THE UN-BEAUTIFUL GAME.

Posted on April 23, 2013 by stutteringsteps

Shirt-pulling, tripping, elbowing, foot-stamping, punching, kicking, holding, cheating, studs-up leg attacks, racial abuse – and that’s only on the pitch! Now ‘biting’ has been added to the ‘professional fouls’ incorporated into the self-styled beautiful game. Off the pitch, punching, racist and sexist abuse and kicking are supplemented by bottling and stabbing among some of the fans. Under the modern ‘capitalisation’ of sport, the outcomes of trying to steer a ball into the opposing sides net are clearly so high as to witness such unsporting actions – as par for the course.

Now it seems anything goes – not just so that your team wins – but that the media income continues in order to keep the ‘club‘ from bankruptcy. Instead of fouls being a rarity it is now genuine sporting gestures which are the rarity on the field of professional play. Hone your skills so you can weave around a defender and then expect your shorts to be grabbed as you pass or your legs smacked from under you by a late tackle from an incoming human projectile. Survive this and if your shot only just goes over the goal line – but none of the officials see this – expect that all the other side will deny you have scored.

What used to be a working class sport, played for working class wages, has over the years, been elevated to an arbitraged investment opportunity for billionaire owners, with players paid millions even when sat on the bench doing nothing. It is no accident that the de-regulation of industry and finance, under Thatcher was accompanied by the market financialisation of football. What used to be a relatively cheap and good-natured male-dominated afternoon out with your mates has become an extremely expensive obsession for the dedicated – some of whom have become rabid fanatics.

What used to count as ‘fair-play’ among workmates and the town and city teams of working-class communities, has disappeared along with the economic welfare of those same communities. What used to be a relatively parochial concern for the majority has become a patriarchal form of tribal warfare for a minority. The mild disappointment of your team loosing and admiration for the opposing sides skills has for many been replaced by a form of existential anger and derision – if not downright hatred for the ‘other‘.

In many ways what has happened to sport under the neo-liberal capitalist system has mirrored the capitalist mode of production itself. In the case of football, the ‘constant-capital’ of the stadium etc., has increased astronomically, so too has the circulating-capital (labour and raw and auxiliary materials) but the process is exactly the same. The capital investment (M) is used to produce the commodity (the match) which is exchanged for money (M+) where the + is the surplus value.

Therefore, the same phenomena has occurred as elsewhere under capitalism. The product has been over-developed using borrowed money to such a degree, that football clubs have begun operating primarily in debt. The income from gate takings, miscellaneous sales and TV receipts are becoming insufficient to pay for the costs of production plus a surplus. Instead of one or two, many football clubs are now nudging closer to the status of bankruptcy. The elite skilled workers (the variable-capital investment) of this male-dominated industry have left the ranks of the working class and entered the realms of the celebrity tax-dodging super-rich, living off the wages and salaries of their supporters and former neighbours.

The self-proclaimed ‘beautiful game’ has become in fact a sordid stage of the relative-overproduction of ‘sports’ capital everywhere. As such football shares the same fate as all capitalist forms of production; a shrinking consumer base along with increased competition and costs. The pressures caused by capital in its present crisis stage will continue to intensify the struggle between clubs and despite ‘trophy’ buyouts by international billionaire’s the present escalating-cost model will prove economically unsustainable.

These pressures will continue to find their way onto the pitch where the elite workers will be urged to do whatever it takes! But there are also other pressures. It is also morally unjustifiable that some people are paid millions for kicking, cueing, clubing or racketing a ball about, whilst millions are barely scraping a living on the margins of the capitalist mode of production. Sooner or later under regimes of austerity that will become obvious to more people. Capitalist control of sport disfigures and distorts human relationships – on the field of play and off it – as it does in the rest of society. This has been amply demonstrated over the past few years and now again over the past week, particularly in the case of premier class football.

Roy Ratcliffe (April 2013)

Posted in Critique, Economics, Finance | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

BIFURCATED BRITAIN.

Posted on April 17, 2013 by stutteringsteps

The death and funeral arrangements for Margaret Thatcher have vividly revealed the two great class divisions within the dis-United Kingdom of Britain. There are those for Thatcher and those against. And the bizarre spectacle of austerity Britain (for workers and the poor), witnessing a no-expenses spared funeral for an ex-champion of the ruling elite, clearly demonstrates the class-based, divided nature of English society. In economic and financial terms the ascendancy of Thatcher represented the interests of the neo-liberal tendencies in capitalism. However, in political terms, her elevation to leadership represented a departure from the previous post-war one-nation Toryism. In other words, Thatcherism represented a return to the previous ‘two-nation’ – rich and poor – economics and politics of the ruling elite. The velvet glove which adorned the iron fist of the capitalist class under the Tory leadership of Edward Heath was openly discarded and wielded by the appropriately named ‘iron lady’.

Despite the initial Conservative and Liberal Democratic rhetoric of ‘we are all in this together’ the austerity measures, tax breaks for the rich and Thatcher’s £10 million plus funeral reveal that we are very definitely not. With few exceptions it is the rich and elite who benefited from the policies she initiated and it is they who have been invited to the funeral and who will affect to grieve her passing. Yet again it cannot have escaped the attention of most people, that whenever, the ruling elite need something done, they are always able to find the money. This is so whether they need to keep control of the oil in Iraq by massive expenditure in arms, get rid of someone such as Gaddafi, blow vast sums on Olympic Games or give ‘one of theirs‘ an extravagant funeral. The sheer hypocrisy of those in the political, financial and economic elite, in the UK as elsewhere, knows no bounds. It is they who dodge taxes, abuse expenses, have numerous consultancies and homes, run up national debts and then introduce cuts and bedroom taxes for the poor.

They are also the ones who will line up in St Paul’s or the Mansion House and listen to the funeral eulogies and prayers. In these restricted venues the bifurcation and hypocrisy of the capitalist mode of production will again be amply demonstrated. Here the collusion between the religious and political establishment will be once again boldly and colourfully underlined. It is said that a reading from Psalm 139 was given. I bet the clergy did not include verse 22 of Psalm 139 which aptly embodies how Mrs Thatcher and her assembled mourning acolytes viewed the miners and all anti-capitalist activists “I hate them with the utmost hatred’. I also guess that those ‘big-bang’ financiers who attended this so-called Christian service will not have been embarrassed by an apt quotation from Psalm 115 “their idols are silver and gold’ or the politicians discomforted by one from Psalm 12 reading ’”..they talk with smooth lip and double heart.”

Meanwhile, in bifurcated Britain the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and those in the now precarious middle are also getting steadily poorer. The Scots are considering making their part of bifurcated Britain ‘official’ by considering independence. The nationalist hyperbole of putting the ‘great’ back into Great Britain was never more than a pompous imperialist boast and hardly any sensible person in Britain or Europe, considers the conquests and atrocities of that period were in any way ‘great’ nor those of the present day. Now the same anachronistic fate falls to the militarily embroidered tapestry of the term United Kingdom. Despite the ideological rhetoric of the ruling class, it has never been united, because under the capitalist system it is primarily divided by class. And as the current crisis develops those class divisions will be further emphasised and fought out once again. The exalted nature of the semi-state funeral of Margaret Thatcher amid welfare cuts, rising unemployment and increased poverty, calls attention to the very obvious fact – the existing and continuing bifurcation of Britain. [See also ‘Death at the Ritz‘. at http://www.critical-mass.net]

Roy Ratcliffe (April 2013.)

Posted in Critique, Finance, Politics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

HUMANITY AT A CROSS-ROADS.

Posted on April 15, 2013 by stutteringsteps

Social production – the real foundation of humanity.

To be really radical is to grasp things at their root and this is an absolutely necessity in the current economic and financial crisis. In this context, it can hardly be denied that the fundamental requirements at the root of all human life are sufficient amounts of food, water, clothing and shelter. They are what keep us alive. All other aspects of life, education, entertainment, science, technology, fashion, politics, in short culture, are dependent upon and develop alongside these basic economic requirements. Furthermore these fundamental requirements – along with the complexity developed on the basis of these fundamentals – are the products of social forces and social means of production. Only in the realms of fantasy and fiction have human beings fulfilled their economic or social needs as isolated individuals. Social means of production, have existed – and created regular surplus products – from the earliest hunter-gather societies to the present day urban and industrial societies.

The only modifications to those social means and forces of production have occurred by a) changes in human skills and knowledge; b) changes in the technical base of these means; and c) in the relationships of those people or classes controlling those means. A recognition of this process is the basis of the historical materialism comprehensively developed by Karl Marx. His clearest formulation of this view is contained in his foreword to the ‘Critique of Political Economy’ written in 1858. From his extensive studies, Marx concluded that ..“At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production..” From that point on, Marx reasoned, these relations turn into fetters and an “era of social revolution” begins.

In this article I will outline and consider on the basis of the current ‘five-fold crisis of capitalism’, what stage of development the productive forces of society have reached in the 21st century. This will lead into an identification of in how these ‘forces’ are in conflict with the existing economic and political ‘relations’ governing them. However, before doing so it is worth bearing in mind an important warning offered by Marx.

“In studying such transformation it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production”….and…“the ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.” (Marx ‘Preface to ‘Critique of Political Economy.’ emphasis added RR)

The ‘forces’ of social production in the 21st century.

At their most general, the forces of production under the 21st century mode are the same as any other. They comprise of raw materials, auxiliary materials, tools and energy – human and natural. However, who ‘controls’ these forces determines the class nature of society and how and in what form the ‘surplus’ product is extracted from the direct workers. Under systems of slavery the slave owner owned and controlled the ‘forces’ – raw materials, the auxiliary materials, the tools and the sources of energy. Under the Feudal mode, the landowning aristocracy and under the capitalist mode it is those who own ‘capital’ and ‘land’. The capitalist mode is just the latest exploitative social mode of production devised by humanity.

Using the factory system initially and later automation and interconnected machinery in place of small machine tools, the social ‘means of production’ have – during the domination of capital – become immense – along with the surplus. Utilising electrical power in place of coal and steam and fewer skilled, educated workers in place of masses of skilled and semi-skilled workers, the 20th and 21st century forces of production have been expanded to a very high degree. So high in fact that a number of game-changing ecological and social transformations have now taken place. The social forces of production are now so highly developed that they regularly produce along with huge profits, more finished items than can be sold at a profit, causing gluts, recessions and crises. They also create more pollution and ecological destruction than the planet can sustain. All these related factors are now game-changers. Humanity cannot afford either symptom any longer, nor the economic system which produces them.

Another major game-changing transformation is with regard to the ordinary citizen of capitalist countries. It is a fact that fewer and fewer workers are needed to produce more than sufficient amounts of necessaries, such as food, water, clothing, shelter and numerous other products which modern society is now accustomed. This in turn has created large-scale permanent unemployment for many people. A humane form of society cannot allow millions to exist in poverty just because industry does not need them. The third also related consequence of this development in the 20th century was to free large numbers of citizens to be employed in what have become known as the welfare and public services sectors. Any civilised society can no longer do without such ‘cultural’ aspects of life. These general changes are all irreversible transformations of the ‘material conditions – which have matured within the framework’ of capitalist society.

