Eco-socialism, another grand concept with an adjective.

Marx summed up radical green politics when in Capital III he noted:

“From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private property of individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth, they are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as boni patres familias” [good heads of the household]”

Marx took Feuerbach’s notion of fetishism to describe such radical humanism. Feuerbach famously argued that human beings invent gods and goddesses, forget they have invented them and bow down to worship their own creations. Marx reminds us that human beings, through social action, create the economic system; we then forget that the economy is a human construct and worship it as if it were a god. Ecological sanity can only come when we recognise that the present economic system of capitalism is a social construct that must be overthrown. In Chapter One of Capital is the idea of use value as opposed to exchange value. A capitalist economy is focused on exchange values - we could increase use value by making goods that last longer, by extending the library principle to all kinds of goods. Even in a market-based society, car pools exist. Real prosperity means that we have access to useful things; it is quite different from wasteful increases in Gross National Product (GNP). Under capitalism resources that are free - from land to ideas - are essentially stolen, fenced in and sold back to us. The enclosure and commodification of labour is the most important form of enclosure. This increases exchange value (GNP) but makes us poorer. Some of Marx’s earliest political writings examined the imposition of laws that prevented peasants from gathering fallen wood in German forests. The open source principle of free access and creativity is an example of how enclosure can and should be fought. A society controlled by the few must be replaced by one that works for all. We must overcome a society based on blind accumulation.

The Green Party and many of its supporters do not recognise that they require a struggle against the capitalist system. Signaling the challenge to the old politics the Green Party has been modestly successful contesting elections. It's true that the environment movement has brought a new vocabulary and "discourse" into political life. The Greens vote is the result of growing disillusion with Labour and a steady growth in concern about environmental issues. The Greens presented themselves as a party to the left of Labour (which is not too difficult). But ‘green socialism’ is all about taking a stand against ‘green capitalism.’ In the process, many of the traditional socialist themes – e.g., distribution, power and property, planning and democracy – are updated and linked up with the new issues. Those involved in the Green Party are clearly sincere in their opposition to various versions of capitalism and their desire for a better world, but they seem to have no real conception of what "socialism" might mean. The working class, exploitation, the labour movement, do not figure at all. Neither does collective ownership. Their "socialism" is more a catchphrase for good causes in general than a vision of the democratic transformation of society, by workers, from below. While the Green Party may hold some good socialist members, and present some reforms, it is not a party of socialism and in the end will degenerate into a party that offers bike-lanes and budget cuts. Socialists must challenge green politics showing how ecological issues are of top relevance to the quality of life of working people.

The “green economy” focuses on commodification and the market. Yet the market takes too long to resolve problems, and the big corporations behind fossil fuels want to get a foothold in “green energy” at the same time as keeping their fixed capital. Their idea of a “green economy” favours technological fixes based on private property, for example large-scale projects such as huge offshore wind parks, and transcontinental super-grids for long-distance energy exports from Sahara desert solar facilities. Yet it is impossible to meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and catapulting the entire economy from the 150-year old age of coal and oil into the future of solar and wind without provoking crises. It is necessary to transform the mode of production and living so it is predictable that when some of the old branches of industry and their capital come under attack, it will in turn trigger resistance. Conversion of polluting and resource-intensive capital stock to environmentally benign alternatives? Impose green taxes? Just how viable will they be to the likes of the Koch brothers? Dreams of a "steady state" capitalism beloved of an ecological economist like Herman Daly and environmentalists like Lester Brown and the authors of Sharing the World are simply that — dreams. They accept that the market system is untouchable and look for salvation in changing the behaviour of individual consumers and adoption of energy-saving technology. However, since capitalism is addicted to expansion, and devotes vast resources to this effort, there's no reason at all to expect that gains in resource efficiency will go into reduced usage of resources and not into increased throughput and growth rates. The principle that "the polluter pays" will be a principle more honoured in the breach than the observance. But modern corporations have corporate lawyers who find loopholes and who appeal the penalties.

The alternative to socialism is literally destruction. As socialists we are aware of how very far down the road to making the planet uninhabitable for humans capitalism is, and how many humans have already suffered and are already suffering from the damage the profit system has done to our planet. We possibly have one more generation before it is too late. There won’t be any socialists, there won’t be any socialism, when nobody can breathe. Climate change is real and it’s as urgent as it gets that we make radical changes if we want a future on this planet. The working class have to continue to see ourselves as revolutionary because we are the part of humanity most indispensable for our survival. The Socialist Party viewpoint simply means that, until the working majority sets the rules of the political and economic game, any gains in such battles are provisional and vulnerable to co-option and reversal.

The environmental crisis tends to manifest itself either in the form of local outrages (motorway proposals, polluted rivers) or vast global problems (hole in the ozone layer, global warming, fishery depletion, global deforestation), and it's not surprising that environmental activists overwhelmingly get tugged in one of two directions and away from any revolutionary perspective.

The first is towards case-by-case guerilla warfare against specific environmental outrages, which the crisis will supply to the movement as if on a conveyor belt running at ever greater speed. The second is toward the organisations "that have the power to do something" — government ministries, United Nations agencies or even and increasingly, the “greener” corporations, themselves. What is at stake in this discussion is not whether governments can't be induced to change their mind on this or that dam or their objection to the very idea of a carbon tax, but whether any capitalist government, representing the "common affairs of the bourgeoisie", can subordinate the overall interests of capital to those of the environment for any length of time. Once that impossibility is truly grasped then environmentalists have no choice but seriously to measure their present ideas against the basic concepts of socialist theory and politics. Membership of a Green party, sometimes involving serious commitment to campaigns, but almost always involving confusion about goals and vulnerable to drowning in parliamentary tomfoolery of reformism. The slogan "Think globally, act locally" has the direct implication that each and every local initiative in recycling, economising on water and energy use and cutting waste can, summed together, make a critical difference. Decades of thinking globally and acting locally, while yielding a host of small victories, has not been able to reverse any major trend in environmental degradation. That's because it offers no pathway from the local to the global, no feasible strategy for making local action begin to count globally. This is all the more true because the local is hardly ever purely local, but linked to national and international webs of production, trade and investment shaped by the national and international division of labour. The "local" is forged by an increasingly global capitalism, which protects its interests through national and international state and semi-state bodies.

The concerned environmentalist has a choice between an ecological version of socialism or capitalism. We can reform it or replace it with something more democratic. The central issue is that of working class political consciousness, of imparting the true picture of a capitalism whose insatiable hunger for profit is not only devouring the working and living conditions of hundreds of millions of working people but the underpinnings of life itself. The future of our planet depends on building a livable environment  and a socialist movement powerful enough to displace capitalism.

‘Nothing should be made by man’s labour which is not worth making; or which must be made by labour degrading to the makers…Worthy work carries with it the hope of pleasure in rest, the hope of the pleasure in our using what it makes, and the hope of pleasure in our daily creative skill. All other work but this is worthless; it is slaves’ work — mere toiling to live, that we may live to toil.’ William Morris

Modern Slavery

Nearly 36 million people worldwide, or 0.5% of the world's population, live as slaves, a survey by anti-slavery campaign group Walk Free says. 'The group's Global Slavery Index says India has the most slaves overall and Mauritania has the highest percentage. The total is 20% higher than for 2013 because of better methodology. The report defines slaves as people subject to forced labour, debt bondage, trafficking, sexual exploitation for money and forced or servile marriage.' (BBC News, 17 November) It uses slavery in a modern sense of the term, rather than as a reference to the broadly outlawed traditional practice where people were held in bondage and treated as another person's property. The Global Slavery Index's estimate is higher than other attempts to quantify modern slavery. In 2012, the International Labour Organisation estimated that almost 21 million people were victims of forced labour. RD

