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.