Thus during the 20th century we have witnessed the creation of education, health, fire, social services, local and national government etc, – all non-profit making functional economic and social forms. They are also forms which have absorbed up to 60% of the working populations in most advanced capitalist countries. It is a welfare provision that is extremely beneficial to all sectors of workers and middle-classes since the post Second-World-War period. Social production looked so good that it was seriously considered in the mid 20th century that technology and amalgamation of production – all things being equal was the new norm. It would quickly allow full employment and a reduction working hours for all workers – white-collar and blue. To the optimistically inclined, a future ‘golden age’ seemed possible. So what prevented this and how come we now find ourselves once again deep in a ‘dark age’ of wars, pollution and poverty for the bulk of humanity?

The ‘relationships’ of social production in the 21st century.

The 1960’s vision of a new golden age quickly dimmed and the harsh reality of the capitalist mode of production began to break through in the 1970’s and 80’s. This is because under this present system not all things are equal. Capitalism is not a system based upon satisfying the needs of the vast majority of people but – apart from the post-war welfare provisions reluctantly granted – it is a system dominated by the pursuit of profit. When the rate of profits started to fall around the late 1960’s the key agents and beneficiaries of the capitalist mode in many advanced countries set into sustained motion three broad tendencies.

The first was to attempt to lower wages and/or increase productivity. The second, was to re-locate industrial production abroad to places with cheap labour. [This led to increased unemployment among workers in industry adding to those shaken out by automation etc.] Third; the economist intellectuals among the capitalist class began to see that many elements of the public welfare services could be taken over and made to produce profits. All three of these tendencies were either implemented or not reversed by the successive alternating governments of Tories and Labour in the UK. From Harold Wilson (Labour), to Edward Heath (Conservative), and on to Callaghan (Labour) and Thatcher (Conservative) in one way or another they all attacked the non-profit-making sectors of society. Their counter-parts of recent times Blair/Brown (Labour) Cameron/Clegg (Conservative/Liberal) have the same aim in mind.

It is important to recognise the success of the previous ‘nationalised’ industries of aircraft, car manufacture, steel, petrol, coal, electricity, rail and road transport, water, sewage, electricity, gas, telephones, education, health services, local and national government in the UK and elsewhere. They delivered quality products and services at low costs – because they were not directly capitalist. Because of capitalisms previous failures in these sectors, they were developed as large-scale, non-profit making industries and institutions. Undoubtedly they were not perfect, but that was not the real reason for their eventual ‘privatisations’. The real reasons were that the capitalist classes and their hangers on were not satisfied with their already disproportional levels of wealth and income, they wanted even more. And with the politicians of the UK, USA and Europe in their pockets, they knew how to get their way.

Their disproportional relationships of power and control over the economic and social aspects of life, in all countries, meant the neo-liberals were in a position reverse the historic development of societies along lines of large-scale non-profit-making welfare services paralleled by automated and computerised industrial and commercial production. All the pieces were in place for advancing humanity and ensuring no-one starved or were homeless. Large-scale production of necessities and provisions, needing fewer workers was a material fact. Well developed skills and practices, in science, education, health, communications, transport, the arts, etc were also established facts. Humanity could potentially leave behind the horrors of previous Victorian and post-Victorian stages of capitalist development and move on.

Of course humanity has not moved on and is in one sense has now been put into reverse. Despite the proliferation of advanced technological gismo’s, large-scale unemployment, poverty, wars and vast disparities in wealth have returned. The reason this has occurred is in line with what was noted above; “At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production..” The potential of these productive forces of society, to feed, cloth, house, educate, heal, entertain, every person to a satisfactory standard is prevented by the existing relationships (people) propping up the existing relations of production. The huge material forces of society and the vast majority of people in each country who staff and operate them are indeed now in conflict with the existing relations of production and those who control them.

The fetters to the development and improvement of these social forces, lie in the class relationships controlling these means and forces of production. Or in more popular terminology – the ruling class and their elite supporters! They don’t just govern society but control it at all levels. The disproportional class relationships of power controlling our forces of production, are played out in the economic and political spheres of life. The control this 1% or 2% capitalist class exerts functions through its minority ownership of the means of production, exchange and communication. This economic domination is supplemented by their control and/or influence of governmental power at all levels – Parliaments, Congresses and the state – and their influence upon politicians of all political persuasions.

It is in their institutions, clubs and executive committees, that they decide what is to be produced and what is not. It is there they decide how much pollution and environmental damage is acceptable. It is how they decide when and where to go to war. It is how they decide how much tax we pay, how much tax money is spent on armaments, which type of industries are to get incentives and grants (and which are not), when to bail out their buddies in the banking industry, even who is allowed to vote to put them in power again. Using these institutions they can even decide to steal our savings as the recent case of Cyprus illustrates. This power and influence of the 1 or 2% is what the healthy, humane ‘productive forces of society’ (ie. the vast majority of the people) are in conflict with. And this conflict is played out at the ideological level.

The ideological content of this historic struggle.

Because of the wealth, power and influence the capitalist class as a whole wields, the ideas of this class tend to dominate the whole of society. The ability to pay for and set up institutions and pay the salaries of journalists, academics, economists and scientists, means that ideas which are favourable to its domination are the dominant ideas. Over its two hundred years of domination many of those ideas have come to be accepted as common-sense. Everyone, from young to old is predominantly bombarded by ideas which rationalise and justify that ‘the existing relations of production’ are the only natural and sensible ones. That the ‘individual’ is more important than the collective. That private enterprise is more efficient than collective, when it clearly isn’t – except in making profits for the already rich. Ideas such as ‘there are no other alternatives to austerity’. There are alternatives but of course they don’t get widely publicised nor will they be implemented. This makes the struggle against these capitalist ideas and assumptions a difficult one and one with very few outlets for expression.

The ideologies promoted by the capitalists classes and their pro-capitalist supporters fall into two broad categories. In the first category are those which promote private property, hierarchy and wealth accumulation. For example; the assumption that if you have enough wealth, this entitles you to exploit the labour of those who haven’t; the assumption that it is natural to have governors and governed; and the assumption that if your ancestors stole land, then you are also entitled to keep it. The second category are all those which promote divisions among humanity. Individualism, racism, nationalism, sexism, religion etc. I am more important than you. My religion, my nation, my ethnicity, my gender etc., is not only different but is better than and superior to yours. Make my sector an exception to the austerity cuts! The capitalist classes need all these ideologies and promote them because they are so few in number that they need those they rule and oppress to be as divided as possible.

These divisive ideologies are partially based upon the facts of life, but of course not the whole facts of life. In complex inter-connected economic societies such as the current global ones, complicated as they are by multiple ‘identities’ and ideologies, the simplest truths often take the longest to comprehend. The obvious fact that those who are the workers in each nation, whether blue-collar or white, have more in common with each other than with their own capitalist and pro-capitalist elites, is confused and concealed by the domination of these divisive ideologies. The obvious fact that in a general crisis, campaigns to save ones own sector from austerity cuts is self-defeating. Left on our own – you and I – cannot win and why should other sectors actively support us, if we do not actively support them? In any case the current problems are not sectional but general, the current crisis is not tangential but wholly systemic and needs a social-wide response.

Finally.

Another simple truth which seems difficult for many people to comprehend concerns the need for revolutionary change. Most people recognise revolutionary transformations in their everyday life. Rapid changes in technology, transport, medicine, understanding are welcomed as necessary for society to move on beyond previous modes of transport, medicine, technology and knowledge. Old equipment and many ideas are happily discarded and relegated to the scrap heap. But not the way society is governed. Politics at all levels is self-evidently totally corrupt, broken and outmoded, yet it is still peddled as the solution to our problems.

Even in the face of catastrophic ecological and social disasters many seem blind to the necessity for revolutionising the mode of production and governance. We no longer travel by horse, communicate by ship-bound parchment or consult tradition and magic for damaged limbs or sickly stomachs. Yet millions are still resigned to the capitalist control of economic and social welfare. This is despite the fact that they are daily ruining the economy, finances, politics, law, the environment and not least of all – ruining vast numbers of lives via indiscriminate war.

If the material conditions of social production are sufficient to solve all the major problems facing humanity, we have to ask what is stopping such a use apart from a few thousand members of the elite and their armed mercenaries? If the task facing humanity is to gain control of the current ‘forces of production’ and use them for ‘humane’ social purposes rather than for the purpose of corporate greed and wealth accumulation for the few – what is holding us back from even thinking about this? If it is the previously noted divisions of individualism, nationalism, sexism, racism, religion and sectarianism – then given the scale of the problems – isn’t it time to give these up? Clearly, the final condition necessary for such a solution lies in the material force of the majority of the population recognising that this capitalist mode of production is a fetter and needs to be burst asunder and work collectively toward that end.

Of course, alternative ideas need to search out those in struggle, but those in struggle need to seek out alternative ideas. Yet it seems only a sharp shock from the unfolding reality will wake the majority of people from their accustomed passivity; only the loss of status will rid many of their most treasured illusions. At the moment there are those who vigorously reject the neo-liberal conservatism of the Tories, Liberals and Republicans but remain wedded to the neo-liberal conservatism of the Labour Party or the Democratic Party and their analogues elsewhere. This and the pressures to look after number one, too conform or to take the easy way out, are all shameful betrayals of our common humanity. They are a betrayal and denial of the social nature of our productive forces. These ideological pressures  need to be resisted. We are once again at a cross-roads, we either struggle to become a transformative humane society or we fight among ourselves and descend into a inhumane parody of one.

It has often been said that the idea of a post-capitalist mode of production is nothing more than a utopian dream. In fact it is the continuance or resurrection of capitalism as a basis for justice, peace, equality and ecological welfare which is the utopian fantasy. Until more people come to realise this through their direct experience it is down to those who subscribe fully to humanist, non-sectarian values and practices to become part of a non-sectarian anti-capitalists movement. A movement which argues for basing the future mode of production on the best examples of non-profit-making industries and services, (suitably modified) which capitalism was forced to introduce in the 20th century. And creating alternative communal forms of organisation. [See ‘Defending Public Services’.]

 Roy Ratcliffe (April 2013.)

[See also ‘Workers and others in the 21st Century’.]

Posted in Critique, Economics, Marx, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

DEATH AT THE RITZ.

Posted on April 9, 2013 by stutteringsteps

How fitting that the ruthless female champion of rampant capitalism, Margaret Thatcher, died in the opulent confines of an exclusive hotel – where only the bourgeois elite can afford to stay. She has been personally blamed for many things; the poll tax, union-busting, privatisation of public industries and services, de-regulation of banks and finance – just to mention the most obvious ones. However, such vitriolic condemnations, both prior to her demise and now she has finally died, serve to miss the most important function of her adult life. Her real role was to be the figurehead of the class interests of the British section of the US/UK Capitalist elite. They were the power who thrust her forward only later to unceremoniously dump her when she had served her purpose.