Trouble Ahead

Capitalism is full of surprises just when it appeared that there was a partial world economic recovery along comes another Asian shocker.  'Japan's economy unexpectedly shrank for the second consecutive quarter, leaving the world's third largest economy in technical recession. Gross domestic product (GDP) fell at an annualised 1.6% from July to September, compared with forecasts of a 2.1% rise. That followed a revised 7.3% contraction in the second quarter, which was the biggest fall since the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.' (BBC News, 17 November) Now economists are saying the weak economic data could delay a sales tax rise. RD

A New Menace

China has unveiled its new stealth fighter at a recent air show as it increasingly exerts its influence in  the East China Sea and the South China Sea. 'China's newest stealth fighter jet debuted at air show here Tuesday, as the country put its military technologies on display. The J-31 which bears resemblance to the latest American F-35 stealth fighter, was showcased on the opening day of the biennial China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition, or Airshow China.' (Asian Review, 12 November) It is China's aim to have mass production of the J-31 within five years in a direct challenge to the USA. RD

More Double Dealing

Despite George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's much repeated mantra about about "all being in this together" as far as economic difficulties are concerned, recent research by economists at the London School of Economic Research at the University of Essex exposes that as total nonsense. 'According to independent research to be published on Monday, and seen by the Observer George Osborne has been engaged in a significant transfer of income from the least well-off half of the population to the more affluent in the past four years. Those with the lowest wages have been hit hardest.' (Observer, 16 November) RD

Another NHS Crisis

Under-funding and under-staffing is a major problem at many NHS Hospitals, but there is a particularly nasty disorganisation at  Colchester Hospital where the Accident & Emergency is the last place you want to go if you have an accident. 'Colchester Hospital has declared "a major incident" following an inspection by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The hospital trust said the major incident is likely to last a week, and asked patients to visit Accident & Emergency only if they have a "serious or life-threatening condition".' (Guardian, 14 November) This is not a new problem as there has been 18  months of problems at Colchester leading to the Chief Executive, the chairman and various other officials having to leave. RD

Oppose Nationalism

Socialists are internationalists. Whereas nationalists believe that the world is divided primarily into different nationalities, socialists consider social class to be the primary divide. For socialists, class struggle--not national identity--is the motor of history. And capitalism creates an international working class that must fight back against an international capitalist class. Capitalism is a world system and socialism can’t survive in one country, it has to be worldwide. For that reason the Socialist Party is implacably opposed to nationalism, which ties working people to our rulers and divides us from working people in other countries. The “national interest” propaganda binds workers hand and foot to their employers, blinding them to their true interest in working-class solidarity. Socialists argue that workers have no interest in the nationality of the factory owners or the land owners. We are working towards the working-class majority taking power and implementing common ownership. Once freed from market forces, the world’s resources will be used to meet human need.

Consistent international socialism as represented, for instance, by Rosa Luxemburg, opposed Bolshevik “national self-determination.” For her, the existence of independent national governments did not alter the fact of their control by the super-powers through the latter’s control of world economy. Capitalism could neither be fought nor weakened through the creation of new nations but only by opposing capitalist nationalism with proletarian internationalism. It is not the function of socialism to support nationalism. Contrary to earlier expectations, nationalism could not be utilized to further socialist aims, nor was it a successful strategy to hasten the demise of capitalism. On the contrary, nationalism emasculates socialism by using it for nationalist ends. It is not possible to support nationalism without also supporting national rivalries and war. No matter how utopian the quest for international solidarity may appear no other road seems open to escape fratricidal struggles and to attain a rational world society.

Although socialists’ sympathies are with the oppressed, they relate not to emerging nationalism but to the particular plight of twice-oppressed people who face both a native and foreign ruling class. Their national aspirations are in part “socialist” aspirations, as they include the illusory hope of impoverished populations that they can improve their conditions through national independence. Yet national self-determination has not emancipated the laboring classes.

Socialism will rise again as an international movement - or not at all. Those interested in the rebirth of socialism must stress its internationalism most of all. While it is impossible for a socialist to become a nationalist, the fight against colonialism does not imply adherence to the principle of national self-determination, but expresses the desire for a non-exploitative, world socialist society. While socialists cannot identify themselves with national struggles, they can as socialists oppose nationalism, colonialism and imperialism. It is not the function of socialists to fight for a nation’s independence but to strive for a socialist society. A struggle to this end would undoubtedly aid the liberation movements yet it would be a by-product of and not the reason for the socialist fight against neo-colonialism. The success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class, it is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into different countries in order to accomplish this unity. It is completely absurd to justify this with the false argument, disproven many times, that the battle for socialism would be easier if it were led by a more nationally “pure” and homogeneous working class.

Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis measures imposed by the capitalists. Unity is necessary to stand up against all the attacks on our democratic rights. Unity is the key in putting an end to the discrimination suffered by the oppressed. The working class faces a powerful and aggressive enemy which is solidly united despite the real contradictions within its ranks. The people are not going to win by dividing themselves. Those who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists. The “left” nationalists would have us believe that the national demands of the people can only be met through independence. Thus, they claim, the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class. The difference between nationalists and the other capitalist parties is not that they call for a different social system. What’s different is that they are looking for a new sharing of powers. The sharing will just be between groups of capitalists. Supporting nationalism in the name of the light for socialism is a monumental hoax. It flows from the same kind of logic that leads others to preach the nationalization as the cure for all our ills. It is up to the working class to show that it will not be duped by their political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric. Socialists have a responsibility to the working class to warn the workers as tactfully as possible of their mistaken course. At the present time, the capitalist class is launching a furious ideological counter-offensive against the ideas of socialism, it is our duty to stand firm in defence of the fundamental ideas and principles. We must reject the false road of shortcuts and panaceas, which leads to the quagmire of opportunism.

The Socialist Party cedes no concessions to the ideas nationalism and we continue to fight for the ideas of class unity and internationalism as the only way forward for the workers everywhere.

A Murderous Society

A MURDEROUS SOCIETY                                      

Politicians love to speak to the media about all their strenuous efforts to bring about peace in the world and to cut military expenditure. Despite these platitudes the facts are completely different though. 'The United States has announced  an urgent $10 billion upgrade of its nuclear weapons arsenal after two hard-hitting reviews found that decades of neglect have left its most significant line of defence in disrepair.' (Times, 15 November) All this is part of the US start on $1 trillion military upgrade. Such obscene expenditure shows wherein capitalism's priorities lie. RD

Modern Wage Slavery

In their quest for bigger and bigger profits there is no depth to which the capitalist class will not stoop. Take the awful exploitation of Asian children in the garment industry. 'Girls as young as 11 are being paid as little as £6 a month to produce the raw materials used to make garments for sale in Britain, an investigation by The Times has found.' (Times, 15 November) The report goes on to show that 200,,000 girls are employed at many of the 1,600 spinning mills across Tamil Nadu, in what amounts to a form of slavery. RD

More Madness

MORE MADNESS                                        

Capitalism is an insane society, but we doubt if you could get better proof of its craziness than the following news item. ''Bill Gross, the "Bond King" who stunned Wall Street when he left his job as chief executive of the world's biggest bond business, is understood to have taken home a $290 million bonus last year, even as Pimco was preparing  to give him the boot.' (Times, 15 November) The report goes on to mention that Mr Gross's bonus came in at 5,684 times the median US household income of $51,017 last year. RD

More Hypocrisy

MORE HYPOCRISY                                        

David Cameron has compared Russia to Nazi Germany because of its actions in  Ukraine on the eve of a tense meeting with Vladimir Putin.  'Mr Cameron will on Saturday night challenge Mr Putin about Russia's continued  acts of aggression in Ukraine as it supplies heavy weapons and tanks to the separatists.  In a reference to World War II, Mr Cameron said that the world must  "learn the   lessons of history" and intervene to stop a larger state bullying a smaller state".' (Daily Telegraph, 14 November) Cameron is really indulging himself in a piece of complete hypocrisy here. All large states bully smaller ones. The British Empire was build on just such a tactic. RD

Feeling Depressed?

