turners anitdote would kill, not cure, the city" - lets hope so. Evans is typical of the conventional business media hacks who marvel at the market in the good times, then expect the state (i.e socialism') to ride to the rescue when the excesses of greed threaten chaos. He says that "failing to save Lehman's last year was a terrible mistake" - but why should taxpayers be expected to prop up the rich who serve no socially useful purpose. Those who live by the sword should die by it. He then goes on to say "But I don't know how to temper the City's greed" and rubbish any idea of a Tobin tax.
Well Simon, some of us do know how to temper the greed of capitalists. The intervention by the state, in the UK to the tune of £1.4 billion of taxpayers money, was the right thing to do in the short term. The rotten system of financial capitalism needed to be propped up to prevent greater harm to the people of the UK. But that was a first step. It should have been followed by the nationalisation and break up of the banks. Along with mutual societies such as credit unions, the state, subject to democratic control, should have a monopoly of credit, and banking services. The financial services sector has had a history of malpractice and ripping off the British people. Remember the mis-selling of pensions and endowment mortgages, and the ridiculous charges that they levy on ISAs and overdrafts?
We are being taken for a ride. Capitalist banks are socially irresponsible institutions who believe they should only be answerable to the market and not wider society. When they crash we suffer the consequences. Of course the imposition of any tax on financial transactions in the UK would make these money grubbers flee abroad. That is what they always threaten to do if democratically elected governments don't do as they are told. That is why we need international socialism to bring these people down. We need to assert control over our own lives by putting democracy above commercial interests, and ending the domination of the capitalist exploiters. That is what socialism is all about.
Friday, 21 August 2009
The rabid free market right is bringing America down
Is America still a superpower? In military terms it still is but can the USA continue to be a dominant force politically and economically? Much depends on what happens in the next few years after the recent crash brought about by free market financial capitalism. The US economy is in dire straits and there is no sign of where a revival is going to come from - as I described in this post.
The great irony here is that those who would make America great are largely responsible for this situation. The rot started with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, but really got going with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981. Reagan's election ushered in a generation of domination of US politics by the free market right. Neoliberals - that is right wing Americans who adhered to the idea of American supremacy as a global superpower and the untrammeled operation of the free market - the Washington Consensus - through globalisation and bodies like the IMF and WTO - became the dominant force in American and global politics.
Reaganomics consisted of tax cuts for the rich, privatisation and de-regulation but also involved increased military spending and budget deficits. Taxes for the rich were lowered from 70% to 28% whilst the national debt increased from $700 billion to $3trillion. This was 'trickle down economics', the 'theory' being that as the rich had more money in their pockets and businesses were freed from 'red tape' by small government, the benefits would eventually reach the bottom of society. Predictably, they didn't.
Reagan was followed by George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush. Despite the election of a democrat, Clinton, in 1993, little changed. The free market right still dominated and Clinton followed suit. The Project for the New American Century was typical of right wing neoliberal American thinking and had a great infuence on the government of George W Bush, notably on the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The election of Barak Obama last year has given Americans hope that a generation of selfishness and greed can be tempered by social justice. But many on the right refuse to accept democratic change, just as they did when Clinton was elected and they tried to bring him down over the Lewinsky affair. Now they have retreated into ever more bizarre and rabid rantings. One of the wackier manifestations of this are the 'birthers' who believe, despite the facts, that Obama isn't American and therefore can't be President. We have recently had to contend with crazy remarks and lies about the NHS because of Obama's healthcare plan.
So what has neoliberalism achieved for America? Greater intolerance, injustice, inequality, debt, and poverty for many of its people. A loss in standing for America in the eyes of the global community. But most of all economic decline. Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad (ancient proverb) - maybe the birthers are just the start. Is this the beginning of the end for the USA?
The great irony here is that those who would make America great are largely responsible for this situation. The rot started with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, but really got going with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981. Reagan's election ushered in a generation of domination of US politics by the free market right. Neoliberals - that is right wing Americans who adhered to the idea of American supremacy as a global superpower and the untrammeled operation of the free market - the Washington Consensus - through globalisation and bodies like the IMF and WTO - became the dominant force in American and global politics.
Reaganomics consisted of tax cuts for the rich, privatisation and de-regulation but also involved increased military spending and budget deficits. Taxes for the rich were lowered from 70% to 28% whilst the national debt increased from $700 billion to $3trillion. This was 'trickle down economics', the 'theory' being that as the rich had more money in their pockets and businesses were freed from 'red tape' by small government, the benefits would eventually reach the bottom of society. Predictably, they didn't.
Reagan was followed by George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush. Despite the election of a democrat, Clinton, in 1993, little changed. The free market right still dominated and Clinton followed suit. The Project for the New American Century was typical of right wing neoliberal American thinking and had a great infuence on the government of George W Bush, notably on the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The election of Barak Obama last year has given Americans hope that a generation of selfishness and greed can be tempered by social justice. But many on the right refuse to accept democratic change, just as they did when Clinton was elected and they tried to bring him down over the Lewinsky affair. Now they have retreated into ever more bizarre and rabid rantings. One of the wackier manifestations of this are the 'birthers' who believe, despite the facts, that Obama isn't American and therefore can't be President. We have recently had to contend with crazy remarks and lies about the NHS because of Obama's healthcare plan.
So what has neoliberalism achieved for America? Greater intolerance, injustice, inequality, debt, and poverty for many of its people. A loss in standing for America in the eyes of the global community. But most of all economic decline. Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad (ancient proverb) - maybe the birthers are just the start. Is this the beginning of the end for the USA?