The capitalist class forces in the UK needed someone strong enough to front the onslaught against all those who stood in the way of a return to ’free market’ exploitation. Thatcher got on the short-list of candidates for this role not because she was female, but because her backers considered she was ruthless and determined enough to use the full power of the state. Those who stood solidly in the way of ending welfare capitalism in favour of neo-liberal capitalism were the organised workers in white and blue-collar trade unions. Dock workers, Engineers, Print workers and many other organised workers were defeated in struggles to maintain their standards of living. All that before the mine workers in the National Union of Mineworkers were finally defeated using all the powers of the state.

At the time she was Prime Minister, the popular slogans of ‘Maggie, out, out, out’ also tended to miss the point that even with Maggie out, the neo-liberal capitalist policies would continue, and continue they did. The capitalist baton of neo-liberalism was handed over to John Major, who ran with it until Tony Blair was handed it by the same back-stage forces of capitalism, who corrupt all political parties and processes.  It is now in the safe hands of the Con/Dem’s. She is rightly celebrated by those who benefited from these neo-liberal policies and who perhaps mourn for a ‘hard’ leader to continue them and rescue capitalism from its self-inflicted crisis. The fact that capitalist production was exported abroad and that financial speculation along with massive arms expenditure replaced it was the policy of a class, not a single politician.

This shop-keepers daughter, who presided over this capitalist onslaught upon the working class and the poor, also presided over the demise of the very petty-bourgeois class she was born into. The de-regulation the neo-liberal capitalists introduced, ensured that big-business could get bigger and squeeze out small businesses everywhere – including the corner grocers so beloved of many of her Conservative supporters. Of course, there will be no mention of this in the eulogies at her funeral. Nor will the fact that during her life neo-liberal policies were initiated which have caused the eventual death of UK engineering, steel, ship-building, mining and the impoverishment of countless industrial towns and villages. But there is much more she achieved.

Her eventual death – as her life – marks the almost total death of this petty, small-minded conservative small-business sector of society from which she emerged. A stroll through any town and city in the UK will present the stroller with endless empty shop fronts and empty small premises. This is also the legacy of Thatcher and post-Thatcher period of neo-liberal capitalism. Her alliance with President Ronald Reagan in the USA was the political face of the US/UK alliance of neo-liberal capitalism, so it is not surprising that the same policies were fronted by Reagan in the USA. There too the baton was handed on to other political puppets, such as Clinton, Bush and now Obama, all of whom have carried it on in the relay race which only the 1% can win. Empty shops, empty houses, empty factories, ruined small businesses and devastated communities are rife there also.

With the influence of the neo-liberal capitalist policies, firmly established in the UK and the USA, it was not long before they were exported elsewhere in the globe. The sovereign debt crises, toxic bank debt, austerity programmes and the collapse of communities, throughout Europe and the rest of the world are clear indications that there were other Thatcher’s and Reagan’s throughout the world willing to front up and initiate the neo-liberal free-market exploitation of human and natural resources. So there is now a world-wide situation of wars, poverty, pollution, ecological devastation and steadily collapsing communities of blue and white-collar workers, unemployed, disabled and poor. Not quite the legacy of Thatcher, but they are clearly a legacy of the policies she sold her humanity for in order to champion their first implementation.

For more detail on the record of Thatcher’s term of office see John Pilger’s recent article at http://johnpilger.com/articles/dance-on-thatcher-s-grave-but-remember-there-has-been-a-coup-in-britain

Roy Ratcliffe (April 2013.)

[See also ‘Defending Public Services’ and ‘The Five-Fold Crisis of Capitalism’. All at http://www.critical-mass.net ]

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged | 3 Comments

DAYLIGHT ROBBERY IN CYPRUS.

Posted on March 31, 2013 by stutteringsteps

Cyprus Bank Robbery – an inside job!

It used to be that large-scale bank robberies were committed by the organised criminal underground, breaking into banks, holding the bank staff at gunpoint and stealing as much cash as they could stuff into their duffle bags before making off. Now another criminal gang – based in Europe – have devised a cunning plan to commit bank robberies without having to break into the premises or cracking open any difficult safe. The first trial run using this remote-controlled robbery method has taken place in Cyprus. The organising gang’s headquarters are hidden away in the heart of European Economic Community. It is a part of the international Bond and Finance Mafia, criminal fraternity who have managed to achieve a ‘protected’ status. Their actions are now backed up by the law, the police and the legal system.

The example of the Cyprus government taxing deposits initially over 100, 000 Euro’s indicates that this theft, although planned outside, is also an inside job. It is government officials who are the employed accomplices of this act of European piratical confiscation. This formula for saving the system from it own toxic debts – caused by crass stupidity, systemic contradictions and greed – has formed a probable template for future raids on depositors cash savings. Very few are safe now. This first European case as revealed by Cyprus, is the thin edge of a wedge. It almost certainly means whenever and wherever, the system implodes or is in danger of failing again, deposits will be seized. Given the size of the debts racked up by their greedy search for fees, profits and exorbitant government expenditure, this first raid upon Cypriot savings will most likely be insufficient. Further deposit-snatchings are almost inevitable there and elsewhere. And the fact that only large deposits are being taxed at 40% does not mean those with less escape even this first round of daylight robbery.

Not all the assets over 100,000 Euro’s in Cyprus banks belong to rich foreigners. Some are the operating capital of small businesses, parts of individual pension schemes, investment bonds belonging to other pension and savings schemes etc. Since these assets will be ‘snatched’ some businesses will collapse as a result, creating further unemployment. Some pensioners will have less in their pension pot and therefore both categories will have less to spend – sending the Cypriot economy further into recession. At the same time the bailout conditions, which triggered this bank-deposit theft, is to obtain a further loan. In other words it is not really a bailout – except for the banks and bond-holders. As a result the government of Cyprus will be ‘bailed into’ more debt than they are already in. This so-called ‘bailout’ is nothing more than an organised form of collective debt bondage for Cypriot citizens. And in this case, Cyprus is merely a small fish in the larger European savings lake from which the bond-holding buccaneers and their co-conspirators have gained exclusive fishing rights. For it is the case that all other European and North American countries have similar – in most cases greater – sovereign and banking debt problems.

International Buccaneers and Bandits.

Unlike their 17th and 18th century counterparts in the Golden age of Piracy, the modern buccaneers, flit around the International scene in aircraft. Nevertheless, Captain Kidd, Blackbeard, Anne Bonny and Henry Morgan, do have their analogues in the 21st. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Mario Draghi, Christene Lagarde and others of the so-called European ‘troika’, and its crew are busily raiding countries, through QE and austerity leaving the inhabitants with precious little in their pockets or purses. Up to this recent development, the confiscation of assets from the white and blue-collar working and middle classes has been through structured unemployment, commodity price rises, increased bank, water, electricity, gas charges and council payments. Now and in future – as the crisis deepens – they have signalled their intent to come for those who still have something left in the banking system. No matter that it has been saved from the combined exertions of their working life, these funds are now fair game to be raided by the upholders of capital.

In many ways this new development has heralded another degenerate stage in the approaching end-game for the capitalist mode of production. The banking system was created to assist the development of commercial and later productive capital when the means of production and circulation became to large to be funded by individuals. In order to reassure the multitude of lenders that their deposits were safe, banking and governance had to have safeguards in place to ensure the honesty and fair-dealing of the financial sector. Although losses of assets and deposits could not be avoided in cases of accident, or ineptitude in capitalist enterprises, such losses were intended to be born by the borrower and the bank not those who had deposited their money for safe keeping.

Whilst it has always attracted crooks and dishonest actors, the capitalist banking system was based fundamentally upon the need for honesty and to safeguard from theft – absolutely – the customers deposit accounts. Now that final Rubicon has been crossed in Europe as it was in a slightly different form in Argentina during 2001. The recent actions against Cyprus indicates that all the political and financial industry reassurances that Libor-rigging type criminal activity and ‘laundering drug money’ will be rooted out are not to be trusted. For even if they are, there remains such ‘legal’ ways of ensuring sufficient bonuses and bailouts continue to grease the palms of industry insiders and their supporters in governments. Like a cancerous growth within, capitalism has for some time been eating away at the healthy tissue of the planet and society. It has again reached a critical, self-destructive stage.

Capitalism is self-destructing.

It has become glaringly obvious since the 2008 banking crisis that capitalism is not only destroying the lives and welfare of working people, but also destroying the basis of its own survival. If industrial and commercial capital cannot safely store its capital in money form during the necessary non-productive periods, or gain loan-capital when it needs it, a crucial part of the circulation of modern capital is potentially interrupted and trust in it undermined. In addition to a crisis of over-production in commodities, therefore a continuing crisis is also occurring at the point of commodity circulation. This secondary feature of the current crisis has now been further amplified by the activity of the capitalist financial sector in league with government and supra-government agencies. These two inner contradictions, relative over-production and financial speculation have developed to this crisis point because the capitalist mode of production has throughout the late post-Second-World-War period been an international economy on steroids.

Fuelled by surplus finance capital and advanced methods of production, during this period, the capitalist mode of production, has spewed out masses and multiples of every conceivable product, imagination and ingenuity could create. It has saturated the markets of the world with every possible electrical and mechanical device, along with vast numbers of items of plastic, wood, glass and woven materials. This commodity fetishism has been promoted to the point of a mesmerising superfluity – but only for those who can afford to purchase them. Yet this very advance in productive technique has at the same time served to reduce the relative number of paid workers. Therefore once again there is a constantly increasing crisis of relative over-production and a banking and governmental system which can no longer be weaned off its dependency on regular injections of other peoples cash. But at the same time there is a related crisis of social and political decay.

At the national, regional, city and town levels of social organisation, the capitalist system in the advanced countries is gradually collapsing. Such is the rise of low pay and unemployment that Local Authorities are already struggling to maintain services upon which the capitalist mode of production relies. Roads, health, pensions and education are all suffering reductions as the crisis develops. The USA provides perhaps the most vivid example a the moment. Schools in North America, for example are threatened with closure as the tax base shrinks. Chicago has a $1bilion deficit and the Mayor Rahm Emanuel has proposed closing Chicago schools. Also in the USA, Michigan has achieved a balanced budget but only by firing 20 percent of its workforce, increasing its water rates by up to 50%. However, Michigan is now close to being unable to function as a normal city, as are many other urban centres. Not too far in the future, the same fate faces Cyprus and many European cities and towns, as sovereign debt issues filter down to the local levels.

The current economic and financial problems have become so vast and complex that they cannot be humanly solved from within the capitalist system itself. Once again to preserve the capitalist system, the destruction of surplus-capital, the depreciation of currencies and the reduction of working class conditions are necessary. Under this system, there can be no further economic growth, until there has been substantial economic destruction. In the 20th century (late1930’s to1945) this process of stagnation, depreciation and destruction was rapidly achieved by total war. Short of another such world-wide conflagration, such decay and the writing down of surplus-capital can only be done via a more gradual procedure. This is the economic and political reality which is currently taking the form of numerous bankruptcies, insolvencies and pro-capitalist inspired reductions in jobs, wages, salaries, benefits and welfare services on the one hand, and rises in taxes, prices and now the first stages of the sequestration of people’s bank savings.

The revolutionary implications.