FEELING DEPRESSED?                                         

It was a hallmark of USA capitalism, it was named as the Great Depression and gave rise to all those movies about the homeless and unemployed begging in the streets, but according to the latest research perhaps it is time to look out those old film scripts again. 'Not since the Great Depression has wealth inequality in the US been so acute a new in-depth study found. The research by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman (pdf) illustrates the evolution of wealth inequality over the last century.' (Guardian, 14 November) The figures are startling. Today the top 0.1% are worth the same as the bottom 90%. Time for "Buddy, can you spare a dime" to make it into the record charts again? RD

What will socialism be like?

The highest reward for a man’s toil, is not what he gets for it but what he becomes by it.

- John Ruskin

“Utopian” has almost become a common put-down suggesting that one is being unrealistic, if not naïve, in seeking a socialist world. But the Socialist Party would argue that socialists must be utopian in the sense of holding in their very being the deep desire for the realisation of a world completely unlike our own. It is that for which generations have fought and it is that ideal that has kept many a class warriors going despite tremendous adversities. Nevertheless, many are unaware of what a socialist society could look like.  

Marx, was scornful toward utopian “recipes” for the “cookshops of the future” arguing that a future society must emerge from the class struggle, not from the isolated imaginings of some writer or party, even though he himself proposed labour time vouchers, storehouses of goods, and an accounting system to determine how much workers would get paid. Genuine socialism is a socio-economic system in which all of the industries and services (stores, restaurants, hospitals, mines, farms, etc.) are socially owned, not privately owned, as in capitalism, or state owned, as in Leninism/Stalinism (i.e., often referred to as "state capitalism".) The industries would serve the needs and wants of everyone, not just the profit interests of the few. In fact, production is carried out exclusively for the needs of everyone, and not for private profit. People will work to improve society and to produce what we need. If there’s no buying and selling, there’s no trading, there’s no money. Yet people will have access to things that they need for survival and for pleasure — food, housing, medical care, computers. Every human being, just by virtue of being a human being, should have access to food, housing, healthcare and lifelong education. Every human being should have unconditional universal access to these necessities of life. So this will end poverty, which is actually the result of and a product of the existing monetary system. Monetary systems do not create wealth but exist solely to control it. The present is based on a self-fulfilling delusion that resources are scarce.

We may expect billions of current wage earners to quit drudgery jobs they hold just to make ends meet. With basic needs taken care of, they will be free to develop their natural talents and pursuits. Careers will be replaced by vocations. The evaporation of the financial and commercial sector will release vast numbers of constructive and creative workers. Emancipation from wage slavery will liberate humans to pursue lifelong learning, develop aptitudes and become more engaged in decision making and community building. Making a quick buck will be a thing of the past. Shoddy goods and inferior service will disappear. Business competition will vanish and s so there will be fewer brands, so less duplication and less waste as all goods produced will be of the highest quality based upon recyclability. The removal of the economic roots of armed conflict will no longer require standing armies or defense systems. Weapons manufactures will adapt and turn their advanced technology to peaceful purposes.

With no money or currency, there will be no interest, profits, markups, investments, loans, mortgages, derivatives, insurance or prices. This removes market manipulation, insider trading, hoarding and speculation. Banking will be obsolete, there being nothing to bank. The entire financial sector that has been built on the symbolic tokens of wealth will disappear. Without a medium of exchange, ransom, fraud, corruption, bribery, extortion and all money-based crimes will disappear. Crime based on money, such as armed robbery, extortion, blackmail, kidnapping will no longer have a convenient, easily convertible store of value to target.

There will be little need for charity as everyone will be provided for. In the event of natural disasters, relief agencies such as the Red Cross will have immediate and unlimited access to available resources without the necessity and constraints of fund-raising.

In agriculture building soil, maximising production and nutritional content with minimal environmental disruption will replace commoditization, restriction and pursuit of profit. Feeding people will be of the highest service. Food will be local, fresh, wholesome and healthy with minimal processing. There will be no reason or incentive to be otherwise. Freed from wage slavery, families will have more time to prepare meals from whole foods with care, balance and variety. The effect on public health will be markedly improved.

Imagine a world in which all conflicts of conscience, ethics, and personal interest were non-existent; a society in which the barriers to a decent and joyous life for all human beings had been removed; a society in which the resourcefulness of modern technology and industry was put to the task of decreasing labour and increasing leisure; a perfect picture of the world in which peace, equality, and harmony are universal. Socialists think it is achievable, that such a society is feasible and viable.

Who owns the North Pole part 79

Russia will address the UN on the expansion of its Arctic shelf next spring. If successful the move would see the country adding an area of 1.2 million sq. kilometers in the Arctic Ocean, holding 5 billion tons of standard fuel, to its territory. The Russians now say they possess all the necessary studies to put an application together and present it to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). For the UN to recognize Moscow’s ownership of those areas, it must be scientifically proven that they are a continuation of the continental crust with the same general geological structure.

The move would permit Russia to increase its potential hydrocarbon reserves by at least 5 billion tons of standard fuel, Sergey Donskoy, the country’s natural resources minister, said, adding that “those are just the most humble assessments, and I’m sure that the actual figure will be a lot larger.”

Over 60 large hydrocarbon fields have been discovered above the Arctic Circle, with 43 of them in the Russian sector.  The total recoverable resources of Russia’s part of the Arctic are estimated at 106 billion tons of oil and 69.5 trillion cubic meters of gas. The discovery of the deposits sparked international competition over the region’s resources, in which all the Arctic states – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the US – are involved. Approximately 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil lie in the Arctic, with an estimated 84 percent of the Arctic’s 90 billion barrels of oil and 47.3 trillion cubic meters of gas remaining offshore.

http://rt.com/news/200555-ussia-arctic-shelf-un/

Hunger? What's the real problem?

CAPITALISM

Whereas progress was made in reducing chronic hunger in the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, hunger has been slowly but steadily on the rise for the past decade, FAO said. The number of hungry people increased between 1995-97 and 2004-06 in all regions except Latin America and the Caribbean. But even in this region, gains in hunger reduction have been reversed as a result of high food prices and the global economic downturn that started in 2008.

Today, one in nine people do not get enough food to be healthy and lead an active life, making hunger and malnutrition the number one risk to health worldwide -- greater than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined. The greatest scandal of our age is the fact that just under 1 billion people on the planet go to bed hungry every night. This is despite the fact that we produce more than enough to feed every single person in the world.

Why is there hunger? The obvious answer to this question is that there must be a lack of food. It’s nothing to do with a lack of food. Can the world feed itself? The answer is: “Yes”. The Great Bengal Famine of 1943 claimed 1.5 million lives. Yet food production was only marginally below the previous year, and in fact higher than other years which had not seen famine. The Ethiopian famines of 1972-74 also saw only single-digit declines in food production, too small to account for the 50-200,000 deaths. In the 1974 Bangladesh famine, food availability actually hit a four-year per capita high. In the Sahelian famine which peaked in 1973, drought did lead to significant declines in food availability. During the food crisis in 2008 there was enough food for everyone in the world to have 2,700 kilocalories. Yet a silent tsunami threw more than 115 million into abject hunger. Food being exported from famine-stricken areas may be a ‘natural’ characteristic of the market which respects the rights of private poverty and commerce rather than needs.

 The opening lines of  Amartya Sen’s hugely influential 1981 essay on poverty and famines:

“Starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there not being enough food to eat.”

The fact there’s enough food to feed everyone has been acknowledged by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) which statedclearly that:

“There is sufficient capacity in the world to produce enough food to feed everyone adequately; nevertheless, in spite of progress made over the last two decades, 805 million people still suffer from chronic hunger.”

