Rich Idler, Poor Idler

In contemporary society the problem of idleness is a significant one. While millions struggle to aquire a decent education, basic healthcare, housing and even food and clothing there are millions idle who contribute nothing to the 'common weal'. A tremendous amount of human potential is squandered and everybody knows it. However the mass media focus their attention only on poor idlers. Rich idlers are not part of the problem, apparently; in fact they seem not to exist at all to the media! However, one must only look past the end of one's nose to see that both poor idlers and rich idlers exist and that both are economically undesirable.

Poor idlers are discussed daily in every newspaper, economic journal and news broadcast the world over. They are the unemployed whose number increases daily as the world economic crisis deepens. They are also, technically, the most vulnerable in society: the elderly, the handicapped and the elderly.

Rich idlers were described by Marx and Engels as 'coupon clippers'. They are those who live entirely off the labour of others. They also contribute nothing to the 'common weal'. The are of course a minority in society but still a sizable section of it. The landed aristocracy are the most obvious example of such people. They are not discussed in the media, in such a capacity, at all.

One may argue that the landed aristocracy or even large landlords do work. Some of them do, it is true. However this is economically entirely distinct from their existence as landlords and therefore 'accidental'.

David Cameron PM is wont to describe the Con-Dem government which he heads as one which is for 'those who want to work hard and get on'. From this one would infer that the Conservatives, and their pals in the media, would be against all forms of idleness. However, such an inferrence would be incorrect.

One the one hand, poor idlers are having their living standards attacked relentlessly. Benefits are being slashed for the unemployed, the handicapped and the elderly. The former group aforementioned are, moreover, ruthlessly villified by the media and spongers and crooks. George Osborne recently went so far as to link the tragic murder of the Philpott children to their father's life on benefits!

On the other hand the most prominent members of the British landed aristocracy, the Royal Family, have had their contributions increased. 'Official expenditure met by the Sovereign Grant in 2012-2013 amounted to 33.3 million pounds (!), an increase of 0.9 million pounds... compared to the previous year.' The Royal Wedding was of course paid for separately. Furthermore, the Royal Family are glorified by the media. The Daily Telegraph writes articles with titles such as: 'More than ever the Royal Family is worth every penny.'

Some may argue than the Royal Family does work. Even if one grants that the un-democratic head-of-state, for example, does work and is not just the figurehead of the British landed aristocracy and the central rallying-point for the chauvinist British establishment, which is asking a lot, these layers are essentially idle! Support for the British Royal Family politically is support for rich idlers more or less directly.

The hypocrisy of the ruling parties and the media, if a such distinction can be made, is therefore blatant. Their policies for and portrayal of poor idlers are entirely different to that of rich idlers. This is reason alone to resist the attacks against the welfare system currently taking place.

However Marxists are ultimately against all idleness (making exceptions for the sick, handicapped and elderly of course). We are for neither rich nor poor idlers. This is why Marx described socialism as: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' Until the socialist transformation of society however, we will fight against the hypocritical and unfair cuts of this government to welfare.

Lessons from Balcombe

On Monday 20th August Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton and Hove, was arrested at a protest against the controversial fracking development in Balcombe in Sussex. In an era of daily political scandals in Britain the news was significant and received enthusiastically by the public. They were happy to learn of an MP who was willing to fight for something that she believed in even to the detriment of herself. This was of course admirable. However, except for raising awareness of the fracking issue (and perhaps her profile) Lucas' actions are unlikely to achieve anything. 

The Green Party, which Lucas is part of, is a party which aims to further the importance of environmental issues in politics and ultimately to make the economy and society as a whole environmentally friendly and sustainable. These are of course noble and even necessary aims in today's world. The effects of 'climate change' are becoming more pronounced and therefore worrying. However the Green Party has a 'supra-class' approach to politics and this is a fatal flaw. 

Capitalism is a mode of production which requires the continual growth of capital (or in the words of Marx the 'self-valorisation of capital'). It is necessary for the economy, and therefore profits, to grow continually otherwise the system collapses with disastrous consequences to society. We are living through such a period and its horrific consequences are evident to all. 

In order to compete, nationally and internationally, capitalist firms must fight for the most profitable resources, technologies etc. They then produce as much of their commodity as possible that they think they can sell in a particular 'market'. Since each firm is competing for the same consumers, more is inevitably produced than can be purchased. This is true in a boom or in a slump. Therefore capitalism itself is wasteful and anarchic. 

This is not something which the Green Party understands. They want an economy which is sustainable (and therefore planned) and not wasteful without changing its nature. It wants a capitalism which is not capitalism. It wants to square the circle. 

Before the events involving the Green Party's only MP in Balcombe, there was another sequence of events which made this fatal flaw evident. The Brigton and Hove council, which had many Green councillors, decided to implement a programme of significant attacks against refuse workers' pay and conditions. This would adversely affect not only the workers in question but the environment as there would be more rubbish on the streets and less recycling. However it was necessary to implement such cuts due to budget constraints. This provoked a prolonged strike from the refuse workers and public indignation, many of whom voted for the Green Party's candidates. Eventually a deal was made between the council and workers but the Green Party's reputation was tarnished. It was forced to implement a policy it was opposed to by the demands of the system they were working within. 