Thursday, 13 August 2009
As freedoms for capitalists increase we get more restrictions
The 'free' market is getting freer. With de-regulation for businesses still going full steam ahead the freedoms of citizens are narrowing. New Labour have introduced over 3000 new offences since 1997. We have ID cards and a plethora of 'ant-terrorist' legislation including more restrictions on the the right of assembly. Even peaceful greens can't get together for a summer festival.
But we are constantly being told that there are too many restrictions on business. That business is being strangled by red tape. Pity the government doesn't take the same view with its citizens (er... we're all subjects really). As the effects of de-regulation, privatisation and the banker's recession take hold we can expect more criminality. Poverty will increase as capitalists try to maintain profits. Unemployment will rise. The government will have to manage greater discontent, not least about the rotten state of our democracy.
Fortunately for the next government New Labour have put in place the restrictive apparatus to criminalise and contain dissent. Is this a co-incidence? I don't think so. With reactionary governments who feel comfortable about the filthy rich, and greater inequality we will see more discontent. The powers are in place to ensure that the discontent can be contained.
Fortunately for the next government New Labour have put in place the restrictive apparatus to criminalise and contain dissent. Is this a co-incidence? I don't think so. With reactionary governments who feel comfortable about the filthy rich, and greater inequality we will see more discontent. The powers are in place to ensure that the discontent can be contained.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Capitalism isn't working
In the past 40 years or so productive capitalism has been overtaken by financial capitalism. By productive capitalism I mean the 'real economy' which includes the production of commodities such as manufacturing and services. Financial capitalism centres around money making money and includes finance, insurance and property. How did this happen? The formation of large corporations - monopoly capitalism - at the turn of the 20th century lead to the generation of massive surpluses. Some of this money was re-invested in production but the sums were so large that there simply wasn't enough productive capacity to invest in. Investors had to find other outlets for this money. Hence the massive increase in size of the banking and the financial sector in the later part of the century.
The reason is that mature capitalist economies have been suffering from stagnation for sometime. America was lifted out of the Great Depression by the spending on the Second World War and the postwar boom happened because rising wages allowed people to spend more stimulating demand for goods and services. The problem with consumer capitalism is that it doesn't work if people can't afford to buy products. Since the boom came to an end in the 1970s stagnation has been the norm. The billions sloshing around have been invested in finance and financial products and we have seen a series of speculative booms and crashes, each one worse than the last. We've had the 1987 stock market crash in the US, the Asian financial crisis, stagnation in Japan, a banking crisis in Sweden, the Dot Com boom in 2000 and now the so-called Credit Crunch.
After the Dot Com boom the weak recovery in the USA was dependent on very low interest rates and booming credit, fuelling the house price bubble which began to burst in 2007. We haven't seen the end of this crisis yet by any means. What is going to lead to a recovery? With falling incomes in the USA, mass unemployment and lack of credit - nothing. The only thing that can is another boom - but where is that going to come from? Its no good expecting China to lift us out of this. They have to have a market to sell their products and the USA provided that market, but how is it going to now?
Looking back we can see that the periods of prosperity for ordinary people in the last hundred years or so were aberrations rather than the norm. As capitalists try to squeeze wages further to boost their profits demand will continue to fall leading to further stagnation. The USA is unlikely to be able to lift the world economy out of this stagnant state. The message is that capitalism doesn't work well - even for capitalists. For the rest of us its even worse, and won't ever get better. Meanwhile vast sums of money - trillions of dollars - are chasing speculative gains when they could be spent on useful things like providing all the people on the planet with clean water to drink and adequate housing. Capitalism is an iniquitous and unsustainable economic system artificially maintained by a set of rules which could be changed democratically at any time. Now is the time to make those changes
The reason is that mature capitalist economies have been suffering from stagnation for sometime. America was lifted out of the Great Depression by the spending on the Second World War and the postwar boom happened because rising wages allowed people to spend more stimulating demand for goods and services. The problem with consumer capitalism is that it doesn't work if people can't afford to buy products. Since the boom came to an end in the 1970s stagnation has been the norm. The billions sloshing around have been invested in finance and financial products and we have seen a series of speculative booms and crashes, each one worse than the last. We've had the 1987 stock market crash in the US, the Asian financial crisis, stagnation in Japan, a banking crisis in Sweden, the Dot Com boom in 2000 and now the so-called Credit Crunch.
After the Dot Com boom the weak recovery in the USA was dependent on very low interest rates and booming credit, fuelling the house price bubble which began to burst in 2007. We haven't seen the end of this crisis yet by any means. What is going to lead to a recovery? With falling incomes in the USA, mass unemployment and lack of credit - nothing. The only thing that can is another boom - but where is that going to come from? Its no good expecting China to lift us out of this. They have to have a market to sell their products and the USA provided that market, but how is it going to now?