There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life. By 2030, with population growth continuing to decline and agricultural output predicted to rise, the UN forecasts enough food will be grown worldwide, despite a global estimated population of 8.3 billion, to give everyone 3050 kilocalories per day. In the United States, enough food is produced for everyone to eat eight full plates of food per day—yet almost 40 million Americans struggle to put food on the table and are classified as “food insecure.”

Solving World Hunger is not rocket science. We have the tools, and the technology to put an end to hunger. There is enough food to go around. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day  according to the FAO in  2002.  The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food. So what needs to change? Discussions of world hunger almost invariably assume that food production is and will continue to be commodity production, whilst simultaneously assuming that food is produced for use. But whatever climate change has to throw at us, there is always a gap between what is possible and what is possible in capitalism. All other things held equal, declining crop yields and loss of arable land can be expected to increase world hunger. But all other things need not be held equal. The social relations through which our natural resources are organised are not themselves laws of nature: they are subject to change. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do.

Again a very basic question people ask is “Does population growth explain food shortages?” and again many will instinctively answer “Yes”. It seems commonsense that more people in the worls must mean more resource use, therefore fewer resources to go around for everyone. It is a false logic that has led to some highly unsavory arguments and policy decisions. By arguing that population growth is the main cause of mass starvation and environmental ruin we play into the hands of ruling elites who want to blame the victims. One such consequence is that helping the poor not only hurts them, but also threatens to drag the well-fed down to their subsistence level. Under this credo, no sharing is permitted, as it will only generalise starvation to the entire population because there is only so much to go around. The more sophisticated of the Malthusians talk of the carrying capacity of the planet. The number of humans a local or global environment can support depends not on numbers but on the level of economic development and the social relations of that society. Humans can both grow more food and, given the opportunity, consciously self-limit our reproduction based on rational economic and social considerations. The overpopulation argument obscures the more immediate causes of suffering under capitalism. How many people the Earth can support depends primarily on the level of productivity of the existing population and the social relations within which they are embedded. “Carrying-capacity” is as much socially as it is materially determined from the given level of productive development, not some arbitrary measure of what constitutes “too many” people. Poverty and hunger are the  products of social relations, not overpopulation. At no point in the last thirty years, as hunger has increased, has world population growth exceeded growth in food production.

The pioneer of the environmental movement, Rachel Carson, author of the ground-breaking Silent Spring in the 60s, was clear that the primary blame for destruction of the natural world lay with the “gods of profit and production” as the world lived “in an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at any cost is seldom challenged.” Capitalism is a system predicated on continual expansion with an ever-increasing throughput of energy and resources. For those corporations promoting their green credentials that do act to reduce their energy or resource use, the purpose is not to decrease their impact on the environment, however much money they spend touting their ecological awareness. Rather, the objective is to lower production costs so as to maximise profit in order to reinvest in expansion of production to corner market share, thereby negating the original reduction. Contrary to all claims of capitalist efficiency, the amount of senseless waste and pollution under capitalism is enormous. This includes not only the toxic byproducts of the production process that are routinely dumped into the surrounding environment, but also the production and distribution of useless products, the creation of mounting piles of garbage as a result of planned obsolescence and single-use products.the preponderance of inefficient transportation systems based on cars rather than effective public transportation, and, of course, all the wasted labour and materials spent on the military.

It should be clear from all of the above that it isn’t population growth that is causing food scarcity or is primarily responsible for the many accelerating global environmental crises. Even if population growth were to end today, worsening rates of starvation, the growth of slums, and ecosystem collapse would continue more or less unabated. Food production continues to outstrip population growth, and therefore cannot be considered the cause of hunger. There are very serious planetary problems of soil erosion, overfishing, deforestation, and waste disposal, to name only a few, which are putting pressure on the sustainability of food production over the long haul. However, these are all inextricably bound to questions of power and a system run in the interest of a small minority where profit continually outweighs issues of hunger, waste, energy use, or environmental destruction. Concentrating on population confuses symptoms with causes while simultaneously validating apologists for the system. Population growth arguments fit in with the ideological needs of the system rather than challenging them and is the primary reason that they receive so much publicity. It is completely acceptable to capitalism to place the blame for hunger and ecological crises on the number of people rather than on capitalism.

A central concept of capitalism is the idea that there isn’t enough to go around. There isn’t enough food, there aren’t enough jobs, there isn’t enough houses, or schools or hospitals.  “There isn’t enough…” really means “It isn’t profitable…”  The problem is capitalism. The motivation for big business to produce food is profit, not to provide for people. Despite the enormous advances in technology and knowledge, this system cannot provide the most basic necessities for the world’s population. It is not a question of there being too many people or not enough food available. Food production and distribution is not planned but is at the behest of the anarchy of the market, controlled by a handful of multi-national companies. Capitalism is unable to feed the world. The future under capitalism – one of increasing damage to the environment and austerity – will mean this terrible situation gets worse. Socialism is the only solution to stopping and reversing climate change. The world's population is larger than ever before - but so is world food production. Billions of people regularly struggle to get enough to eat but the problem isn't a lack of produce or a rising population. It is a system driven by profit. Despite all the pessimism of mainstream environmentalists, the problem we really face is that we have allowed a system to develop where there is hunger amidst plenty. What we need is to take control of the food system. This will enable us to deal with the wasteful system. Socialists look forward to a world of plenty built on the greatest gift of nature, that of human labour. Real change will only come when the power of those running the system for the purpose of profit is challenged.

Advances in nutrition and agricultural science could allow us to produce abundant, healthy, safe, and tasty food for everyone. Humanity could produce an enormous variety of foods, both to guarantee food security against pests, disease, and climate change through agricultural diversity, but also to keep meals interesting. The infrastructure exists to develop a vast network of public restaurants serving affordable, delicious and interesting food. Home cooking and eating could be transformed into relaxing social activities, not the compulsory drudgery it is for billions today. In short, the knowledge, technology, and collective potential to completely transform the way the world eats exists now. What doesn’t exist is a social structure that allows for a rational and balanced approach to food production, distribution, preparation, and consumption. But virtually all the proposals out there are limited to tinkering with the existing system or appealing to the good will and reason of the rich and powerful. This is utopian. In a system driven by and defined by commodity production and money, what matters to the capitalists is not food quality or human health, but maximising profits. The solution to this is not to be found in blaming individuals for their “individual choices,” or in changing this or that aspect of the status quo. The solution can only come from abolishing the dysfunctional system of capitalism itself.

At the Rome International Conference on Nutrition – organized by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) 90 ministers and hundreds of government officials agreed on recommendations for policies and programmes to address nutrition across multiple sectors which “enshrines the right of everyone to have access to safe, sufficient and nutritious food” while committing governments to preventing malnutrition and hunger. A utopian aspiration under capitalism. But FAO Director-General Jose Graziano da Silva confirmed one truth, “We have the knowledge, expertise and resources needed to overcome all forms of malnutrition.”

Into the unknown

How to overcome local objections to the risk of unhealthy pollution? Promise to make them millionaires and that is exactly what tax-evading, union-busting INEOS has done.

Ineos has never drilled wells before, but believes it can be successful because it has hired three experienced executives from the US shale boom. Ineos said wells had successfully been bored next to schools, churches and even close to the centre of large cities such as Fort Worth, Texas. “It is possible to drill wells in densely populated areas, but we don’t think that is necessary,” said Gary Haywood, the chief executive of Ineos UK.

Scientists from the UK Energy Research Centre told the BBC that promises of lower prices and greater energy security from UK shale gas were lacking in evidence. “It is very frustrating to keep hearing that shale gas is going to solve our energy problems – there’s no evidence for that whatsoever, it’s hype,” said Prof Jim Watson, UKERC research director.