The latest events involving Lucas further demonstrate their flawed approach. Despite being the MP in the region and having a Green council, they could not prevent the beginning of the fracking process in Sussex. This is ultimately because capitalism is a system based on the private ownership of the means of production. This means that regardless of who is voted into parliament decisions concerning production are made by private firms. They are not democratic by nature. Ms Lucas wanted to control them democratically but of course could not. Then when this failed she tried to occupy the site with sympathisers. This failed for the same reason: the private ownership of the means of production. This prompted the state to intervene with force, which is ultimately what the state is for. 

Capitalism is a mode of production which is necessarily wasteful and anarchic. It is not possible to control it democratically, plan it and make it sustainable. This is exactly why socialists aim to socialise the commanding heights of the economy i.e. to place the economy under the democratic control of the working class. Only then can the economy as a whole be planned and made environmentally friendly and sustainable. The Green Party must learn this otherwise it is doomed to further frustrations.

Scapegoating in Education (written 13th July 2012)

Recently Tory MP Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, endorsed the views of a ‘US education expert’ Michelle Rhee¹. Her views are neither new, nor will they raise standards, but they are likely to be adopted by Mr Gove apparently in order to “transform [disadvantaged] schools”. Let’s investigate why.

                The context of these ‘reforms’ (counter-reforms) is of course a British government with over a trillion pounds worth of debt (£1,000,000,000,000), a stalling economy which is likely to enter into a recession soon (down 0.2% Q1 year-on-year), rising unemployment (8.2% of work-force) and a tremendous budget deficit (8.2% GDP or £140,000,000,000)². These objective conditions call for a government committed to capitalism, which of course the coalition is, to implement draconian cuts so these debts don’t spiral out of control.

                Assuming the government borrowed money at an annual rate of 5%, which is a reasonable assumption, each year they will have to pay back £50,000,000,000 to their creditors just to cover the interest. That is approximately 3% of the whole GDP of Britain!! Furthermore, since there is a significant budget deficit, the debt is growing rapidly. This is clearly unsustainable. Therefore since substantial growth on a capitalist basis is ruled out in Britain in the foreseeable future, any government without a militant socialist programme must implement tremendous cuts to reduce their spending.

This explains why the Coalition government, led by the Tories, have implemented cuts in all parts of the public sector and welfare state. Recently, even the police were tempted to strike, and the doctors actually did strike, much to the chagrin of the government. This was because these workers, traditionally quite conservative workers, understood that the government proposals would only damage the quality of service provided and their quality of life so the Government’s finances could be improved. Teachers went on strike recently too for the same reason.

In education the coalition has already, among other things, reduced spending on schools and universities, frozen wages of workers (real term cuts), increased the retirement age and decreased pension payments. These changes result in a poorer education for students and a worse quality of life for teachers.

In education less money means at least one, if not all, of the following changes: less books, less stationary, less equipment, worse technology, poorer food, worse buildings, poorer furniture, less qualified teachers and increased class sizes. Fortunately for the ministers, they are paid such a wage that they can afford to protect their children from such unpleasantness and send them to private schools.

 However, the public demand an explanation for these declining standards and a worsening quality of provision. The government cannot admit that since it is committed to saving the banks, as their parties have destroyed all other major sections of the British economy over the last thirty years, that they are not prepared to re-open the latter, and that they have and will spend any amount of the tax payer’s money on the banks, students and teachers in schools have to suffer. Someone else must take the blame.

In steps Michelle Rhee who has ‘earned a reputation as a "witchfinder general of the classroom" in the US, identifying under-performing teachers and forcing them out of the profession’¹. The primary problem in education in her opinion, and in Michael Gove’s, is not the cuts, not the increasing class-sizes, lack of text books, paper and pens, but the teachers. Conveniently this solution costs essentially nothing, just the cost of employing a group of ‘experts’ to ‘inspect’ (bully and harass) teachers who are performing relatively worse than others, in terms of statistics, and force them out of the profession. Moreover, it helps to perpetuate the Tory myth that public sector workers are lazy and incompetent. Brilliant!

However, ignoring the fact that comparatively there will always be better and worse teachers, and that therefore the poorest performing, relatively speaking,  will be living in perpetual fear of losing their jobs every day, even if they are doing a good job in an absolute sense; ignoring the fact that this will result in many competent teachers leaving the profession by choice or otherwise and will scare many potentially excellent teachers away from education; ignoring the fact that this will increase the stress of the work-force tremendously, increasing the number of staff on sick-leave and decrease the quality of teaching; ignoring the fact that not everything a teacher does can be measured by statistics and conveniently made into a number, there is one small problem with the proposal: it totally ignores the damage done by the government to education which is the primary cause of regression in standards today!

In other words, even if such a monstrous scheme were to be implemented effectively, which is impossible, the quality of education will be most significantly affected by government cuts and the net effect will be a poorer quality of education overall.