Looking back we can see that the periods of prosperity for ordinary people in the last hundred years or so were aberrations rather than the norm. As capitalists try to squeeze wages further to boost their profits demand will continue to fall leading to further stagnation. The USA is unlikely to be able to lift the world economy out of this stagnant state. The message is that capitalism doesn't work well - even for capitalists. For the rest of us its even worse, and won't ever get better. Meanwhile vast sums of money - trillions of dollars - are chasing speculative gains when they could be spent on useful things like providing all the people on the planet with clean water to drink and adequate housing. Capitalism is an iniquitous and unsustainable economic system artificially maintained by a set of rules which could be changed democratically at any time. Now is the time to make those changes
Friday, 24 July 2009
Can't tell left from right
Some people can't tell left from right. This can be a real danger when driving. I wonder if James Purnell drives a lot, if so he should be careful because he clearly suffers from this problem. He thinks he's on the left of politics but he isn't. He's been a member of a New Labour centre-right government for long enough that he ought to know that his Party espouses reactionary causes. Like uncritical worship of the 'free' market. Lets take as an example his very own recent so-called welfare reforms which I posted about here. They represent the 21st century version of the workhouse. Rabid right-wingers like the American Rush Limbaugh would have been proud of what Purnell has done. I used Limbaugh as an example because New Labour love to copy the policies of the American right. That is where they get most of their ideas from. Progressive governments protect workers and the unemployed against the malign effects of 'free' market capitalism, they don't batter them as Purnell has done.
If you want to know how how 'left-winger' James Purnell voted on key issues since 2001 you can get this information from theyworkforyou.com:
* Voted moderately for a transparent Parliament
* Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban
* Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards
* Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals
* Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees
* Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws
* Voted very strongly for the Iraq war
* Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war
* Voted very strongly for replacing Trident
* Voted moderately for the hunting ban
* Voted very strongly for equal gay rights
* Voted moderately for laws to stop climate change
So I was interested to read Purnell's latest contribution to the 'progressive' debate in the Guardian with interest. He says that "We learned the lesson that we should use markets or the private sector where they achieved the relevant outcome". He doesn't say "right outcome" just "relevant". But the only outcome of New Labour's privatisation programme has been greater poverty for for workers, a more unequal society and a lessening of opportunity for the poor, working class, and middle class. You cannot pursue policies of privatisation and call yourself 'left' or 'progressive' because the outcome is neither left nor progressive. This is the paradox of New Labour - talk about creating a better and more equal society then follow policies which lead to exactly the opposite. Create greater inequality then find a sticking plaster to put on it- like SureStart. The New Labour acolytes are being either dishonest or stupid.
If you want to know how how 'left-winger' James Purnell voted on key issues since 2001 you can get this information from theyworkforyou.com:
* Voted moderately for a transparent Parliament
* Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban
* Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards
* Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals
* Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees
* Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws
* Voted very strongly for the Iraq war
* Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war
* Voted very strongly for replacing Trident
* Voted moderately for the hunting ban
* Voted very strongly for equal gay rights
* Voted moderately for laws to stop climate change
So I was interested to read Purnell's latest contribution to the 'progressive' debate in the Guardian with interest. He says that "We learned the lesson that we should use markets or the private sector where they achieved the relevant outcome". He doesn't say "right outcome" just "relevant". But the only outcome of New Labour's privatisation programme has been greater poverty for for workers, a more unequal society and a lessening of opportunity for the poor, working class, and middle class. You cannot pursue policies of privatisation and call yourself 'left' or 'progressive' because the outcome is neither left nor progressive. This is the paradox of New Labour - talk about creating a better and more equal society then follow policies which lead to exactly the opposite. Create greater inequality then find a sticking plaster to put on it- like SureStart. The New Labour acolytes are being either dishonest or stupid.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Rebuilding the collective
On the 13th July I was at the Ways With Words festival at Dartington Hall. I went to see Rob Hopkins, Shaun Chamberlin and Tamzin Pinkerton speak at the Transition Morning event. I enjoyed the talks even though there was little that I hadn't heard before, but there were some good arguments as to why nuclear power won't solve our energy needs. The audience, as it usually is, was distinctly middle aged and middle class - so Rob et al. were largely preaching to the converted. There are now many Transition towns across the world and more are being set up every day. As someone who is trying to set up a local climate change group and has been involved in such groups I was hoping to hear some more from them about how to reach out to the 'difficult' parts of the community - the ones who 'don't want to know'.
At the last Green Party conference there was a talk by a woman from Totnes who is active in the GP and Transition. She said, as I had guessed, that they had reached all those in Totnes who were 'interested' but they were still in a minority. The real challenge for such groups is reaching those who are 'indifferent' - and I'm not talking about climate change deniers here. When I asked Rob and Tamzin about this their answer was (and I'm paraphrasing) - to keep plugging away, show the benefits of local food, community action etc and more people will come on board. I'm not so sure it is going to be that easy.
The whole point about Transition is its inclusive, it has to embrace all the community, hence you won't find any mention of politics or (divisive) economics in the Transition Handbook. This is fair enough but Transition is about building a collective in a world of selfish individualism. By that I don't mean that we are all selfish but that we have been 'taught' to think of ourselves as 'selfish individuals' - to put our own wants first . If you want to know more I suggest you watch Adam Curtis's excellent documentary - The Century of the Self - which charts the development of public relations, advertising and the growth of consumer capitalism in the 20th century, based on the ideas of Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays - it is essential viewing if you want to know how we got here. Selfish individualism is now deeply ingrained in our society, that is why we find it so difficult to build communities and that is what Transition is all about - collective action.
There is another word for collective action - socialism. Putting the interests of the collective above the interests of the selfish individual is what socialism is all about. It does not mean, as is popularly supposed, oppression of the individual - that is what the capitalist media want you to think. Individual rights must be protected. But the interests of a community (collective) have to come first. At one time no one would have disputed this idea. If we go back a relatively short way in history no one even thought of themselves as an selfish individual in the way we do now. People were part of a community. In order for Transition to become a reality we have to rebuild the collective - that is the task in hand. Just don't mention the 'S' word though!