Simon Clydesdale, energy campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said investment was essential to transform the UK energy system, but not “giant speculative bets” on unproven and risky resources. He added: “Ineos have jumped on a spin-powered bandwagon which is going nowhere. Independent academics recently called out government ministers over the ludicrous levels of hype around shale gas, saying ‘shale gas has been completely oversold’. It seems that Ineos have based their business plan on breathless PR brochures rather than scientific reports.”

The British Geological Survey has estimated that the Lowland valley in Scotland could contain about 80tn cubic feet of gas and 6tn barrels of oil. But it said: “The relatively complex geology and limited amount of good-quality constraining data result in a higher degree of uncertainty to resource estimation than in England.” BGS said Scotland’s shale reserves were modest compared with England’s.

From the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/20/ineos-founder-wants-shale-gas-revolution-in-uk

Jailhouse Blues

Capitalism is a social disaster not only for the millions that starve amidst plenty, those who are killed or wounded in its wars but also in its day to day personal tragedies. Take the case of Steven Davison a 21-year-old who killed himself whilst in a young offenders institution for having a knife and threatening to harm himself. 'The National Offender Management Service said reducing the number of prison suicides was a top priority. Labour peer Lord Harris was asked by the government in February to conduct a review on how to reduce self-inflicted deaths in custody, and is expected to present his findings next summer. He believes the unnecessary imprisonment of some individuals, including those with mental health problems, is preventing others from receiving the support they need.' (BBC News, 14 November) In its unceasing drive for more and more profits capitalism cannot afford to properly provide welfare care so unfortunates like Stephen suffer the consequence. RD

Another Winter Of Discontent

With the advent of winter the government has had to allocate an extra £ 700m extra for A&E, but the rest of the NHS system is under pressure as these recent figures show. '90,000 more patients waiting for an operation than a year ago . 62% day target for cancer treatment missed for last 6 months. 24% of patients say it's "not easy" to get through to GP by phone.' (Guardian, 14 November) Ever helpful the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt warned that there will be pressure to deal with an ageing population and suggested that a visit to the pharmacy rather than an hospital may be advisable! RD

Friends In High Places

David Cameron, as the UK Prime Minister  likes to portray himself as a "man of the people", but he organises an elite Conservative dining club that illustrates that they are very rich people indeed. 'For £50,000 per year, members are promised regular dinners, lunches and drinks receptions with the Prime Minister and other senior Tory figures.' (Daily Mail, 13 November) It was revealed on the Tory Party website that there were 32 individuals who had attended leader group events from 1 July to the end of September and that they had contributed £17 million to the party since 2010. RD

Cold War Heats Up

Whilst the USA and China square up to each other  over quarrels in Asia and the Pacific  the West is also in growing military disputes with Russia. 'Nato aircraft have been forced to carry out more than a hundred interventions of Russian bombers and intelligence-gathering planes this year. "This is about three times more than we conducted in 2013," a Nato official said." (Times, 12 November) Capitalism is based on competition and economic competition often leads to military threats of violence. RD

The Socialist Party's "Plan"

Would you help to abolish crime, disease and despair from the world? Then abolish poverty which is the cause. Would you abolish poverty? Then assist us in abolishing the wages system, the cause of poverty. Revolution and emancipation of labor from its wage slavery could only be accomplished once labor finally realized the capitalist system had outgrown its usefulness. The only system that could solve the plight of abused workers worldwide is socialism. However, socialism is only a valid answer if composed of workers, not leaders. The greatest need of the world today is men and women who can popularise the knowledge that is laid away in musty tomes in the libraries. We want free thinking men and women.

The Socialist Party asserts the current system cannot be patched up so the workers will get what is coming to them. The wage system is a slave system that supports more idlers, and keeps them in greater luxury, than any system of society in the past. Socialists say it must go, to make way for a system based on freedom, on equality, on mutual aid, on cooperation. Socialism is not a reform, it is a revolution.

When we speak of the means of production, the wealth of the country, we mean that wealth which is necessary for the production of the necessities of the people. The industries, the railways, mines, and so on. We don’t propose the elimination of private property in personal effects. We speak of those things which are necessary for the production of the people’s needs. Governments are primarily instruments of repression of one class against another. We visualise, as Engels expressed it, a gradual withering away of the government as a repressive force, as an armed force, and its replacement by purely administrative councils, whose duties will be to plan production, to supervise public works, and education, and things of this sort. As you merge into socialist society, the government, as Engels expressed it, tends to wither away and the government of men will be replaced by the administration of things. The government of a socialist society in reality will be an administrative body, because we don’t anticipate the need for the police, jails, repressions, and consequently that aspect of government dies out for want of function.

 Socialism is not some "plan" that the Socialist Party is going to implement. We are often accused of that, but that's utopian system-building. Socialism is a system of society that the working class is going to establish by prosecuting the class struggle to a victorious conclusion. We today don't have to have the answers to everything. We haven't got them and it would be stupid and arrogant of us to think we could have. All we can say with certainty is that the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources would provide a framework within which all the problems humanity faces can be dealt with, certainly a better framework than the present one of minority ownership and control. The rest can only be speculation, interesting and instructive perhaps but not a "plan". Having said that, when the socialist movement is much larger and nearer to winning then, yes, we are sure, groups of workers will be drawing up plans on what to do when capitalism is ended, but we are nowhere there yet. Our role at this point in history is to "make” socialists and to keep the idea alive.

The Socialist Party is to the workers politically what the trades-union is to him industrially; the former is the party of his class, while the latter is the union of his trade, occupation or profession.The difference between them is that while the trades-union is confined to the trade, the Socialist Party embraces the entire working class, and while the union is limited to bettering conditions under the wage system, the Socialist Party is organised to conquer political power, wipe out the wage system and make the workers themselves the masters of the Earth.

In this programme, the trades-union and the Socialist Party, the economic and political wings of the labour movement, should not only not be in conflict, but act together in harmony in every struggle whether it be on the one field or the other, in the strike or at the ballot box. The main thing is that in every such struggle the workers shall be united, shall in fact be unionists and no more be guilty of scabbing on their political party than on their union, no more think of voting for a pro-capitalist party on election day and turning the working class over to capitalist robbery and misrule than they would think of voting in the union to turn it over to the capitalists and have it run in the interest of the capitalist class. To do its part in the class struggle the trades-union need no more go into politics than the Socialist Party need go into the trades. Each has its place and its functions. The union deals with work-place problems and the party deals with politics. The union is educating the workers in the management of industrial activities and fitting them for co-operative control and democratic regulation of industry, - the Socialist Party is recruiting and educating the political force that is to conquer the capitalist forces on the political battlefield; and having control of the machinery of government, use it to transfer the industries from the capitalists to the workers, from the parasites to the people.

On the one side, it is the trade-unionist who is on the firing line of the class struggle. He or she it is who blocked the wheels of the capitalist machine; he or she it is who has prevented the unchecked development of capitalist increase; he or she it is who has prevented the whole labour body of the world from being kept forever at the point of mere hunger wages, he or she it is who has taught the workers of the world the lesson of solidarity, and delivered them from that wretched and unthinking competition with each other which kept them at the mercy of capitalism; he or she it is who has prepared the way for the co-operative commonwealth. 

On the other hand, trade unionism is by no means the solution of the workers’ problem, nor is it the goal of the labor struggle. It is merely a capitalist line of defense within the capitalist system. Its existence and its struggles are necessitated only by the existence and predatory nature of capitalism. The organised labour movement has the instinct that the workers of the world are bound up together in one common destiny; that their battle for the future is one and that there is no possible safety or extrication for any worker unless all the workers of the world are extricated and saved from capitalism together. 