This latest ‘rip-off’ banking development, as well as the growing ecological devastation, is now hitting a section of the middle-classes and entering their consciousness as well as the blue and white-collar working class. This new phase has important implications. The role of the white-collar state workers along with the middle-classes in the developing crisis is crucial to whether a post-capitalist form of production becomes a possibility or an uncertainty. As noted above, for a long time the productive capacity of capitalism has led to relatively fewer workers in the productive spheres of capital and an increase in that of the non-productive. In the guise of the welfare state, it created a large-scale alternative form of non-profit making economic activity. This overall process was evident to Marx even in the 19th century, when massive concentrations of workers in industry, commerce and transport existed and were still developing. In discussing the merits and shortcomings of Ricardo, Marx noted the following;

“What he forgets to emphasise is the constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the other. The middle classes maintain themselves to an ever increasing extent directly out of revenue, they are a burden weighing heavily on the working base and increase the social security and power of the upper ten thousand.” (Marx. ‘Theories of Surplus Value’. Volume 2. page 573.)

The middle-classes have from this intermediate position been the main sources of large-scale support for the capitalist system. When class-wide conflict between the working class and the individual and corporate capitalists and their pro-capitalist supporters take place they have invariably sided with capital. In the 20th century many fascist supporters were recruited from the middle classes. In European, North American and Latin American affairs, this class played a significant reactionary role. Outside of large-scale class upheavals they have also been the reliable voting strength for Liberal, Democratic, Conservative and Republican governments. However, the same centralisation and concentration of capital that has diminished the relative numbers of productive workers has also reduced the numbers of the middle classes. In Europe and the advanced countries, small businesses involved in production, commerce, banking and retail sectors have been progressively replaced by large, even mega sized enterprises.

And it is precisely these numerously populated classes that have probably understood most clearly the dangers of left totalitarianism in the form of Bolshevism and right totalitarianism in the form of Fascism. Yet in the 21st century their own economic and social status is increasingly precarious and their financial position is undermined by every dysfunctional tremor in the banking and financial sector. Their ‘shares’ are often negatively volatile, their salaries eroded, they have been miss-sold financial instruments and now their savings are targets for pillaging. This means they will increasingly argue for, and press in the direction of, a rolling back of the neo-liberal forms of capital. They will be part of a trend looking towards a post neo-liberal consensus. They have yet to be won to a revolutionary-humanist post-capitalist perspective from which they have nothing to fear. In the coming conversations with sections of the middle and working classes, the opportunists in the workers movement will undoubtedly engage in popular front type debates and actions in which anti-capitalist ideas will be sidelined, muted or even absent.

Revolutionary-Humanist anti-capitalists on the other hand whilst not disrespectfully dismissing out of hand any naive hopes and aspirations for a return to an ‘honest’ form of welfare capitalism, should engage them with their stark analyses of the capitalist mode of production and the degeneration of Bolshevism to the fore. In common struggles against austerity and for partial demands, anti-capitalists should not be sectarian with regard to any new (or previous) forces entering the various reformist struggles, whatever their origins. But neither should they hide or subordinate their views that the capitalist mode of production has reached a multiple end-game with regard to the economic, financial, social, moral and ecological future of the planet. It remains to be seen what kind of end-game is yet to unfold and how revolutionary-humanist orientated anti-capitalists can best influence it. Two issues of importance which can assist it unfolding in a positive direction for the majority of the population is by the promotion of sufficiently detailed anti-capitalist economic analyses and an honest evaluation of the degeneration of the Soviet Union.

Roy Ratcliffe (April 2013.)

[See also ‘Workers and others in the 21st century.’; ‘Defending Public Services’; ‘Marxism against Marx’; ‘The Five-fold Crisis of Capitalism.’ and ‘Crisis: so what else can we do?’]

Posted in Economics, Finance, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

SYRIZA: CRUCIBLE OR CUL-DE-SAC?

Posted on March 24, 2013 by stutteringsteps

Who wants a ‘Party of the People’?

Recently there has been a number of calls from within the UK anti-capitalist left, for the formation of a ‘party of the people’ to rescue the working class from the current crisis and the austerity measures implemented by the present political elite. Few of those making the call from within this anti-capitalist milieu, have bothered to seriously consider how a party might distort or dismember the necessary self-activity of the working and oppressed classes. Fewer still have described what such a party might look like or what efforts it would take to form one. For this reason these calls have been left as yet mere abstractions formulated out of a mixture of wishful thinking, impatience and lack of serious study. Suggestions of ‘a new political formation, which rejects austerity’ and recognition of ‘the obstacles’ to getting elected to the parliaments or other organs of political administration, are about as detailed as they get.

I shall ignore for the moment the obvious fact that the sources of power under the capitalist mode of production, lie outside of its Parliamentary or congressional ‘talking shops’ and consider what a more detailed proposal for such a party includes. In this regard, it cannot have escaped many observers notice that in the shape of Syriza, such a ‘party of the people’ is taking shape within Greece. Therefore, a recent speech in London (March 15 2013) by the current leader of this ‘party‘, Alexis Tsipras, allows us a glimpse into what ideas it takes to form one and what policies it adopts in order to get elected. Syriza, Tsipras asserted, will offer the ‘radical democratic changes’ which are necessary as ‘the only way out of the crisis’. The European elites he stated have ‘no viable prospect of exit from the crisis’ . Whilst this – as far as it goes – is undoubtedly true, let us consider what else he and Syriza think will prevent such an exit.

The current problems according to Syriza.

The first and emphasised problem identified in his speech was ‘austerity’. “Austerity is leading the Greek economy and society down a catastrophic path.”, he argued. He made no mention of the fact that it was the capitalist mode of production and its domination by finance-capital whose agents have devised these policies – and not always out of mistaken ignorance or meanness! Instead his primary focus was on the symptom – not the cause. From this viewpoint it is austerity policies – the symptoms – which have led to ‘cuts in benefits, deregulation and deterioration of the welfare state’, not the underlying fundamental crisis of the entire economic and political system. Superficially, this abstract and partial formulation is of course stating no more than what is glaringly obvious to every working person in every advanced capitalist economy. However, it remains a surface analysis and one woefully inadequate to enlighten or guide the very ‘people’ he seeks to recruit to assist him and his colleagues to obtain governmental ’power’.

He also identified the following problems – also notably formulated as bourgeois abstractions – a lack of ‘justice’, ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’‘. A further and related problem, he noted, concerned the current elite in Europe and Greece;

“They seek the creation of an economic environment based on cheap labour, special economic zones, de-regulation of the labour-market, tax exemptions for capital and extensive privatisations of public goods and services.” (A. Tspiras. London March 15 2013.)

This too is telling us nothing new! Haven’t they always sought and achieved these? Then follows a perhaps revealing formulation which claims the powerful forces of neo-liberalism aim to; “exclude alternative political programmes”. I shall come back to this point later, but a few other points of the speech are worth considering. He points out that sections of the political elite had ‘circumvented the separation of powers’ and the constitution’ and have passed legislation and decrees; “..without Parliamentary approval“! Isn’t that what any ruling elite do – tear up their own laws when it suits them? Isn’t that what they will increasingly do as the crisis deepens. Will the capitalist class and their elite supporters really allow a ‘constitutional’ overthrow of their system or even a radical reform of it – if it does not suit their purposes? A study of history suggests otherwise.

The speech by Mr Tspiras continued to attempt to hook a left audience into agreement with him with descriptions of the present governing elite unleashing ‘unlimited state violence’, repression, torture and fascist thugs’ all of which endanger – the European liberal and humanist tradition’. Indeed it does, but what is the purpose of this one-sided seductive talk about the European tradition of liberalism and humanism? Aren’t such ideological abstractions nothing but a bourgeois smokescreen for ruthless exploitation of their own working people and those of foreign countries? The tradition of European capitalism, despite its public rhetoric of liberty, fraternity, equality, justice and declarations of human rights, has been one of unmitigated ruthless genocidal, Colonialism, and Imperialism. Even in the 21st century, Europe still authorises the bombing of villages in Iraq, Afghanistan etc., and has done elsewhere since the 19th century. The European Community still chooses to ignore the slow genocide of the Palestinians by the Zionist state of Israel and supports the latter in many economic and military ways.

The solutions proposed by Syriza.

Some of the solutions to the above noted ‘problems’ suggested by Mr Tspiras, are as follows. Stop austerity, stop tax avoidance, reform the taxation policies, restore the minimum wage, freeze the current reductions in salaries, wages and pensions, re-capitalise the banks and restore the dignity of the working classes. But it also includes more. For example;

“A future government will put a stop to the austerity policies, while at the same time re-negotiating the loan agreement with our creditors. Syriza argues that an economically viable strategy must follow the model of the 1953 London Debt Agreement which gave post-war German economy a kick start and helped create the economic miracle of the post-war era.” (A.Tsipras. March 15 2013.)

He then informed the audience that Syriza sees no reason in 2013 that a similar ‘Marshal Plan’ for the whole of the south and Greece why such a settlement should not be an appropriate way forward. In other words Syriza wants ‘debt reduction’ and financial terms from Europe ‘linked to export and growth performance‘. It cannot escape the notice of listeners to the speech or readers of its printed reproduction that everything in these policy headings are completely in accordance with the most enlightened members of the capitalist classes. They are the same bourgeois aspirations which informed and motivated the tendency of ‘bourgeois and petite bourgeois socialism’ castigated by Marx and Engels. It cannot have escaped anyone who lived in the post Second World War or who has studied its politics and economics, that these – and more – were largely granted by the capitalists and their supporters at the time. They did so in order to stave off revolution and have clawed everyone of them back as fast as possible.

In the face of the most profound and sustained crisis of capitalism since the 1930’s, Syriza in its pursuit of power seems it cannot envisage anything further than the temporary heights of the post-war socio-economic accommodation granted by the then guardians of the capitalist system. It’s policy proposals represent a mood of understandable nostalgia among the working and middle-classes, for the brief period in which a small degree of welfare and well-being was created. That is to say on the basis of the post-war re-construction needed because of the massive destruction of life, property and means of production during the intensity of total war during 1939 – 1945. It is a feeling of longing for the past which is particularly strong in the UK and is largely behind the Left Unity ideas of ‘People’s Assemblies’, the ‘need to reject Tory cuts’ and form a new party headed by the unions, Labour activists and the Green Party. Such nostalgia has been vividly illustrated by the recent film ‘The Spirit of ‘45’ by Ken Loach. Yet it was only this 20th century massive capitalist inspired destruction of human and non-human capital which created the foundation for the short-lived post-war European growth which Syriza considers is now possible for Greece and other struggling capitalist countries.

In the 21st century, this foundation no longer exists. Indeed the very crisis of the system which has given rise to the symptoms of ’austerity’ are the very opposite of those in the 1950’s. The current crisis is one of massive over-production of commodities, industrial capacity, financial instruments, together with over-production of pollutants, over-exploitation of natural resources, over production of arms and armaments and over-production of government debt. These problems cannot be exited or overcome by any of the policy means outlined by Syriza. Indeed the means proposed by Syriza are the very ones which many of the more naive and disolusioned capitalists themselves now vainly wish to see implemented. This then goes some way to describe the content and essence of the alternative political programme, noted earlier, which Syriza has identified as being one of the ones the elite wish to ‘exclude’.