Saturday, 11 July 2009
New Labour, New Cronies
Interesting story in the Independent on Wednesday about Lord Mandelson. Apparently this very important person has no less than ten people working for him in his new empire. His Lordship's newly formed Department for Business, Information and Skills gives him control of trade, consumer affairs, science and innovation, higher education, communications etc etc etc. Of course, Gordon Brown brought his erstwhile enemy Mandelson into government out of desperation, and since he saved Gordon's skin in the recent attempted coup after the Euro-election debacle, its no surprise that he has become more powerful.
When you look at Mandelson's departmental heads what do you see? Well no less than four of them are unelected Lords, and there is also a Lady. Was it really that difficult to find MPs to fill these posts? Or does New Labour actually prefer bankers and Tony's cronies to their own party members? We know that Gordon likes bankers and financiers. Look at his response to the credit crunch. Any curb on bonuses? Any break up of banks too big to fail?
The truth is that the leaders of New Labour - Blair, Brown and Mandelson - have all but eviscerated the Labour Party. It is now an empty shell. Merely a vehicle for the careerist politicians who lead it. Peter Oborne in his book the Triumph of the Political Class describes this process and how the people who rule us do it largely for their own purposes, they have become an elite, answerable only to themselves.
At one time the Labour party stood for something and people in politics paid their dues. They worked themselves up from the bottom, starting out as local councillors, and active trade unionists before moving on to parliament. The Labour Party used to have a democratic structure. The Labour Party conference wasn't mere PR window dressing - it meant something. If you want to find out more about the history of Labour Party democracy read the excellent book Parliamentary Socialism by Ralph Milliband.
Nowadays if you run the country you don't bother to debate in your own party, you don't bother to give any kind of space to people who may have different opinions to yourself, you simply parachute in people who share your views and will do your bidding. This is what New Labour did with the likes of Lord Adonis and Baroness Vadera. This is not only profoundly undemocratic but its also bad for our country. All those people who used to pay their dues to get into government learnt something valuable in the process. Now we get people coming into government with their potty ideas fully formed and untested in the crucible of democracy. This is just another example of why government in our country has become so rotten.
When you look at Mandelson's departmental heads what do you see? Well no less than four of them are unelected Lords, and there is also a Lady. Was it really that difficult to find MPs to fill these posts? Or does New Labour actually prefer bankers and Tony's cronies to their own party members? We know that Gordon likes bankers and financiers. Look at his response to the credit crunch. Any curb on bonuses? Any break up of banks too big to fail?
The truth is that the leaders of New Labour - Blair, Brown and Mandelson - have all but eviscerated the Labour Party. It is now an empty shell. Merely a vehicle for the careerist politicians who lead it. Peter Oborne in his book the Triumph of the Political Class describes this process and how the people who rule us do it largely for their own purposes, they have become an elite, answerable only to themselves.
At one time the Labour party stood for something and people in politics paid their dues. They worked themselves up from the bottom, starting out as local councillors, and active trade unionists before moving on to parliament. The Labour Party used to have a democratic structure. The Labour Party conference wasn't mere PR window dressing - it meant something. If you want to find out more about the history of Labour Party democracy read the excellent book Parliamentary Socialism by Ralph Milliband.
Nowadays if you run the country you don't bother to debate in your own party, you don't bother to give any kind of space to people who may have different opinions to yourself, you simply parachute in people who share your views and will do your bidding. This is what New Labour did with the likes of Lord Adonis and Baroness Vadera. This is not only profoundly undemocratic but its also bad for our country. All those people who used to pay their dues to get into government learnt something valuable in the process. Now we get people coming into government with their potty ideas fully formed and untested in the crucible of democracy. This is just another example of why government in our country has become so rotten.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Unemployment is a free market failure
As unemployment rises inexorably towards three million in the UK the government has no answer. That is hardly surprising because this government is so intent in worshiping at the altar of the market that it believes that governments can't and shouldn't' do anything - that is the job of the market. So we can't expect much from this government except the harassment and impoverishment of the unemployed and those on welfare as I described in this post on the government's latest so-called 'welfare' reform.
The unemployed are the ones who are paying the most for the banker's recession. By being shut out of paid work they will suffer hardship, low esteem and health problems, often brought on by malnutrition. Malnutrition is estimated to affect three million people in the UK and cost £7.3 billion. Yet another cost dumped onto society by capitalists.
Capitalism has always lead to unemployment. In fact there was no unemployment before capitalism. It is a feature of the capitalist economic system described by Marx over a century ago:-
"....it is capitalistic accumulation itself that constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of labourers, i.e. a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the self-expansion of capital, and therefore a surplus population" [Marx: Capital].
Further to being an intrinsic feature of a capitalist economy unemployment is actually useful to capitalists. It creates the 'reserve army of labour' which is so beneficial to capitalists because it helps to lower wages and reduces militancy amongst workers, helping to keep them in line. No wonder capitalist governments like New Labour have very little intention of doing anything about unemployment.
Any economic system which cannot provide full employment is a failure. It needs to be replaced by an economic system that can provide full employment. Even in a capitalist society where the free market is failing governments must step in to do what the market cannot and create jobs for those without work. That is the hallmark of a civilised society. Its a pity that doesn't apply in the UK.
The unemployed are the ones who are paying the most for the banker's recession. By being shut out of paid work they will suffer hardship, low esteem and health problems, often brought on by malnutrition. Malnutrition is estimated to affect three million people in the UK and cost £7.3 billion. Yet another cost dumped onto society by capitalists.
Capitalism has always lead to unemployment. In fact there was no unemployment before capitalism. It is a feature of the capitalist economic system described by Marx over a century ago:-
"....it is capitalistic accumulation itself that constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of labourers, i.e. a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the self-expansion of capital, and therefore a surplus population" [Marx: Capital].
Further to being an intrinsic feature of a capitalist economy unemployment is actually useful to capitalists. It creates the 'reserve army of labour' which is so beneficial to capitalists because it helps to lower wages and reduces militancy amongst workers, helping to keep them in line. No wonder capitalist governments like New Labour have very little intention of doing anything about unemployment.
Any economic system which cannot provide full employment is a failure. It needs to be replaced by an economic system that can provide full employment. Even in a capitalist society where the free market is failing governments must step in to do what the market cannot and create jobs for those without work. That is the hallmark of a civilised society. Its a pity that doesn't apply in the UK.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
A Radical Programme for the Left
There has been a lot of talk about where the left goes next. In spite of the credit crunch left wing and progressive groups appear to have no coherent alternative programme to free market capitalism.
I've posted about these issues before and suggested some alternatives but here I want to explore what an alternative programme might look like. Firstly its essential to understand that the core of any alternative programme must be an economic strategy. It is essential because the economy is at the heart of our society. The economy is embedded in our society as Polanyi observed. This is historically where the left have failed to deliver. The focus thus far has been on nationalisation and delivery by the state. Thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union this approach has lost much of its credibility. And its not just in the Soviet Union that state control of the economy has run into trouble. In the UK the Labour Party used to believe in a 'mixed economy' (in the 1960s and 70s) with utilities and public services owned and run by the state with the rest in the private sector. That also failed for reasons which are too complex to debate fully here but a large part was played by the fact that the Labour government's commitment to state control was weak and lacking in any kind of dynamism or innovation. However, when we talk of these failures we must never lose sight of the effective propaganda and financial war waged by the free-market right to undermine alternatives to capitalism.
Its important to understand why the alternative economy is crucial. As long as we rely on the 'free' market - i.e. capitalism - to deliver our economic needs we will continue to have great inequalities and mass poverty globally. That can never change because that is how capitalism works. It was Marx who first explained this process. By acquiring the surplus value of worker's labour capitalists are able to cream off the wealth from society for themselves - leaving the rest of us with the crumbs from the cake. This can't change unless we create wealth for ourselves instead of wealth for capitalists. They need us but we don't need them. You can't have capitalism and social and economic justice - they don't go together. Its essential to at least understand this basic bit of Marxism. You don't have to be a Marxist but you need to understand how capitalism works and Marx has the answers.
It is important to also understand that by capitalists I don't mean the person who runs your local corner shop, restaurant, farm, or small business. these people are not capitalists. Capitalists are the people who own the means of production i.e. Olag Deripaksa, Lakshmi Mittal, Rupert Murdoch et al. It is the multinational corporations which are the root of the problem - not your local newsagent.
So how can an alternative economy work? How can we deliver all the goods and services which we need without the 'free' market? The answer is a mixture of nationalisation and mutualism. There are some obvious things which the market cannot deliver - the railways and universal post are examples. So we nationalise the railways and keep Royal Mail in public ownership. We also need to nationalise the banks and utilities. The banks have far too much power as we have seen and essential services such as energy and water need to be available to all - not on the basis of what people can afford to pay. Also included would be healthcare, education, social services and welfare.
By nationalisation I do not necessarily mean straightforward ownership and control by the state. These nationalised industries could be not for profit companies or social enterprises where the employees are the stakeholders. We need to look for more dynamic models in order to make sure that the nationalised services do not stagnate. They must be able to pay their way, and to develop and innovate. The workers in them must be moivated to make them successful. In any case there must be no shareholders - unless that is, all UK adults are made 'shareholders' with 'shares' that cannot be sold or otherwise traded. There is no reason why public services such as health, for example, could not be delivered by mutual organisations supported by the state. We need to come up with new models because we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
What about goods? there is no reason why goods can't be delivered by co-operatives as I've ready proposed in 'How to Beat Capitalism'. There are plenty of successful examples. What we need is a government which is committed to actively promoting and supporting mutualism as a viable alternative to capitalism. There are organisations such as Co-operatives UK which promote the setting up of co-operatives and these need to be encouraged and supported by the government. The Mondragonco-operatives provide a good example of how co-operatives can successfully deliver a range of goods. In the short to medium term we also need the kind of Green New Deal which is being supported by the Green Party to provide thousands of jobs and investment to help to combat climate change.
If an alternative economy is the first priority, the second priority must be democratic reform. We need a written constitution - with a removal of all royal perogatives from the government, an elected second chamber to provide checks and balances, electoral reform with proportional representation and the revival of local government. Local councils must be able to deliver services in-house, be able to provide social housing and have democratic control of local services including health and education. People, local and democratically, must be able to determine whether they want a new store in the heart of their town - not the corporations.
A programme for the left needs to begin urgent steps to move to a low carbon economy. I've already mentioned the Green New Deal But we need to much more particularly in the area of public transport. Climate change is the biggest threat to our society.
There are many other issues but these are the key ones. The left will have to work hard to persuade voters that these changes are necessary given the evident pro-market bias in the media, and left groups will have to learn to work together instead of the eternal infighting which has cursed socialist politics for the past century or so. A left government will have many obstacles to contend with. Capitalists are likely to stage an investment strike, starving the UK of capital and creating unemployment. European legislation, which enshrines neoliberal values, will have to be reformed. But all this can be done. Franklin D Roosevelt did much of this in the USA - the world heartland of capitalism - and we can do it here.