Until the workers shall become a clearly defined socialist movement, standing for and moving toward the unqualified co-operative commonwealth, while at the same time understanding and proclaiming their immediate interests, they will only play into the hands of their exploiters, and be led by their betrayers. It is the Socialist Party that who must point this out in the right way. We do not to do this by seeking to commit trade-union bodies to the principles of socialism. All those ‘revolutionary’ motions put to trade union conferences of this sort accomplish little good. Nor do we take a servile attitude toward the unions , nor by meddling with the details or the machinery of the trade-unions. It is better to have the trade-unions do their distinctive work, as the workers’ defence against the encroachments of capitalism, as the economic development of the worker against the economic development of the capitalist, giving unqualified support and sympathy to the struggles of the union movement in the economic sphere.

 But let the Socialist Party also build up the character and strength of the socialist movement as a political force, that it shall command the respect and confidence of the worker, irrespective of union obligations. It is urgent that we so keep in mind the difference between the two developments that neither shall cripple the other. The world socialist movement, as a political development of the workers for their economic emancipation, is one thing; the trade-union development, as an economic defence of the workers within the capitalist system, is another thing. Let us not interfere with the internal affairs of the trade unions, or seek to have them become distinctively political bodies in themselves, any more than we would seek to make a distinctive political body in itself of a tenants association.

 But let us concentrate upon developing the socialist political movement as the channel and power by which workers to come to their emancipation and achieve their commonwealth. It is of vital importance to the trades-union that its members be class-conscious, that they understand the class struggle and their duty as union men on the political field, so that in every move that is made they will have the goal in view, and while taking advantage of every opportunity to secure concessions and enlarge their economic advantage, they will at the same time unite at the ballot box, not only to back up the economic struggle of the trades-union, but to finally wrest the government from capitalist control of the State.

Hollywood Fantasy

Everybody must be aware of all the old repeated movies that the TV churns out. John Wayne or some such hero performs wonderful acts of bravery against the enemy. It is a complete fantasy of course. This is nearer the truth. 'Jeremy Sears, a Marine who had served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, walked onto a shooting range outside San Diego on Oct. 6, placed a handgun to his head and calmly pulled the trigger. It was a local news story but didn't attract attention outside San Diego for the most tragic of reasons. Military suicides have become so common - since 2001, more active-duty U.S. troops have killed themselves than have been killed in Afghanistan.' (Washington Post, 11 November) War, far from being an ennobling experience is degrading to human beings and leads to these tragedies. RD

Mamma Its Cold Inside

MAMMA ITS COLD INSIDE                                        

The headline announced the chilling fact that an elderly person dies every seven minutes due to fuel poverty. The article goes on to explain that millions of pensioners are worried that they will not be able  to keep warm this winter. 'Every winter 25,000 old people in England and Wales do not survive the bitter weather - 206 death a day. Those living in the coldest houses figure most in the excess winter death rates and illness statistics according to Age UK.' (Daily Express, 11 November) Needless to say this problem does not affect the owning class. RD

Some Emergency Service

Workers have to suffer all sorts of indignities. As if a life of exploitation and poverty was not enough a poor 89 year-old woman had to suffer this further calamity. 'A great-grandmother was left in agony on a rain-soaked pavement after suffering a fall because emergency services were too busy to come to her aid. Despite being called only moments after Evelyn Davey slipped and broke her arm, paramedics failed to get to the pensioner for two hours.'  (Daily Mail, 11 November) This incident is not unique the same North East Ambulance Service failed to aid a 15 year-old boy with a broken leg for two hours the previous week . Under funded, under staffed that is the NHS for you. RD

A Bleak Future

Despite government claims about an economic recovery they are planning for major financial cuts. 'An analysis on Monday suggested that spending cuts in the next parliament would be deeper than expected. The Financial Times said cuts would be closer to £48bn between 2014-15 and 2018-19 rather than the £25bn mentioned by Cameron, partly because the prime minister had excluded cuts required in 2014-15 and 2018-19.' (Guardian, 10 November) It is worth noting that Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister speaking at the CBI conference in Birmingham yesterday, hinted at the fragile state of the public finances and that it would lead to cuts in social care. It would also penalise the working-age poor. No surprise there then. RD

Abundance and Freedom

A green socialist world

For today’s growing population, such a world of abundance will require more, not less, energy, and in order to deal with climate change, that energy must be renewable and non-polluting carbon-free.

Some on the left today, and in the much broader Green and environmental movements, consider the expansion of production as a “bad thing.” It causes pollution, ecological collapse, and climate change. No doubt, the expansion of industry under capitalism has caused these terrible changes. But it also has allowed humans to develop solutions through techniques that could alleviate these problems were such forms of production placed under the democratic control of society, that is, what we call socialism.

Engels in his  1847 essay The Principles of Communism writes:

“Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into confusion, as progress has always done in the past. Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day. This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products to satisfy the needs of everyone.

The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the pressure of private property and is held back by the division of privately owned land into small parcels. Here, existing improvements and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs.

In this way, such an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members.”

Capitalism has no way to lift the masses from poverty. Consider the following:

There are 1.6 billion people with no electricity.

Billions of people have no access to energy efficient mass transportation.

Billions of people have little or no access to education and health care.

Increasingly vicious wars and privatization continue to cause grinding poverty, dislocation and environmental destruction.

Capitalism is the cause. Capitalism produces only when there is a profit for the owner of capital. When there is no profitable market for his product, the capitalist will not produce, no matter how great and urgent the need of the people for work, for food, for clothing and shelter, for a decent living standard, for security. Capitalism robs more and more people of their most elementary right, the right to govern themselves.

The central concept of the post-scarcity economy is that technology gets better and better, so things that are mass produced and rationalised get cheaper and more abundant. Under the circumstances nobody needs to work to survive and there's really no point in maintaining a cash economy. People have unrestricted free access to the fruits of society’s collective labour. Given the absence and the uselessness of money for obtaining consumer goods, and the social stigmatization of wealth accumulation achieving one’s peer admiration and appreciation concentrates on the contribution to the community one makes. Socialism was once looked upon as a noble ideal, but today it is more than an ideal, it is an urgent necessity. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production and exchange and their democratic organization and management by all the people in a society free of classes, class divisions and class rule. Socialism is the democratic organisation of production for use, of production for abundance, of plenty for all, without the exploitation of man by man. Socialism is the union of the whole world disposing in common of the natural resources and wealth of our Earth. Capitalism has already established the highly-developed machinery of production and networks of distribution. It is only necessary for the working class, in the name and interests of society as a whole, to take it out of the hands of the capitalists and place them into the hands of the people as a whole. Every new invention, every improvement and advance in the field of production, would mean not only a higher standard of living for all, but a lessening of the working-day, that is, a reduction in the work-share that every member of society needs to contribute to the community. The technology, the resources , the and the human skills required to produce abundance for all, is already available. It is only necessary to free them from the paralysing hand of capitalism and production-for-profit in order to organise them in a rational and democratic manner. 

Where there is abundance for all, the psychological terror and living nightmare of insecurity vanishes. Where there is abundance for all, and where no one has the economic power to exploit and oppress others, the basis of classes, class division and class conflict vanishes. When there is plenty for all, there IS economic equality, therefore social equality. Where there is abundance for all government of repression, police and thieves, prisons and violence disappear. Where there is abundance for all, and where all have equal access to the fruits of the soil and the wealth of industry, the mad conflicts and wars between nations and peoples vanish and with them vanishes the hideous national and racial antagonisms.

 ABUNDANCE FOR ALL MEANS FREEDOM FOR ALL.