The revolutionary alternative to nostalgia.

Not all, the bourgeoisie have benefited from the last two decades of neo-liberal globalisation. Many of them, particularly small business proprietors, local shopkeepers and local trades-people, have suffered from high monopoly prices now charged by the social utilities, high taxation, bank collapses and competition from mega producers and suppliers. Many have also suffered losses of investments due to the collapses of speculative finance. More are yet to see their lucrative posts in the higher levels of government and the capitalist state, disappear as the sovereign debt crisis matures. There is therefore, growing criticism of the capitalist mode of production from these sectors along with the above noted nostalgia for parts of the post-war consensus.

In face of this situation there are several possibilities for intervention. One can play to the mood of nostalgia and try to create and offer a reformist programme or one can face people with the reality and explain the real situation they face. The reality is that austerity is not the result of a new bout of meanness or incompetence, by the pro-capitalist elite but a considered strategy motivated by the fundamental contradictions of capital. Yet instead, of probing below ‘appearances’ and wanting to mobilise the working and oppressed classes to take control of production, Tsipras says Syriza wishes to mobilise; “all the social forces who have an interest in fighting corruption, cronyism, clientelism, and public sector inefficiency.”  In other words almost a perfect late 20th century bourgeois programme. And, incidentally, by asserting reform  is possible, it is a programme which plays into the hands of the authoritarians who also want to reform capitalism – in their own fascistic way.

Those who are currently suffering from the crisis – in all its forms – can of course, be encouraged to look backward for inspiration and try to replicate an elite-led resurrection of welfare capitalism – without the post EEC immigration – or they can be encouraged to look forward to a self-determined alternative. The melancholy pro-capitalists and workers ‘leaders’ and those who bought the high-value dodgy derivatives, are among the forces which are pressing in the direction of creating a reformist programme for the continuance of capitalism in a more gentile form. Obligingly, Syriza in Greece is providing one. These sectors are getting more voluble at every setback in the banking system. Instead of explaining reality to them, the needs of the moment and the logic emerging from a study of the capitalist system, Syriza offers them ‘hope’ for future growth.  Instead of a revolutionary transformation of the mode of production which is essential, Syriza offers in its own words, ‘a minimum wage‘, ‘a prevention of tax avoidance’, an economic ’kick-start’ to capitalist economic growth and a restoration of the ‘dignity’ of the working and oppressed classes.”

If this putitive programme is not part of some convoluted manoeuvre then the ‘dignity’ of the working class is to be achieved not by revolution, but by their so-called representatives ‘grovelling’ to the European Bond-Holders and ‘begging’ for a Marshal Plan from the IMF. On the other hand, if these policies are part of a convoluted top-down manoeuvre to fool the capitalist class until Syriza achieves a majority in parliament, then such deceit will effectively fool the working and oppressed. It will also deflect and prevent any large-scale alternative self-activity of the workers and oppressed as many will be diverted into divisive electoral activities, rather than solidarity in community defensive activity. And it is only the development of the latter which will create an effective – crucial – defence for embattled communities and at the same time create the necessary solidarity from which any revolutionary opportunities can be launched.

The reactionary nature of political solutions.

The reactionary nature of those ‘socialists’ – not just those in Syriza – who exclusively raise demands which have already been met by capitalists at one stage and withdrawn at another, is demonstrated by the illusions they are now trying to inflict upon the present generation of workers and oppressed. Facing as they do, a war against them, the working and oppressed classes are to be armed by Syriza and others by accepting a belief in outmoded abstractions and miracle promises of economic ‘growth‘. Such ideas, purporting to be socialist but not thoroughly and clearly anti-capitalist, amount to a subterfuge which is either the result of dishonesty or naivety. These bourgeois abstractions are fundamentally reactionary; for in the current situation they sow illusions and confusions among those who seek to struggle against the impositions of the pro-capitalist elite. They also serve to create an ideological basis for solidarity between workers in struggle with those proponents of the capitalist mode of production – who also want change – but also want retain the economic essence of their system.

Such parties ‘of the people’ are projects for class collaboration in which the capitalist class – who have managed to screw-up the world in so many ways – will retain their positions of power and influence through their continued control of the means of production. Such ‘socialists’ who promote these ’parties’ are happy to direct demands upon the bourgeois state and promise benefits from it, because they see themselves as becoming an influential part of it. Yet even if the honest and naive ones among them succeed in gaining a majority in the ‘talking shops’ of parliaments or congresses, they will remain powerless to do anything of lasting benefit to workers and the oppressed. The power of the bourgeois classes lie not in Parliaments or Congresses, but in their control of the means of production, the commodities and services resulting from this production, the production of the ‘means of production’ the means of circulation and the means of repression (police, judiciary, army, navy, air-force, prisons etc.).

In any attempted electoral ‘coup’ of parliament or congress by a radical left political force, those who are not bumped off beforehand will be arrested and incarcerated during or after the attempted coup. It is naive to think, or Machiavellian to pretend, otherwise. The history of the bourgeois class, provides ample evidence of this method in all countries of the world. Are the workers to be really conned into working their guts out to create a reformist political organisation? Are they to sink all their energies and slender resources into building it, only to recreate the very pro-capitalist social scaffolding which has failed them before and will later be used to dismantle their organisations and decimate their ranks? I think not! The circumstances of the fundamental crisis of capitalism, ecologically, financially, economically, socially and morally, require nothing less than a revolutionary solution.

Not to make this revolutionary necessity clearly, unambiguously and continually available by the anti-capitalist left to the masses of working people and oppressed is to betray every sacrifice made before in the struggles to overcome the capitalist mode of production. To prioritise the building of a political party over the facilitating the self-activity of the working and oppressed classes is to continue to blindly make the tragic mistakes of previous attempts to go beyond capital. It also serves to disarm large sections of them. As Marx noted in his critique of the Gotha Programme, anti-capitalists cannot pass over in silence such bourgeois phrases as appear in the speech by Alex Tsipras. Marx considered the insertion of such bourgeois and petite bourgeois phrases ‘a monstrous attack upon the understanding‘. And deplored the;

“…dogmas, ideas, which in a certain period had some meaning but have now become obsolete verbal rubbish, while again perverting, on the other, the realistic outlook which it cost to instil..” (Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme. Section 3)

The realistic outlook is that there is no way back to the conditions of European capitalism during 1945 -1965. There is only the prospect of a re-run of 1920’s and 1930’s situation in Europe and North America or of moving on to a post-capitalist form of production. These stark alternatives need to be presented clearly and unequivocally to all we can reach. Nostalgia may be comfortingly soporific but it is no basis for deciding where to put ones energies.

Roy Ratcliffe (March 2013

[In this context see also ‘The Five-fold Crisis of Capitalism’; ‘Crisis: So what else can we do?‘ Uprisings and Revolutions’ and ‘Form and Essence in the anti-capitalist struggle.’ and ‘Leaders or Facilitators?’]

Posted in Critique, Marx, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

LEADERS OR FACILITATORS?

Posted on March 15, 2013 by stutteringsteps

The concept of a leadership ‘vanguard’ runs through a section of the anti-capitalist left like a solid strand of DNA. This concept keeps replicating itself across generations and despite trying to evolve to fit into the changed environment it now finds itself in, its advocates are steadily shrinking. After an early 20th century rapid growth and domination, this ‘vanguard’ concept now increasingly finds itself facing a slow extinction. Of the originators and promoters of this concept on the anti-capitalist left, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin stand out as the most celebrated advocates. They were the middle-class giants of the early 20th century anti-capitalist left who passed on this concept to future generations. Since their deaths, numerous modified variations of this species have appeared, but none have proved viable in the modern socio-political environment.

However, an alternative, species of anti-capitalism, previously crowded out of the anti-capitalist socio-economic environment, by this once dominant ‘vanguard’ leadership concept, has now an opportunity to develop. The human embodiments of this alternative are best described as ‘facilitators’. The intellectual giants of this alternative species of anti-capitalist activism are none other than Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto of 1849 appears, the following perspective, stated negatively. Anti-Capitalist activists do not;

“..form a separate party opposed to other working class parties….They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” (Manifesto page 49 Peking Edition.)

The whole point of the Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist leadership model of the anti-capitalist left is to form a separate party and to shape and mould those working class and oppressed forces which its advocates seek to lead. Over a decade after the above noted extract, the rules of the 1st International commence with..“..the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.” This assertion by Marx and Engels, was no isolated example for in responding to an alternative manifesto promoted by three members of a Zurich commission in 1879, Marx and Engels wrote;

“The emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic persons from the upper and lower middle classes.” (Circular Letter. September 1879.)

These repeated assertions over thirty years clearly refute the concept and consequential ideology of a vanguard leadership. Elsewhere I have produced evidence of the distortions introduced into the anti-capitalist struggle and post-capitalist construction in Russia by the adoption of this Bolshevik vanguardist model. [see ‘The Revolutionary Party’], Here I will argue that the activist model suggested by Marx and which is still the relevant one for the present and in the future, is one of facilitator. For Marx then, no separate ‘Political Parties’, no ‘sectarian principles’ and no patronising leadership help needed from the upper and lower middle classes. So if this is the case, how should anti-capitalist activists who have rejected the Bolshevik leadership model relate to the working classes and their struggles? Marx again;

“…we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle; here is the truth kneel down before it. …We do not say to the world: cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it doesn’t want to…..” (Marx/Engels Collected Works. Vol 3 page 144.

The paragraph from which the above is taken continues by advocating that anti-capitalist activists explain to those around them – if this is needed – the “meaning of their own actions.” In other words anti-capitalists following this model ‘facilitate’ the understanding and actions of those they support in their struggles. They do so in three practical ways. First by offering to share their knowledge and understanding alongside and with those in struggle. Second by stressing the importance of the existing collective knowledge of the group or community. Third, by assisting in practical ways the fulfilment of the tasks identified by the collective. This means seriously listening to workers in struggle, recognising and acknowledging what they wish to achieve and bringing to that struggle any knowledge and skills which appear to be missing. Such a role includes pointing out any reactionary or sectional potentials which the aims of the struggle may involve.

Some practical contrasts between the concepts of ‘Leader’ and ‘Facilitator’.

Leaders mostly use their knowledge in order to tell people what to think, what they should do to change things and what the implications are.

Facilitators use their knowledge to ask people what they think, suggest how they could change things and also discuss the implications of such change.

A group or movement based upon leadership principles usually have members come together to listen to their own leaders knowledge and experience before returning to activity.

A group or movement based upon facilitators will usually have members come together to collectively discuss and learn from each others knowledge and experiences before returning to activity.

Leaders want and need followers.

Facilitators do not want or need followers.

Leaders seldom really try to empower ordinary members or people.

Facilitators always try to really empower ordinary members or people.

Leaders frequently are/or become part of an elite. They are potential or actual Captains of whatever ship they manage to board.

Facilitators are (and stay) part of the group. They join as, and stay as, part of the crew when they get on board.