In this epoch, a commitment to capitalism is a commitment to cuts and to lowering the standards of state provision. This is the primary cause of declining standards in education today, not ‘under-performing’ teachers. Only a genuine socialist government with a genuine socialist program can reverse such a trend. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Thatcher’s Actual Legacy- Castles in the Sky (Written 3rd April 2012)

Hollywood’s release of The Iron Lady at a time when the Conservatives are back in government in Britain, and moreover during an economic crisis, is terribly suspect and suggests yet again an uncomfortably strong link between the ruling class in Britain and powerful media companies. Whether or not the film was intentionally propagandistic, the film has ignited a debate about Thatcher and Tory policies in both Britain and America.

The film perpetuates the myth that Thatcher was a tough but brave leader who made very difficult and unpopular decisions but did what was necessary for the country in difficult times. The implicit class condescension, making difficult but necessary decisions for the people which the latter couldn’t possibly understand, is typical of conservative propaganda. Let’s investigate whether or not there is any basis to it.

                In an article on Wikipedia, it is written that in 1979: “After entering 10 Downing Street, Thatcher … emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labour markets, the privatisation of state-owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade unions.”  Let’s analyse the legacy of such policies.

                De-regulation of the financial sector generally, and in London in particular, has in the long term contributed to and exacerbated the greatest economic crisis in history. Bankers were encouraged to de-regulate, a policy supposedly based on the neo-liberal economics their bourgeois stooges were conjuring out of their heads at the time. The ‘free market’ (capitalism) was supposed to drive innovation through competition with companies breaking their necks to produce the best services for ‘consumers’. They could only do this if the state didn’t go meddling in ‘their’ affairs. Whether or not they actually believed that these theories had any basis is hard to establish. What is certain, though, is that their policies have been shown to be complete balderdash.

                Coming to power at a time of heightened class struggle in a period of economic stagnation, Thatcher inherited a militant working class movement. This in her opinion was one of the most potent factors contributing to Britain’s declining world position and economy. Taking on the working class and defeating the trade unions would reverse the trend. Typically, workers wanting decent working and living conditions were seen as the enemy. Thatcher took on many sectors of the working class, most notably the miners, and won, defeating militant strike movements using police brutality and criminalising many ordinary forms of industrial action. The leaders of the labour movement were reluctant to cross the legal threshold and so were defeated.

                Not content with this victory, Thatcher and the Tories shut down a significant proportion of British Industry wholesale. For example, by 1990, 97 out of 174 (56%) state-owned mines had been shut down completely, the remaining 44% being privatised. Eventually 150 suffered the former fate. This devastated the communities in which the miners worked, increasing unemployment in those communities to unprecedented heights. Many, if not all of those communities today are still suffering from these closures.

                An infant can understand that this policy’s primary aim was to rid Britain of the most militant section of the working class; “the enemy within” in Thatcher’s own words. But the Tories had the audacity to suggest that Britain didn’t need its own industry. Apparently we could have a prosperous economy based almost entirely on finance and the service sector in ‘The City’. Apparently we would make so much money from these sectors that we could import all of the things we used to produce without any disadvantages. Again this has been shown, in the long term, to be nonsense. Britain’s economy is predicted to grow by only 0.3% this coming year (i.e. by nothing). Thatcher’s policies have caught up with Britain, policies continued under Brown and Blair whilst the conservative party were too unpopular to remain in power.

                Having a prosperous society based almost completely on finance capital was a utopian fantasy dreamt up by the conservatives. It was an attempt to solve the problems of Britain on a capitalist basis which is impossible.   

                As Marx explained it is the contradictions of capitalism which causes economic crises: the continual driving down of wages whilst producing more and more goods; the lack of a planned economy in a society with very definite needs; the concentration of capital and the increasing productivity of labour welding the labourer to the machine for longer and longer hours. The policies of Thatcher had no scientific content and were the desperate attempt of a class in terminal decline to resurrect the system which they represented, at any cost.

                Today, the coalition government are continuing with the same policies of Thatcher.  They have frozen wages and fired workers at a time of depressed demand. They have even refused to regulate The City, to the amazement of Europe, at a time when no-one doubts that this contributed to the crisis. They are attempting to privatise not only the NHS but the education system. In the words of Trotsky, they are “tobogganing to disaster with closed eyes.” Unfortunately, they are not being opposed in any meaningful way by the Labour Party.

                Ed Miliband and the reformist Labour Party leaders are not opposing cuts to public services and privatisation in general but are only opposed to the rate at which they happen. They are not supporting workers in struggle but are opposing their industrial action on the grounds of national unity. They too believe that this crisis can be solved on a capitalist basis, but a more ethical and responsible capitalism, yet they fawn before The City and capital in general. They are trying to square the circle!

                George Galloway’s recent landslide victory in Bradford is proof that the old argument made by Labour party tops that left wing policies are un-electable is rot. Labour will only gain strong support with a radical socialist program to oppose cuts and build a sustainable economy. There is no alternative. Until that happens, the coalition will stumble from one disaster to another as their heroin did.