A Crazy Society

A CRAZY SOCIETY                                           

Like many South American countries Brazil has many social problems. Not least amongst them is the crippling poverty of many of its workers, but this contrasts with the immense wealth of its owning class. 'The Gherkin, one of the most distinctive buildings on London's skyline, has been bought by a Brazilian billionaire. Joseph Safra is reported to have paid more than £700m for the 180 metre tower, which is officially known as 30 St Mary Axe, its street address. ...... Joseph Safra, 75, is thought to be personally worth about $15bn.' (BBC News, 10 November) Can the production for profit system get any crazier? RD

Global Warming

Wikipedia makes no secret  of global warming caused by the increase in the burning of fossil fuels and the exploration for oil and other resources. 'United States Geological Survey and many leading polar bear biologists have expressed grave concerns about the impact of climate change, including the belief that the current warming trend imperils the survival of the species. The key danger posed by climate change is malnutrition or starvation due to habitat loss.' As various countries scramble to claim their ownership of the Arctic  region and grab the potential mineral resources little heed will be paid to the future of global warming whose impact will not only affect the wildlife in the area but future generations of humanity throughout the globe. To hell with the future, profit today is the mantra of capitalism. RD

Cyber Warfare

In a review of Shane Harris's book @War: The Rise of Cyber Warfare Toby Harden is very straight-forward in describing the ruthless way government agencies utilise the web to destroy their enemies. 'What is more startling is the capability of America, which views the cyber area as the "fifth domain" of warfare (after land, air, sea and space), to use online to kill as well as jam and hack. Harris, a writer at Foreign Policy magazine who has specialised in cyber warfare for a decade, details how US forces in Iraq became the "the vanguard of a new cyber war", sending fake text messages to insurgents that directed them to places where they would be met by US troops or a Hellfire missile." (Sunday Times, 9 November) Inside a socialist society the cyber network would be utilised as a valuable source of knowledge, education and entertainment inside capitalism it is used as a massive destructive force. RD

Another Empty Boast

The government recently boasted that unemployment figures had fallen beneath 2 million but what they were more reluctant to advertise was that the number of workers in low-paid jobs had reached a new record of more than 5 million, according to the Resolution Foundation.  'The think tank found that that the proportion of employees in low-paid work across Britain has risen from 21 per cent last year to 22 per cent, or 5 million people.' (Sunday Express, 9 November) When they say low-paid they mean low-paid as Resolution defines low paid as those earning less than £7.69 per hour, which is two-thirds of the UK medium hourly rate. Hardly boasting material is it? RD

Work and wage slavery

Nearly 36 million people worldwide, or 0.5% of the world's population, live as slaves, a survey by anti-slavery campaign group Walk Free says. Bondage and slavery are supposedly over but enslavement continues for the majority of people throughout the world. We are all enslaved economically yet blindly and unknowingly accept it. That form of servitude is called wage slavery.

Automation only happens when machines are cheaper to run than people. Automation should both require fewer people to work as well as  enable people to work less. Unfortunately this isn’t the case: the owners of automated industry use reduced production cost as an opportunity to take more profit which leaves us with increasing inequality alongside increased unemployment. And in a world where the capitalists own the physical means of production like factories, robots and patents this will also result in greater inequality as labour becomes less and less important as an economic factor. The owners of capital will be able to produce to satisfy market demand with little labour input.

There is an optimistic vision of the future. Physical work may become totally obsolete. If every house has a decentralised energy source like solar panels and reliable energy storage, as well as an advanced 3-D printer or molecular assembler that can produce almost physical object imaginable from a few basic recyclable chemicals then human poverty will essentially have been abolished. We can just spend the vast majority of our time doing things that we enjoy, while spending only a few minutes or at most hours a day programming our machines to fulfil our material desires.

However, there exists a more possible but less optimistic vision, that only a small minority of people will have access to such technologies as while the technology may exist, the costs of mass distribution remain too high. The masses, will be stuck in impoverished material conditions — dependent on welfare, and charity — without any real prospect being able to climb the ladder through selling their labour. Only a lucky few — who have a creative skill that cannot be replicated by a robot — will have a prospect of prosperity and security. Perhaps as the reformists hope the government will take a larger chunk of the capital-owning class’s income or wealth, and redistribute it to the poor to avoid social breakdown or even revolution.

The optimistic vision of a world of abundance without exploitation, hunger and war must galvanize the working class into a movement for socialism now that the global capitalist system has reached a stage where goods can be produced with little or no labour. The transition of industrial capitalism by new technology and computer is forcing an economic change and reorganization of society. A level of production has been achieved that makes communism possible. This is the turning point at which we stand today. Humanity today faces the choice: will we do away with private property and build a future for all to share in. Attempts to do no more than blunt the worst effects of capitalism may be well-meaning, but they divert energy from the real tasks ahead.

More and more are joining the ranks of those dispossessed by capitalism world-wide. A class that has nothing to gain from private ownership of the means of production has to take the reins of power and construct an economic system that can sustain a better world. The struggle today is not the struggle of the last century to expand industrial production. Nor is it the reformist’s struggle to increase the crumbs that fall from the table of the world’s billionaire plutocrats. Though people may have different ideas about and different ways of describing it, at this moment in history, the essence of every struggle for a better life is objectively the struggle for socialism which is no longer just an ideal, but the practical resolution to immediate problems.

If we remove scarcity from our vocabulary and replace it with abundance, we would also see dramatic changes in the way we live. We have been programmed to believe things are scarce when the opposite is true. We have an abundance of resources and should not be influenced to think different. The only reasoning for wanting the people to believe in scarcity is to increase profits for the rich. Let us plainly re-state this, we live in abundance and little is scarce. We should be here to enjoy life, not to overwork, to stress out, get sick and then die. We should spend the majority of our time, doing what we enjoy. Spending time with family, loved ones, vacationing, fishing, gardening, building new relationships, or whatever it is we enjoy. Let us start focusing on uplifting everyone, from the bottom upwards. The big picture is, we are all connected and we stand and fall together as humanity. The system of working everyday and barely making enough to pay for basic living expenses is not the way life should be yet it’s a system crafted by design to keep the masses earning meager wages.  The rich and powerful want the masses to remain enslaved and living on the skirts of poverty and completely beholden and indebted to them. We are too busy concerned about paying bills and having the basic necessities to live, then we don’t realise how the system we live under is corrupt and continues to enslave us all.  We are still enslaved regardless of your ethnicity or sex.  It’s not about color or gender, it’s about money.  Those in power want to keep us divided and believe that every man or woman should defend for him or herself when that certainly should not be the case. Think about capitalism and how many who actually benefits from it, go back and think of all the people you know in your life and be honest with yourself.  How many of your friends own several houses in multiple states and countries, yachts, cars, and get million dollar bonuses for running and even ruining a business? Capitalism has created an illusion to us all, leaving the majority thinking that they can one day become rich while knowing that the system of capitalism only allows those with money to keep on making it and those that don’t to keep dreaming and thinking that they can one day become rich and wealthy. The curse of capitalism is starting to be revealed and guess what?  The people don’t like what they are beginning to see.

We live in a world where there is an abundance of everything but scarcity allows the powerful to have control and make lots of money.  What if we abolished money and our political system that supports those privileged few?  What if we lived from a resourced-based society where everything was in abundance and there was no need for money? 

Fix Bayonets

Governments face many harsh decisions when running capitalism and this is especially true when confronted by economic problems like business slumps. 'David Cameron opposes cutting the number of British soldiers after the next election, the head of the Armed Forces has said, as he pledged to "fix my bayonet and fight to the last" against further redundancies. General Sir Nick Houghton admitted financial pressures would remain when the next government takes office but pledged to oppose cuts to army numbers from "inside the system".' (Daily Telegraph, 10 November) Welfare cuts may be unpopular but they are a lot easier for the government to contemplate that cutting Houghton's bayonets. RD

Future Conflict?

FUTURE CONFLICT?                                          

The US President's official visit to China highlights the tension between the two nations. 'We've seen indications that Xi Jinping has an ambition to increase China's influence in east Asia, central Asia, and the western Pacific, said Shi Yinhong, an international relations expert at Renmin University in Beijing. Many statements and actions imply that this will come at the cost of American predominance in the same regions. I think that this is already raising concerns in Washington.' (Guardian, 10 November) Political commentators would like to portray this as a conflict between two different social systems or at least two different outlooks, but it is not. Both the US and China are capitalist nations and as such they are in fierce competition over markets, sources of raw materials and political influence. Potentially it is a frightening scenario. RD

Piety And Profit

The government used to restrict the sale of arms to countries with poor human rights records, but former Tory defence minister Sir John Stanley, who chairs the Commons committees on arms export controls, says this is no longer the case. "He said in a recent parliamentary debate that the government has not acknowledged that such a change has taken place, and it "should consider most carefully whether they should now offer an apology to the committees". The government used to reject arms export licences where there was concern they might be used for "internal repression", but now a licence will be refused only if there is a "clear risk" that military equipment might be used in violation of international law." (Observer, 9 November) Why has there been this change in policy? One consideration may well be that sales have already hit £60m this year. RD

Poppies And Poppycock

Under the headline 'Joy and song bloom with poppies at the Tower', the following piece of news appears. 'As the last of the poppies was planted in the Tower's moat .... most of the attention has concentrated on the extraordinary crowds that have queued patiently every day to see the display of 888,246 ceramic poppies, one for every British and colonial life lost in the First World War.' (Times, 8 November) One spectator is reported as saying it was fantastic and when the crowd burst into song the crowd absolutely loved it. It is understandable that newspapers are "celebrating" the event, after all it is their job to promote mindless patriotism, but why are workers doing the same? They must lead particularly dull lives if the death of millions of workers in their master's quarrels lead them to this outlandish behaviour. RD

Why Work? (2)

Long ago, technology promised that it would free us from the mundane tasks of life and work so we would have more free time to enjoy ourselves. It was long heralded the imminent arrival of the "post-industrial society" in which automation will have done away with work and our main problem will be how to cope with an excess of leisure. But it is only in a rational (i.e., socialist) society, where the means of life serve the community as a whole, that higher productivity will equal less work and capitalism is not a sane society.

Capitalist production is not primarily about supplying needs it is about making profit and accumulating capital. It can only work with a constant market pressure to renew its capacity for sales. Under capitalism a surplus of commodities, in excess of market capacity means they cannot be sold for a profit. This can bring about recession, workers thrown out of jobs, governments having to pay out more in doles when strapped for cash trying to finance a reasonable health service, it means companies going bankrupt. It means the whole mad market system being thrown into yet another crisis simply because the goods cannot be sold. These are some of the destructive features of a money-driven economy which is long past its sell-by date.

Work has been "rationalized" as well as increased. That means greater intensity of effort and reduced opportunity for rest, social interaction, and even going to the toilet during the workday. It means "variable" or "flexible" schedules flexible for the boss, not the worker with more night and weekend work to keep costly machinery in nonstop operation. Many couples now meet only to hand over the kids as they change shifts. And while some are mercilessly overworked, others are thrown out of work altogether, all in the name of profitability.

In socialism, with the abolition of the market, and acting with voluntary co-operation, people will produce goods and distribute them to stores without any of the barriers of buying and selling. The cash tills will disappear, shoppers won't be held up and the operators won't have to do their boring, meaningless jobs. What it also means is that for the production of component parts of machinery or household goods, etc, intense production runs using automated systems could supply not just sufficient components for immediate use but also stocks for anticipated future demand. These could be distributed as and when required and this would be an economical use of production facilities which could then be either shut down until when required again or with different tooling used for other production runs. The important point being that in socialism this could happen without any of the problems and chaos that an oversupply of commodities for the market causes under capitalism.

The problems of unemployment are huge – worldwide problems affecting millions in some countries and billions globally if we include the massive numbers of 'informal' workers, those recognised as outside of the system, many of them non-persons living on the very edge of existence with no access to even the basic services. Many are suffering the misery of unemployment while much useful, necessary work remains undone. One of the contradictions of capitalism. We want free time, to reduce the working day so that we can move beyond the tyranny of survival into free and creative mutual activity. Both employment and unemployment are capitalism preventing our human development in this direction.

If we were to approach the problem from a different angle we could see how to turn something totally illogical into something that would work better for everybody wherever they are in the world. Doing this would entail ridding ourselves of useless work and wasted time and effort and result in getting the work that is widely recognised as necessary to be done for the good of the people done, by the people. Useful includes the production and distribution of material goods and food, scientific research and development, aesthetic and artistic endeavours, service of all kinds including installations, communications, infrastructure, maintenance, health, education, recreational, technological and social; producing and providing the goods and services required and needed by society as a whole on an ongoing basis. Work that offers no product, service or benefit to society must surely be considered useless work. What cannot be considered useful or necessary includes all the jobs currently involved in the huge financial industry; jobs which are tied to the movement of money from one place or person to another. Being considered unnecessary because they produce nothing of use, provide no useful service and are of no benefit to society a large number of institutions would be redundant. All banking establishments, insurance companies, tax collection, benefits and pension offices, to name a few, would no longer be required and, as a consequence, many buildings would be freed up for use to be decided upon by civil society whilst technicians, office and other associated staff would be available for more people-beneficial work schemes.

 In socialism everyone would have the opportunity to contribute to the community for as long as they could. Their contributions would not have to be strictly rationed nor controlled and all would be able to share in the common produce. The creation of second class cast-off workers known as pensioners would cease to be and in its place we could have a fair share for all. The struggle for such a society is in our immediate practical interest.

Another Cunning Plan

Governments like to claim that they are in charge of the capitalist economy and by skilful manoeuvres can turn a slump into a boom, but further evidence that the UK economic recovery is losing some momentum came from the dominant service sector this week. 'The latest Purchasing Managers Index survey for the sector showed a score of 56.2 for October, down from 58.7 in September and the weakest reading since May 2013. The sector is still expanding rapidly, any score over 50 indicates growth, but the slowing pace adds to the sense of the UK's 'escape velocity' beginning to wane.' (Investors Chronicle, 7 November) In addition,despite previous optimistic forecasts, PMI data from the services sector in Europe remains anaemic with France's service sector shrinking at its fastest pace in four months and German service sector growth at a seven-month low. Politicians don't control capitalism's markets - it  is the other way about.  RD

A Corrupt Society

Capitalism corrupts everything it touches - even sport. 'An American baseball star is alleged to have paid nearly $1 million to a cousin in hush money to cover up his use of performance-enhancing drugs. After securing a ten-year contract in 2007 worth more than a quarter of a billion dollars, Alexander Rodriquez of the New York Yankees, became the highest-paid player in baseball.' (Times, 6 November)  Now it seems his cousin has been charged with conspiracy to distribute testosterone and human growth hormone. The old dictionary that described sport as a pleasurable exercise for amusement has been superseded by the awfulness of capitalism. RD

An Unequal Society

Worried by the obnoxious propaganda of UKIP the Tory Party are making noises about restricting migration, but of course this will only apply to workers attempting to settle in Britain. 'Wealthy Chinese and Russians looking to escape unrest at home and secure a bolthole in Britain have invested more than £700 million in the country through a visa programme that allows them to buy entry. Nearly 300 Chinese citizens spent at least £295 million through the UK's Tier 1 Investor scheme, which allows foreigners to gain residence permits if they are prepared to invest at least £1 million in domestic shares or British government debt.' (Times, 6 November) That is how capitalism works - one rule for the rich and one for the poor. RD

Surprise, Surprise

Imagine the astonishment in New Zealand when an inquiry found that the native Maoris had been cheated out of ownership  of their native land. 'British colonial authorities cheated the Maoris out of  their birth right in New Zealand by misleading them over an agreement that allowed the Crown to take  control of the country, a tribunal has decided.' (Times, 15 November) It is difficult to understand any sense of astonishment. That is what colonial powers have done over the years and will do today if they can get away with it. Anyway the New Zealand authorities seem to be taking the judgement in their stride as Chris Finlayson, the attorney general is reported as saying in The New Zealand Herald: "There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This report doesn't change that fact." RD