Leaders desire and often demand that others should follow their particular viewpoint.

Facilitators explain but never demand that others should follow their particular viewpoint.

Leaders try to make themselves indispensable.

Facilitators try to make themselves dispensable.

Leaders are inconsistent collectivists within their own groups – they often pull rank.

Facilitators are consistent collectivists within their groups – they never pull rank.

Leaders frequently mislead and then try to rationalise this rather than apologise.

Facilitators rarely mislead and openly apologise if on rare occasions their input proves wrong or counter-productive.

Leaders rarely seriously or openly evaluate the results of their suggestions or actions.

Facilitators always seriously and openly evaluate the results of their suggestions or actions.

So anti-capitalist ‘facilitators’ are also active and not passive. They seek out those whose struggles they identify with, ally themselves with them, studiously listen and ask questions. Only then do they offer information and assistance. A group of facilitators wishing to support a struggle would meet after listening to workers and others to discuss how they can help. They would not meet before to get their group line sorted out and then try to impose it upon the workers either individually or at their meetings. There will be times when decisive initiative needs to be taken within a struggle, but this will not be the rule for facilitators and where it occurs and the activist facilitator is involved, the action would be quickly explained to the others and presented for ratification, alteration or rejection.

To sum up.

The vanguard leadership model of Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not – and never could have – assisted the complete self-activity of the working class. Indeed, the leadership model in general assumes the working and oppressed classes cannot ’emancipate themselves and must be freed from above’ by those who have beforehand declared their own candidature and appointed themselves for this position. Even ‘leaders’ drawn from within the working class will want to do the thinking for the working class and lead them – as so many have already done in the Trade Union Movement and Political Parties. In this way they help maintain the dependency of working people which is part of the ‘muck of ages’. In the coming struggles, the independence and self-activity of the working and oppressed classes is something anti-capitalists need to facilitate not inhibit.

Finally! The task of facilitating is no less demanding than that of ‘leadership’ and indeed it is perhaps more demanding in that it requires a blend of subject knowledge, patience, self-criticism and humility. To me the concept and practice of facilitating therefore also holds to two allied principles taken from philosophy and science. The first is that guideline of all rational thought ‘whenever you are sure of something; maintain it with doubt‘: for new evidence may surface which may alter the certainty you previously supposed. The second is derived from really accepting the collective nature of all knowledge and reasons that in a disagreement; ‘others may be right and I may be wrong or vice versa, or we both may be wrong; but only in respectful discussion and reflection on practice will we be likely to really enhance our collective knowledge.

R. Ratcliffe (March 2013.)

Posted in Critique, Marx, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 13 Comments

ZOMBIES AND VAMPIRES.

Posted on March 2, 2013 by stutteringsteps

Although they are not real economic categories, the first of the above two words, has surfaced in recent economic and financial discussions. Given this attempt to popularise complex economic phenomena, I think there is enough room to include the second. Originally popularised in books and films and emanating from myth and fiction, the two terms characterise satanic forces of a distorted human origin. They are ‘dark’, parasitic forces that ‘haunt’ and periodically plague humanity. It is for this reason that the shadow-banking and speculative financial sector of the capitalist mode of production, has been judged to have such fictional parallels.

In myth, the Zombie is a form which after death is animated by constant infusions of a sub-prime (derivative) power. This gives the Zombie a semblance of animated activity but it no longer functions as a positive part of the community. A Vampire in this mythical world is very much alive, hard to kill off and needs regular infusions of life-sustaining liquidity drained from the people around its zone of operations. Vampires in fiction also contribute nothing to the well-being of the community but suck the life out of the people they encounter. So as an alternative conceptual format to view the current economic and financial situation, let us see how well the terms can be applied to the real world of banks and bond-holders.

a) Zombie banks and businesses.

Zombie banks and businesses have been given these ‘titles’ because for all normal capitalist intents and purposes they are economically dead – but still appear to be alive. In the case of banks they have borrowed, speculated and loaned out to other speculators, all the assets made available to them from depositors – and lost huge amounts of them! In the case of businesses, in many cases they too have speculated either in terms of their cash balances or in speculating how much of something they could profitable sell – and got it wrong! Both these type of near-dead entities should have been long ago declared bankrupt, wound up and their failure certificates buried in the relevant ministerial archives. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. The successful ones exploit people and resources when and wherever they can and in the process reap the bloated rewards. On the other hand the failures are allowed to peacefully (or forcefully) expire. Apparently not any more! These all but terminated capitalist entities are being kept semi-alive by regular infusions of cash liquidity.

The current version of capitalism, stewarded by left, centre and right political parties, is designed to allow these ghoulish entities to continue exploiting their workers and at the same time prey on ordinary citizens. By the actions of governments feeding them cheap credit, they continue to exist in this near-dead state and in doing so continue to absorb and manipulate money and the pension funds of ordinary people. Supposedly cash-strapped governments, whilst they are tightening austerity, squeezing the white and blue-collar working class and poor, are pump-priming infusions of cash into these shrivelled-up banks and businesses. At the same time, in some cases, these Zombie banks and businesses have had their self-inflicted wounds patched up by governments taking on their accumulated debt. If this sounds sensible then ask yourself where does the government get its money from to bail out the banks etc.? The answer is of course, you the consumer and tax-payer. In other words, these Zombies are indeed feeding off our communities! Meanwhile there is also;

“..the vampire thirst for the living blood of labour.” (Marx. Capital Volume 1 page 256.)

b) Vampire bond-holders and speculators.

There are another mixed group of financiers and speculators who hover around the stock-markets, futures markets and corporations. Cloaked in obscurity, these Vampires of the financial world are constantly on the lookout for potential victims to sink their fangs into and drain out the life-blood. One group of such Vampires, often using large amounts of borrowed money, speculate on the rise and fall of asset and currency prices and even create such rises and falls by their speculative trade. These parasites have devised complex computer-driven trades which ensures in most cases that they gain wealth whatever the outcome for others. Another group of hedge-fund, blood suckers, circles struggling businesses and again using large amounts of borrowed money, buys them out, sucks out the healthy assets, culls the workforce by sacking many workers, parcels portions of the business activity up and sells these off. After a sustained period satiating their greed for money, they re-sell what is left and look for another victim. These Vampires are also feeding off our communities!

Yet another part of this international coven of financial Vampires speculate on the future prices of essential raw materials and often buys up almost monopoly futures options or positions for foodstuffs and raw materials. As they compete with each other to gain the most, they can push up the cost of living for workers and the poor, to such high levels that at a minimum, malnutrition and hardship ensues. At the maximum level, premature death of the young, old and the weak will follow, their nefarious activities. One more group of this Vampire class have cleverly positioned themselves in such a way that they need not directly drain the life-blood out of their victims. They have special agents who do it for them. These bond-holding Vampires have over the years trained government agents (politicians) to extract huge amounts of their necessary nourishment from their citizens and deliver it directly to their bond-holding blood-banks. This continual nourishment keeps the Vampires bond-holders alive and ensures they do not have to risk being caught in the act of directly attacking their victims. These latter are the aristocracy of the Vampire class and in the process have helped create their own group of part-dead institutions.

c) Zombie governments.

Such is the collusion between the political and governing class throughout the world and the elite bond-holding Vampires that governments themselves have become Zombie institutions. Governments around the world are now being kept functioning by thinning out the life-blood (quantitive easing) of their currencies and by demanding further wealth transfusions (via austerity) from their citizens. Capitalist states are no longer kept even partly functional by current levels of taxation. In economic terms, they are in effect totally bankrupt. Having squandered all the human and material assets of their respective countries on themselves, their families and their cronies, the political classes are failing to deliver on their promised amounts of life-blood essence (wealth extraction) to their Vampire masters. This particular group of high-class blood-suckers, are not best pleased by this current state of affairs. They are demanding that the political classes internationally squeeze even more out of their citizens. Austerity is the name given to this policy of forced transfusions and the bond-Vampires are insisting it be done as quickly as possible.

In fiction the Zombie and Vampire slayers are the mass of ordinary citizens galvanised into action by some charismatic hero. Prior to the emergence of the charismatic, selfless leader, the citizens have just had to suffer from the age-old attentions of the depraved Zombies or Vampires. However, the clean-cut fictional champion does the thinking for the crowd, provides the intellectual ‘solution’ organises, leads and directs the massed citizens in searching out and destroying the individual Zombies or nests of Vampires. They eventually take back control of their work-places, towns and communities. In fiction, the finale usually involves a titanic struggle between the individual hero and the individual villain or coven. In doing so he (!) is justly rewarded by the adulation of the masses. Amazingly, this fictional scenario is not a million miles from the outlook of some of the left political groups who consider a vanguard with a charismatic leader, (Lenin, Trotsky in the past, or a modern equivalent in the future) is necessary to intellectually and organisationally lead the suffering masses toward a new dawn of exploitation-free existence.

d) Saying NO! To capitalism. (Vampires and Zombies included.)

However, leaving fictional analogy behind and returning to the real world, hero’s turn out to be villains and leaders turn out to be either benign or malign dictators. [See for example ‘Totalitarianism‘ Religious and Political‘ and ‘The Revolutionary Party’] The real world financial exploiters and their political agents can only be satisfactorily dealt with by the collective efforts of the blue and white-collar workers, the poor and their supporters, who in this case also need to take back control of their own production, work-places, towns and communities. But alas we are still some way from that. Nevertheless, at the moment a movement against austerity is gathering strength in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. As yet this embryonic citizen alliance is leading toward an increasingly collective – NO! For historic and practical reasons this movement – as yet – only collectively knows what it doesn’t want – austerity and corrupt political governance! There are considerable historic reasons why there is no coherent vision of what is wanted. There is – as yet – no collective – YES!

This cannot be surprising. The positive vision of what a post-capitalist society might look like has been distorted by the post-capitalist efforts of the Bolsheviks in the former Soviet Union. If, due to the unique fortuitous conditions of crisis in 20th century Russia, there had only been a short-lived example of a humane worker-led society, then there would be a much shorter path to collectively identifying what is needed and wanted in face of the present crisis. Sadly, as matters stand, there is very little clarity among the anti-capitalist left on what went wrong in the Soviet Union and how the mode of production can be revolutionised in the future. As I frequently suggest, the current task for non-sectarian anti-capitalists is to work together toward evaluating the past shortcomings and disasters of the anti-capitalist struggle. A corollary of this collective task, is to positively re-assert the potential of a post-capitalist humanist perspective alongside and within the developing anti-austerity, anti-cuts movements.

Roy Ratcliffe (March 2013.)

[See also ‘Crisis: so what else can we do?’ and ‘Defending Public Services’.]

Posted in Critique, Economics, Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

THE GENERAL STRIKE: Myth and Misconception.

Posted on February 20, 2013 by stutteringsteps

It is perhaps not surprising in the present circumstances, that the idea of a General Strike is being discussed by many on the left. Indeed some such actions have already taken place in Greece and Spain. However, it is important to understand that a great deal of myth and misconception surrounds this form of struggle. The concept is often promoted initially as a top-down ‘call’ from either a small group of impatient activists or threatened trade union bureaucrats. In this form it represents an idealised projection in which it is only necessary to formulate a) who it is to involve, b) what preparations are necessary, c) who is to co-ordinate it, and d) what it is intended to achieve. When these have been decided by the ‘leaders’ then it is only necessary to ‘spread the word’ and fix the date.