And finally a word about trade unions. There is a crying need to free up trade unions from the repressive Thatcherite legislation designed to hobble them, This must also be part of a radical left wing programme. But trade unions need to change also. In the UK they have always had very limited horizons - recruit, negotiate, collective bargaining... and er .. that's it. Trade unions did set up the Labour Party but now it has turned against them they must grab the opportunity for change by refusing to support New Labour financially and if necessary setting up a new party of the left. Their role in bringing about an alternative economy will be crucial.
None of this can be done overnight - its a long hard road. But it must and can be done. Capitalists changed the rules to suit their purposes. We must democratically change the rules to suit ours.
I've posted about these issues before and suggested some alternatives but here I want to explore what an alternative programme might look like. Firstly its essential to understand that the core of any alternative programme must be an economic strategy. It is essential because the economy is at the heart of our society. The economy is embedded in our society as Polanyi observed. This is historically where the left have failed to deliver. The focus thus far has been on nationalisation and delivery by the state. Thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union this approach has lost much of its credibility. And its not just in the Soviet Union that state control of the economy has run into trouble. In the UK the Labour Party used to believe in a 'mixed economy' (in the 1960s and 70s) with utilities and public services owned and run by the state with the rest in the private sector. That also failed for reasons which are too complex to debate fully here but a large part was played by the fact that the Labour government's commitment to state control was weak and lacking in any kind of dynamism or innovation. However, when we talk of these failures we must never lose sight of the effective propaganda and financial war waged by the free-market right to undermine alternatives to capitalism.
Its important to understand why the alternative economy is crucial. As long as we rely on the 'free' market - i.e. capitalism - to deliver our economic needs we will continue to have great inequalities and mass poverty globally. That can never change because that is how capitalism works. It was Marx who first explained this process. By acquiring the surplus value of worker's labour capitalists are able to cream off the wealth from society for themselves - leaving the rest of us with the crumbs from the cake. This can't change unless we create wealth for ourselves instead of wealth for capitalists. They need us but we don't need them. You can't have capitalism and social and economic justice - they don't go together. Its essential to at least understand this basic bit of Marxism. You don't have to be a Marxist but you need to understand how capitalism works and Marx has the answers.
It is important to also understand that by capitalists I don't mean the person who runs your local corner shop, restaurant, farm, or small business. these people are not capitalists. Capitalists are the people who own the means of production i.e. Olag Deripaksa, Lakshmi Mittal, Rupert Murdoch et al. It is the multinational corporations which are the root of the problem - not your local newsagent.
So how can an alternative economy work? How can we deliver all the goods and services which we need without the 'free' market? The answer is a mixture of nationalisation and mutualism. There are some obvious things which the market cannot deliver - the railways and universal post are examples. So we nationalise the railways and keep Royal Mail in public ownership. We also need to nationalise the banks and utilities. The banks have far too much power as we have seen and essential services such as energy and water need to be available to all - not on the basis of what people can afford to pay. Also included would be healthcare, education, social services and welfare.
By nationalisation I do not necessarily mean straightforward ownership and control by the state. These nationalised industries could be not for profit companies or social enterprises where the employees are the stakeholders. We need to look for more dynamic models in order to make sure that the nationalised services do not stagnate. They must be able to pay their way, and to develop and innovate. The workers in them must be moivated to make them successful. In any case there must be no shareholders - unless that is, all UK adults are made 'shareholders' with 'shares' that cannot be sold or otherwise traded. There is no reason why public services such as health, for example, could not be delivered by mutual organisations supported by the state. We need to come up with new models because we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
What about goods? there is no reason why goods can't be delivered by co-operatives as I've ready proposed in 'How to Beat Capitalism'. There are plenty of successful examples. What we need is a government which is committed to actively promoting and supporting mutualism as a viable alternative to capitalism. There are organisations such as Co-operatives UK which promote the setting up of co-operatives and these need to be encouraged and supported by the government. The Mondragonco-operatives provide a good example of how co-operatives can successfully deliver a range of goods. In the short to medium term we also need the kind of Green New Deal which is being supported by the Green Party to provide thousands of jobs and investment to help to combat climate change.
If an alternative economy is the first priority, the second priority must be democratic reform. We need a written constitution - with a removal of all royal perogatives from the government, an elected second chamber to provide checks and balances, electoral reform with proportional representation and the revival of local government. Local councils must be able to deliver services in-house, be able to provide social housing and have democratic control of local services including health and education. People, local and democratically, must be able to determine whether they want a new store in the heart of their town - not the corporations.
A programme for the left needs to begin urgent steps to move to a low carbon economy. I've already mentioned the Green New Deal But we need to much more particularly in the area of public transport. Climate change is the biggest threat to our society.
There are many other issues but these are the key ones. The left will have to work hard to persuade voters that these changes are necessary given the evident pro-market bias in the media, and left groups will have to learn to work together instead of the eternal infighting which has cursed socialist politics for the past century or so. A left government will have many obstacles to contend with. Capitalists are likely to stage an investment strike, starving the UK of capital and creating unemployment. European legislation, which enshrines neoliberal values, will have to be reformed. But all this can be done. Franklin D Roosevelt did much of this in the USA - the world heartland of capitalism - and we can do it here.
And finally a word about trade unions. There is a crying need to free up trade unions from the repressive Thatcherite legislation designed to hobble them, This must also be part of a radical left wing programme. But trade unions need to change also. In the UK they have always had very limited horizons - recruit, negotiate, collective bargaining... and er .. that's it. Trade unions did set up the Labour Party but now it has turned against them they must grab the opportunity for change by refusing to support New Labour financially and if necessary setting up a new party of the left. Their role in bringing about an alternative economy will be crucial.
None of this can be done overnight - its a long hard road. But it must and can be done. Capitalists changed the rules to suit their purposes. We must democratically change the rules to suit ours.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Parliamentary reform? - don't hold your breath
I haven't said much in this blog about the MP's expenses scandal. Why not? Firstly I've been busy with the Euro elections and then away for two weeks, secondly there has been wall to wall coverage everywhere and finally it has proved to be a great distraction from what really matters at the moment - the economic crisis. In fact my last post on the issue was in January well before the Daily Telegraph spilt the beans.
But all this talk of Parliamentary reform brought on by the expenses scandal is old news to many of us. If you read the Guardian you would think that the nation had only just noticed that we had a rotten parliamentary system. Not long ago the likes of Polly Toynbee and Jonathon Freeland were writing as if all was well with the world - all it needed was a few tweaks from Gordon and everything would be hunky dory. But some of us have known that Parliament and the electoral system drastically needed reform - well, for most of our lives. And some of us have known that Gordon would continue exactly where Blair left off er.. ever since he became Prime Minister - as I made clear in April 2008.
For example, there has been talk of introducing electoral reform for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1970s I couldn't understand why we had an unelected House of Lords. Our system has clearly been rotten and bankrupt for a very long time, and, despite the overwhelming case for change, nothing has happened.
Nor is very much likely to happen because we live in an elected dictatorship. All power is in the hands of the government (increasingly the Prime Minister) with no checks or balances. We have no written constitution, and in the past 400 years or so politicians have gradually taken over powers which used to belong to the monarch. Combine that with a first past the post system which virtually guarantees a monopoly of power for the two main parties and what politician would want to change it? An honest one perhaps? One who believed in social justice? Now when was the last time we had one of those in Number 10?
But all this talk of Parliamentary reform brought on by the expenses scandal is old news to many of us. If you read the Guardian you would think that the nation had only just noticed that we had a rotten parliamentary system. Not long ago the likes of Polly Toynbee and Jonathon Freeland were writing as if all was well with the world - all it needed was a few tweaks from Gordon and everything would be hunky dory. But some of us have known that Parliament and the electoral system drastically needed reform - well, for most of our lives. And some of us have known that Gordon would continue exactly where Blair left off er.. ever since he became Prime Minister - as I made clear in April 2008.
For example, there has been talk of introducing electoral reform for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1970s I couldn't understand why we had an unelected House of Lords. Our system has clearly been rotten and bankrupt for a very long time, and, despite the overwhelming case for change, nothing has happened.
Nor is very much likely to happen because we live in an elected dictatorship. All power is in the hands of the government (increasingly the Prime Minister) with no checks or balances. We have no written constitution, and in the past 400 years or so politicians have gradually taken over powers which used to belong to the monarch. Combine that with a first past the post system which virtually guarantees a monopoly of power for the two main parties and what politician would want to change it? An honest one perhaps? One who believed in social justice? Now when was the last time we had one of those in Number 10?
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Why we should support the Lindsey strikers
After the sacking of 647 workers at the Lindsey oil refinery the industrial action continues. Many workers showed their defiance by burning their dismissal notices. It is estimated that another 4000 workers have gone out on strike around the country in support, including workers at Sellafield. There is absolutely no way that Total and its contractors could have got away with treating workers like this in France, or Germany. This is good old fashioned union busting.
The fact that the strike is 'illegal' means nothing. These workers voted with their feet - they walked out. Who needs a ballot to do that? The Thatcherite labour laws were brought in to hobble trade unions and weaken workers power. That is class war - pure and simple. Of course there will be people who will say you must have a ballot and I agree that there should be a ballot - if workers want one. The whole purpose of the ballot in Thatcherite trade union legislation is not to make things fairer but to tie up the union in bureaucracy and expense and prevent them from taking spontaneous action like that at Lindsey.
In the Lindsey case it remains to be seen if wildcat action was the right tactic. Much will depend upon support from other sectors, and there is still the possibility of a national strike ballot. All workers should support the Lindsey strikers. The Visteon workers showed that it is still possible to win disputes even in the most difficult of circumstances. We will need workers to show more strength and solidarity in the months to come because they are are going to be made to pay for the bailout of the fat cat bankers with their wages, conditions and jobs.
Update: Well. It looks like wildcat strike action proved to be the right tactic for the Lindsey workers. They have secured jobs for the original 51 workers who were laid off and the 647 who were sacked.
The fact that the strike is 'illegal' means nothing. These workers voted with their feet - they walked out. Who needs a ballot to do that? The Thatcherite labour laws were brought in to hobble trade unions and weaken workers power. That is class war - pure and simple. Of course there will be people who will say you must have a ballot and I agree that there should be a ballot - if workers want one. The whole purpose of the ballot in Thatcherite trade union legislation is not to make things fairer but to tie up the union in bureaucracy and expense and prevent them from taking spontaneous action like that at Lindsey.
In the Lindsey case it remains to be seen if wildcat action was the right tactic. Much will depend upon support from other sectors, and there is still the possibility of a national strike ballot. All workers should support the Lindsey strikers. The Visteon workers showed that it is still possible to win disputes even in the most difficult of circumstances. We will need workers to show more strength and solidarity in the months to come because they are are going to be made to pay for the bailout of the fat cat bankers with their wages, conditions and jobs.
Update: Well. It looks like wildcat strike action proved to be the right tactic for the Lindsey workers. They have secured jobs for the original 51 workers who were laid off and the 647 who were sacked.
Unison Conference - Brighton 2009
Off once again to the Unison Conference in Brighton. Great venue, the town that is, but there is talk of not going there again - pity. The conference was much the same as last time I went two years ago but some things have changed. The most important difference was that the penny has now dropped with just about all the delegates - New Labour is a boss's party and has completely betrayed its working class supporters - so that is a step forward.
There was a rousing speech by Dave Prentis in which he threatened to withhold funds from Labour. Many have taken this with a pinch of salt but I wonder. Prentis mentioned twice that we have reached a "crossroads" and mocked senior Labour politicians. If the Labour Party can only deliver 16% of the vote why should trade unions support it any longer? I think we are just begining to see the start of a fundamental shift in politics.
As for the rest of the week it was farly dull. As usual the most passionate debate was about Palestine. This time the 'friends of Israel' used a low key devious approach which went - "We support a two state solution but a boycott will hurt the Palestinians" - Yeah of course it will - then why are they asking for it? The usual disingenuous guff we hear from pro-Israelis. Needless to say they rightly lost again and the boycott continues.
I just had to finish by mentioning the Socialist Worker/Socialist Party crew who bombarded the deleagtes with literature, as usual, every time they entered and left the hall. How many years have they been stood outside doing this and where has it got them? - even though there is a crisis in capitalism. When are they going to wake up and realise that dogmatic socialism just doesn't wash with the British people. Social justice yes - Marxism (sadly) no. Why do you think I joined the Green Party?
The Euro debacle - 9th June 2009
Well, it couldn't have been much worse for the Green Party could it? We increased our vote by more than 25% nationally and scored as high as 12% in the South East. We came agonisingly close to getting several more MEPs and the main beneficiaries of the night were the BNP and UKIP, two parties who deserve the votes of nobody at all.
Much has been made of the BNP getting elected but their vote went down. The BNP got in because the Labour vote collapsed. In the NW it was particularly painful because our candidate Pater Cranie missed out to the BNP by 5,000 votes. We deserved a lot better.
The question that has to be asked is why on earth do people vote for a bunch of Tory rejects like UKIP? Their leader Nigel Farage (who?) was heard boasting before the election of the millions he has made from Euro allowances, and then there is the UKIP MEP Ashley Mote who was convicted of fraud ....oh and er there is the other UKIP MEP Tom Wise who has been accused of false accounting and money laundering! Why would anyone want to vote for this shower? Well unfortunately they do.
All this shows a more desperate need than ever for a party of the left that can re-assert the values of social justice. I believe the Green Party is just that party but I'm realistic enough to appreciate that there are many in the labour movement who will never support or join the Greens. They just don't get it on the environment and are still stuck in a post-war time warp as far as their political thinking goes.
Much has been made of the BNP getting elected but their vote went down. The BNP got in because the Labour vote collapsed. In the NW it was particularly painful because our candidate Pater Cranie missed out to the BNP by 5,000 votes. We deserved a lot better.
The question that has to be asked is why on earth do people vote for a bunch of Tory rejects like UKIP? Their leader Nigel Farage (who?) was heard boasting before the election of the millions he has made from Euro allowances, and then there is the UKIP MEP Ashley Mote who was convicted of fraud ....oh and er there is the other UKIP MEP Tom Wise who has been accused of false accounting and money laundering! Why would anyone want to vote for this shower? Well unfortunately they do.
All this shows a more desperate need than ever for a party of the left that can re-assert the values of social justice. I believe the Green Party is just that party but I'm realistic enough to appreciate that there are many in the labour movement who will never support or join the Greens. They just don't get it on the environment and are still stuck in a post-war time warp as far as their political thinking goes.
Great Gable 6th June 2009
 |
| The Scafells from Green Gable |
Although we wanted some lunch there was no shelter so after a drink and a snack we pressed on to the summit of Green Gable. These weren't the conditions to hang around in so after a few photos we went down to Windy Gap - which certainly lived up to its name. From the Gap there were great views of Ennerdale but we had no time to waste - weather conditions were worsening so we carried on straight up Great Gable. The climb was much steeper than I remembered it. I was beginning to get tired and cold - luckily I had brought two fleeces and after the second one went on I felt much better. After that it was a struggle to the summit fuelled by a half frozen Mars Bar.
 |
| Great Gable from Green Gable |
I just ought to add something about 21st Century Youth Hosteling. Buttermere Youth Hostel is a very pleasant place which is obviously popular with families. Much has changed since I used to go in the 1960s and 70s. You can get alcohol and decent coffee and the food has much improved. However there are still some odd anomalies; Buttermere shuts, yes shuts, at 11pm, get back any later and you are locked out!; the bunk beds are still the same ones I slept on 40 years ago and just as uncomfortable; there is an eerie quietness in the common room - as if you are in church - people speak in hushed tones. Later in the week I moved to Elterwater (stays open until 11.30pm!) with a friend and did some self catering. The kitchen was nice and clean but the pots and pans were still post-war vintage. Not a non-stick in sight! Would I go Youth Hostelling again? Possibly, but despite the modernisation it its still all a bit hair shirt'. I know the YHA is strapped for cash but please get some new bunks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)