It is this idealised form which Rosa Luxemburg argued against in her pamphlet ‘The Mass Strike..etc.’ She suggested that;

“If anyone were to undertake to make the mass strike generally as a form of proletarian action the object of methodical agitation,,…..it would be as idle and profitless and absurd an occupation as it would to seek to make the idea of the revolution…..the object of a special agitation.” (The Mass Strike etc.)

She was countering the idea that even a large political party such as the German Social Democratic Party, at the time with mass membership should attempt such a call. This is because after her study of large-scale strike actions, both successful and failed in Russia and elsewhere she concluded they cannot be called at will. She noted that where they were attempted – in this top-down form – they invariable failed to materialise and on the few occasions they did so partially – they did not achieve their objective and sometimes the opposite. This was the case whether the purpose of the General Strike was to get a government to change its mind, bring an unpopular one down or in support of a preferred one.

A general strike cannot be manufactured, called into being, or orchestrated by a small group, or a political vanguard or even powerful trade union movement. Such proposals are, as she put it ’the fantasy of revolutionary romanticism‘. Where they do occur such mass strikes, both successful and otherwise, arise out of large-scale changing moods of masses of people, (organised and not) who have exhausted all other forms of struggle and see no other way forward. The majority of examples of authentic mass strikes reveal that they commence as organic worker-led initiatives that under certain economic and social conditions, manage to spark support from other workers and escalate in a kind of chain reaction which becomes more and more organised.

Anyone seriously discussing the idea of a general strike should at least have read Rosa on this issue. Anyone who hasn’t read her pamphlet before discussing it should be viewed with caution if not downright suspicion. In terms of Europe, North America and the United Kingdom, the past experience of large-scale strike action on these continents should be considered and the lessons learned. With regards, the UK the general strike of 1926 should be an important object of study. The misuse of the tactic in 1926 divided and exhausted the workers, alienated potential supporters and strengthened reaction, setting back the workers struggle considerably. However, for the moment I suggest considering the following main outlines of how the much better prepared and planned strike events of 1918 to 1921 known as the ‘Triple Alliance’ managed to be thwarted and wrecked.

The Triple Alliance.

This was a formal alliance of unionised miners, dockworkers, railway and transport workers, which had its roots in 1913. The idea was that an attack upon the working wages and conditions of any one section of the members of these powerful unions, would result in all three sections withdrawing their labour – ‘immediate sympathetic action’ was the formulation used in the joint resolution. Given the early 20th century reliance on the magnitude of labour involved on docks, railways and road transport, such strike and widespread sympathetic action would paralyse energy sources, food imports, transport of food and essential materials to every part of the UK. However, the 1914 – 18 war intervened and the alliance was only resurrected toward the end of it – during a period of large-scale unrest.

i) UK unrest in 1917- 20.

In June 1917 a conference of 1,100 delegates in Leeds discussed the setting up of workers and soldiers councils for the UK. In 1918 the army service Corp demonstrated in London and almost the entire UK police force also went on strike. In 1919 a large-scale strike of Lancashire cotton workers took place and elsewhere the Coldstream guards, refused to embark for Russia. The same year every workshop on the Clydeside stopped work, troops were brought in, martial law was declared and machine gun posts were deployed in Glasgow. At Folkstone 10,000 soldiers mutinied and held the town for a week. On the Isle of Wight 4,000 soldiers clashed with police and the port of Calais was in the control of rioting British soldiers for a time as they refused to obey orders.

That was not all. The sailors of the cruiser ‘Glory’ revolted and this ship and four others had to be sent back to port when they steadfastly refused to fight. Sailors also refused to leave Edinburgh, Invagorden, Davenport and Portsmouth, whilst mutinies occurred in Murmansk and Baku. During this period, much of the British industrial working class was also assertively active which is indicated by the number of strike days lost. 1918 saw 5.8 million working days lost; 1919 witnessed 35 million days lost; 1920 26.5 million; 1921 85 million and 20 million in 1922. And during 1919 the leaders of the Miners and Rail worker’s unions pursued wage increases the workers confident that with the Triple Alliance behind them they would achieve their aims.

ii) A first attempt at mass strike.

In a manoeuvre intended to split the 400,000 rail workers the government and employers response came in the form of granting the claim for Locomotive Drivers and Firemen but announcing 20% wage cuts for all other grades. The union leaders were caught unprepared by this with no clear strike plan or available strike funds. Nevertheless the strike went ahead and chaos, hardship and failure was only avoided by the initiative of the Co-operative bank which printed special cheques and food vouchers for strikers. The government on the other hand was well prepared and set in motion emergency transport, posted troops at every railway station, set up armed citizen guards and published a special propaganda newspaper. The government seemed set to defeat the railway workers and starve them into submission.

But that was not the final act of the unfolding drama. Postmen blacked all work normally done by rail workers and the miners and transport workers lobbied their leaders to enact sympathy strikes. A conference of the Triple Alliance was called but instead of ‘immediate sympathetic action’ being the outcome, a committee was elected to negotiate with the government. In view of the massive amount of support among the working class and public, the government backed down and the cuts did not take place. 1919 closed with the Triple Alliance having only partially functioned and with the wages and conditions of the other two unions still to be decided.

iii) A second attempt at a mass strike.

In 1920 the Dockers succeeded in winning higher wages and reduced hours. In London the dock workers then discovered that a ship they were loading, called the Jolly George, was carrying munitions intended to be used against the new workers soviets in Russia. They went on strike and ‘councils of action’ were formed in many towns and cities. Meanwhile the British government was sending warships to the Baltic to oppose the new soviet government. In a further response an emergency conference was called on the 13th August attended by 1,004 delegates from trade unions and labour organisations. The conference called for ‘any and every form of labour withdrawal’ which ‘circumstances may require’. So again the government altered its tactics.

1920 also saw the miners conference press for higher wages and a reduction of coal prices for domestic users. The government refused. The NUM balloted their members who voted for strike by a 2/3 majority. They immediately activated the Triple Alliance Agreement. However, the leaders of the respective unions when they got together, could not agree who should control the action. In exchange for their support, the leaders of the Railway men and Transport workers wanted to determine what the miners should accept as a satisfactory settlement. The miners rejected this and the rail worker representative, JH Thomas then announced that the NUR would not support the miners. Shortly after, H. Gosling, Transport workers leader, announced the same.

The miners strike action commenced on October 16th 1920. A few days later, a special delegate conference of the NUR decided to back the miners with sympathy action. No doubt bearing in mind the popular unrest over the last few years, at this threat, the government once again backed down and conceded a temporary wage rise. The miners returned to work on November 3rd and their leaders continued to have meetings with the employers and government. The government announced that the previous wartime controls of mining would end from March 1921. Immediately the employers announced an ending of existing wage contracts and introduced re-employment conditions – which reduced wages by up to 50%.

The miners refused to accept the new terms and were locked out of the pits. The government on the same day declared a ‘state of emergency’. Troops were brought back from Ireland, all army leave cancelled, reservists were called up, parks in London and provincial cities were turned into military camps and a ‘civilian defence force‘ was organised. At this all the mine safety workers left their pits to join the locked out miners – putting more pressure on the employers to negotiate. On April 8th the Triple Alliance announced that its members would strike in sympathy if the mine workers demands were not met. Meanwhile other unions such as the Electricians, Post Workers and the Co-op movement offered ‘all support necessary’ to the miners.

iv) A third attempt at a mass strike.

The National Council of Labour and the TUC also declared support for the miners and the Distributive Workers Union submitted plans for the distribution of food during the coming mass strike. All was set for a decisive showdown. The then Prime Minister, Lloyd George invited the miners leaders to meet with the employers in his presence. Knowing the government and employers were of the same mind, the miners refused. That refusal was all it took for the NUR leader to order the withdrawal of the strike notices for rail workers. Again the Transport Workers leader did the same. The rank and file belief in a union top-down ‘organised’ Triple Alliance – Mass Strike – was now revealed as a myth – a misconception! April the 15th, instead of being a day of concerted working class action, became a day of betrayal, subsequently known as Black Friday. All the pieces were in place for a successful campaign, but the union leaderships were simply able to de-rail it at will.

The miners struggled on alone for two months of arrests and intimidation before they finally succumbed and returned to work on the employers terms. In the words of historian AJ Taylor; “To the rejoicing of the educated, prosperous classes, the miners worked once more on terms which seem…as remote and barbaric as serfdom.” (English History 1914 – 45.) Once the miners had been defeated wages were subsequently reduced for building workers, seamen, agricultural workers, dock workers and the following year engineering workers were locked out and suffered wage reductions. The later 1926 tragic misuse of a General Strike tactic – with even less support – also failed. This was followed by the deprivations of ’Hungry 30’s and the barbarity of the Second World War.

v) A few observations.

Even with all the turmoil, unrest and increased class consciousness of the period; even with the large numbers of workers willing to fight; even with many of the important organisational pieces in place, (alternative money, vouchers and cheques), alternative transport and distribution, a General or Mass Strike still proved elusive. Missing were the crucial ingredients outlined by Luxemburg; – workers self determination and activity, refusal to rely on leaderships, well developed rank and file communication networks outside of union officialdom, successful fraternisation with other non-unionised members of the population and too much unchecked over-confidence among some wishful thinking activists. The myth around the General Strike and the consequent misuse of the concept and practice needs to be fully understood before embarking upon such adventures.

Roy Ratcliffe. (February 2013.)

[See also ‘Sectarianism and calls for a General Strike‘; ‘Uprisings and Revolutions‘; and ‘Crisis: so what else can we do?’ all on this blog.]

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

EGYPT and TUNISIA.

Posted on February 11, 2013 by stutteringsteps

A) Politics is still the problem.

The current situation in Egypt and Tunisia demonstrates the utter failure of reformist measures (as elsewhere) to solve the problems facing the mass of the people of these two countries. The fundamental aspirations of the mass of people involved in the uprisings in both Egypt and Tunisia can be summed up in the phrase ‘bread, freedom and justice’ which was articulated by the youth around the time of the uprisings of two years ago. These are the very minimum of basic demands for any form of humane society. Yet they have still not been even partially granted by the newly empowered politicians in these two countries.

The majority of the participants involved in the North African mass protests and civil disobedience actions of 2011, became convinced that these three basic human requirements could be achieved by a reform of the political leadership. And they were increasingly encouraged by elites everywhere to think this was the best way forward. So it was out with the dictators – and – in with the politicians! Two years later and the people there still have insufficient bread, not a lot of freedom and certainly no justice. Experience in Egypt and Tunisia, as elsewhere, has now demonstrated again that changes in the personnel of the present pro-capitalist political systems cannot radically change the economic reality of those living within and under the present system.

The underlying problem for the working classes (both blue-collar and white) along with the poor in Egypt and Tunisia is that – as we shall see – the capitalist mode of production can no longer offer improvements in the economic conditions for the vast majority of them. And this situation is not simply the result of the financial crisis. The system of capitalist production – independently of the current banking crisis – has reached a structural impasse. Yet it is the capitalist mode of production which the political tendencies now in power in Egypt and Tunisia wish to administer, uphold and promote. The commitment of the new Islamic forces now in political power to global capital is clear and unequivocal.

When for example, the Egyptian central bank (with political approval) declared it was committed to honouring external debt payments, this was a pledge to honour the capitalist inspired debts incurred by Mubarak’s corrupt regime. The debts were the result of money previously supplied by the capitalist international bond and money markets to the now ousted dictator. With its people so desperate for better conditions that they rose up against Mubarak, the new Mursi regime has rewarded their exertions by paying $13 billion to foreign investors. With many of its people starving the Islamic government of Egypt has at the same time set aside $8 billion to service external debt! These early policy actions amount to nothing more than refusing bread to the Egyptian poor, whilst enriching the already bloated financial markets dominated by investors in Europe and North America.

Not satisfied with the level of debt Mubarak had got the Egyptian people into, the new Muslim government, headed by Mursi has also entered into negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a further $4.8 billion loan. It is a loan – once finalised – which will come with numerous strings attached. So when President Mursi publicly declared “It is now time for us to work toward the advancement of the Egyptian people as whole,” he actually means the following. The ‘whole people’ are in a long queue in which the international capitalist class are at the front, greedily banking further billions in even more interest payments.

Next in line are the Egyptian capitalist class and their political and military elite supporters with their pockets already bulging. And to obtain a part of what is left at the back of the queue, the millions of workers and poor will be encouraged to squabble and fight it out amongst themselves. The classic policy of divide and rule this time using religious denominations is already splitting people into warring factions. Change the financial amounts somewhat and change the names of the political figureheads and this is essentially the same capitalist template for Tunisia. The replacement government for Ben Ali in Tunisia was working toward ‘honouring’ the debts and obligations to European and North American capitalism. Both these new regimes, supported by European and North American political elites, are intent on maintaining the capitalist system as it stands.

For this reason, stability, order and profit-making production are the essential policies being pursued by these new political forces, not bread, freedom and justice. The Islamic perspective on economics and governance is essentially the same as the neo-liberal secular perspective – accept domination by the ‘markets’ – and rule with an iron fist. In the case of Tunisia we need to ask what has motivated the attacks on secular political representatives in Kebili province, the arson attacks on the Nidaa Tounes opposition party and the assassination of Chukrie Beleid? Is it a coincidence that these actions came after a video by a Salafi cleric was circulated effectively saying that Beleid’s head was ‘wanted’? Why was it wanted? Is this religious assault on secular forces a pre-emptive strike to prevent a class-based perspective emerging? One which might oppose such blatant accommodation to capital.

These have been very public threats by Muslim extremists who at the same time threatened another champion of secular governance, Ahmed Najib Chebbi. We need to consider in what direction are such assaults pressing. The political and sectarian divide in Tunisia (as in Egypt) has resulted in two or more large poor communities at loggerheads and close to civil war instead of united to achieve their own particular versions of bread, peace and justice. That is the direct effect if not the direct intention. The initial sacrifices of the Tunisian and Egyptian workers and youth who faced down the police thugs of Mubarak and Ben Ali and started the uprisings, have as yet been for nothing. For in Tunisia, as in Egypt, youth unemployment remains high, with no policy or apology for this state of affairs, tourism has collapsed, the finances have been left in a mess by the Ben Ali regime and economic assistance (more debt burden for the workers) is being sought from the world’s money markets.

This is essentially the same pattern as Egypt; but can this be surprising? Well not really: because under the domination of the capitalist system there can realistically be no other model. This is why on a different scale it is being used to draw up the austerity plans for delivery to the workers of Europe, North and South America, Japan and the middle east. Everywhere the basics of the pro-capitalist mantra has the same three policy elements. 1. Stabilise the banking system by giving them as much money as they need to overcome their bad (criminal) decisions. 2. Encourage increased production and compete with other countries to have the most lowest paid workers in employment, and; each country sell more products than it buys. 3. Maintain current forms of political and economic elite power.

B) More capitalism is not the solution.

The whole international representatives of the capitalist system are in various stages of denial concerning the nature and depth of the crisis facing the capitalist system and consequently facing humanity. As the saying goes ‘there are none so blind as those who won’t see‘. And for the super-rich and their supporters what blinds them is the billions they accumulate from the system. Yet for more than a century, it has been clear that the capitalist mode of production has been unable to employ all the citizens of each country – even at low levels of sustenance. This has been the case ever since capitalism became the dominant mode of production. An unemployed reserve army of labour is a constant feature of this mode of production since before the time of Marx in the 19th century.

In the 20th and 21st centuries with automation and computerisation, the situation has become considerably worse. The technical developments of industry, agriculture and commerce have become ever more efficient. Now every year technical developments in capitalist industry, agriculture and commerce, require less and less workers to maintain global production at saturation levels. Levels which under the present mode, create more products than can be profitably consumed. From cars, TV’s, computers, to super tankers and aircraft, surplus products and surplus capacity currently exists in all major sectors of profitable production and distribution. This is the underlying structural crisis of the current system.

This basic 21st century capitalist economic reality is the underlying condition which determines and limits what can be done in Egypt and Tunisia as long as the present economic system is not really revolutionised. For this reason, no participants in the current political milieu or state superstructure are equipped, either intellectually, emotionally or practically to effect changes in this economic foundation. The political system in Europe and North America lacks the mechanisms to even regulate the volatile financial sector adequately. The global financial system continues to totter on the edge of collapse despite regular liquidity infusions of more and more printed money. When it comes to the economic level of production and distribution the political elite is even more incapable of effecting the necessary and substantial change required.

At a global level under the present system, the immediate and mid-term prospect is for further financial insolvency and further sovereign debt collapses. This is the very real prospect for the highly industrialised economies of Europe, North America, Japan and even China. This in turn will engender further global economic downturns in which production levels fail to rise or even decrease, whilst prices rise and austerity persists. All other countries, including those in the middle east and Africa, which are dependent upon exports and imports (money and commodities) from and between the ’advanced’ countries, will also be negatively effected. Therefore, no reformist changes in the political complexion of Egypt and Tunisia’s governance – even the most optimistic – can or will produce bread, freedom and justice.

As noted above, the only changes the global pro-capitalist representatives are contemplating are slight and will allow the banking and bond fraternities to continue their speculative activities. The two other measures already noted are actually in direct contradiction to each other. The first – persisting with austerity and job reductions, and the second – stimulating competitive production. It should be obvious that increased production under the capitalist mode depends upon sufficiently numerous well-paid workers (and others) globally to soak up this increased production. Global austerity and job losses merely exacerbate the contradiction between what is produced and what can be purchased. Fewer employed workers also means less tax income for governments and this increases the already insolvent (bankruptcy) levels of governmental debt – in all countries.

C) The need for a revolutionary transformation.

The Arab street needs to return to its original inspiration and aspiration. Bread, freedom and justice are the fundamental rights of all human beings. They were the original basis for a united struggle by the citizens of Egypt and Tunisia, before this struggle was deflected and directed into sterile sectarian competition for political or religious control of formal seats of power. The frequent sterile ‘adult’ demand for the youth in Egypt and Tunisia to come up with an acceptable alternative ‘political solution’ to the ones currently being practiced is to demand the impossible. There are no political solutions to the present crisis. There are only economic and social ones. The right to produce needs to lie with the workers and ordinary citizens not some fat-cat individuals or their international board-room representatives. At the very least, the means of production need to be taken out of the hands of the capitalist representatives and reside with the workers.

For this reason there is still need to assemble, discuss and protest. In this regard, the ‘black bloc ‘ youth of Egypt have made an important first step in announcing their intention to protect protestors. It was such physical protection which enabled the original peaceful uprising to assemble, discuss, defend itself and prevail. It is such protection which will continue to allow protest to flourish – this time on the basis of evaluating the last two years experience. If those currently at the back of the resources queue in Egypt and Tunisia are sensible, they will reject the invitation to fight amongst themselves for what is left after the finance capitalists have bagged the lion‘s share. It would be an advance – something to work for – if they campaigned for unity to fight for a system which provides equally for all those in the queue. Given the 21st century systemic impasse for capitalism this makes the aspiration for bread, freedom and justice – for all citizens – a truly revolutionary demand, for it cannot be met – for all citizens – from within the capitalist mode of production. To achieve it requires going beyond capital.

The alternative logic of the capitalist mode of production and the ideology of its upholders, whether in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere, is clear. It is toward increased competition between workers. Competition for available jobs and resources, and between countries for raw materials and favourable markets. That way leads incrementally to ideas of nationalism, racism, ethnic strife, religious intolerance and fascist-type totalitarianism. These divisive ideologies have more than once been used by desperate ruling classes and have proved to be historical dead ends for humanity. A radical alternative is both desirable and necessary. Working toward a revolutionary transformation of the mode of production needs putting on the workplace and community activist agenda. In this task the Youth of Egypt and Tunisia (as elsewhere) can play a decisive role. Since the system denies them practically everything – even hope – they have nothing to lose.

So even apart from the ecological and environmental concerns created by the profit-focussed capitalist mode of production, a change in the global economic system is necessary for the mass of people to obtain a decent standard of living in terms of food, shelter, education, health and entertainment. In the first half of the 21st century, humanity faces a stark choice; increased competition between capitalist countries or improved citizen co-operation between peoples. To choose competition with all that entails – austerity, poverty, environmental degradation and wars – it is not necessary to do anything. The leaders of current system will blindly lead us down that particular path. They have done so before – and will do so again.

To realise bread, freedom and justice for all by choosing co-operation between peoples, however, will require a great deal of sustained work and activity. It will take time, experience, knowledge and sufficient numbers of people. In advance of the formation of such large-scale critical masses, it will require national and international co-operation between those who have already accepted the need for such a historical transformation. If the latter in Egypt and Tunisia (and the same goes for other countries) can learn to overcome their differences and create an organisational form and future anti-capitalist purpose which is inclusive and egalitarian in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation and class, then this will facilitate both the actual as well as the potential movement for real substantive change.

Whether some like it or not the perspective of a revolutionary transformation of the mode of producing the world’s goods and services is one which faces the majority of humanity. The youth is the section of the global population which will suffer most in a future dominated by the capitalist mode of production. But it is also this section of the population which is least encumbered by previous – outmoded – forms of conducting the anti-capitalist struggle. They are unlikely to adopt the top-down, patriarchal, elitist, vanguardist model of anti-capitalist struggle, which went so tragically wrong in the Soviet Union, China and wherever else it was exported to. And this model – where it is artificially kept alive – still haunts and disfigures the international struggle against the capitalist mode of production.

Roy Ratcliffe. (February 2013.)

[See also ‘Austerity: its another word for War’; ‘Form and Essence in the anti-capitalist struggle’; and ‘Uprisings and Revolutions.’ all at http://www.critical-mass.net.

Posted in Arab Spring, Critique, Economics, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment