How powerful is global capitalism at present?

Well a very interesting question indeed as it would appear contradictory. On one hand you have a system which seems incredibly powerful and somewhat untouchable in terms of any real threat from an outside force from an opposing system. We used to have Stalinism of course in the east with the USSR and the Chinese totalitarian regimes which for all their brutal dictatorial and clamping down on freedoms and democracy at least offered the idea that there was at least a different system possible if you wished. Yet there is no movement that looks likely that it will take power any time soon in terms of an alternative economic system. Not to do the working class down as they are extremely powerful yet I am not convinced are ready to take power anywhere on the planet. On the other hand we have a system of capitalism which is in probably the biggest crisis its faced since the 30's and possibly ever some say. So we do have a real contradiction in many ways. It is hard to understand on the surface anyway how powerful and how strong of a system capitalism is at the moment. On the one hand it seems quite fragile and yet on the other side it looks indestructible and that there is no way of changing things. Of course as we know and as we learn from the past no social and political system is indestructible and nothing stays the same forever. Dialectics tells us as much so to think that capitalism is here to stay and it can’t be changed or removed is just not true. It may seem like we are a long long way from change and in many ways we are yet change is always on the agenda and is constantly happening even when we cannot see it at the very moment. Revolutions are not just things that appear they are constantly being developed and worked on. I do believe that we can start to begin to build the new society in the shell of the old by putting into practice our ideals and values right now not after the revolution we can begin to shape things even if all be it on a small scale to start with. We must be in a way the change we want to see to oppose things we don’t agree with and we don’t want to take with us to the new society we must start today by opposing the likes of racism, fascism , sexism and all forms of discrimination. We must lead from example as revolutionaries we cant expect others to follow us and buy into our ideas if we ourselves do not live up to our own ideals. So in terms of power capitalism is still very much in the driving seat but for how long and in what form we cannot say. We must remember any victory we win off the ruling class must be forced home and if there is the opportunity to remove this rotten exploitative system then we must cease any chance we get!

The poor poor rich folk, so oppressed

Yes my heart weeps for them it really does. My sarcasm meter is boiling over. In today’s papers today Boris Johnson champion of the rich and the ruling class's has come out with an astonishing piece today. "The super-rich are a "put-upon minority" like homeless people and Irish travellers and should be protected from any further "bullying" from the public, Boris Johnson claimed today. Johnson called for an end to "bashing" the richest people in Britain and suggested they should instead receive "automatic knighthoods" for their contribution to the UK exchequer. "It is my duty to stick up for every put-upon minority in the city – from the homeless to Irish travellers to ex-gang members to disgraced former MPs," wrote the Conservative mayor of London in the Daily Telegraph. "But there is one minority that I still behold with a benign bewilderment, and that is the very, very rich." He said the public should instead extend their "humble and hearty thanks" to the super-rich who "now pay 29.8 per cent of all the income tax and national insurance received by the Treasury." "We should stop any bashing or moaning or preaching or bitching and simply give thanks for the prodigious sums of money that they are contributing to the tax revenues of this country, and that enable us to look after our sick and our elderly and to build roads, railways and schools," he claimed. Johnson believes the super-rich have been "brow-beaten and bullied and threatened with new taxes, by everyone from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Nick Clegg". He suggested that taxes on the super rich could instead be cut and that the richest people in the country should be automatically awarded honours by the Queen. "Indeed, it is possible, as the American economist Art Laffer pointed out, that they might contribute even more if we cut their rates of tax; but it is time we recognised the heroic contribution they already make. "In fact, we should stop publishing rich lists in favour of an annual list of the top 100 tax heroes, with automatic knighthoods for the top 10." Johnson's comparison between the super-rich and homeless people will enrage campaigners against homelessness. The London Mayor had promised to end rough sleeping in London by the end of 2012. However, research released this year found that the number of rough sleepers had doubled in the capital over the past five years. Johnson has been a long-term advocate of reducing taxes for Britain's wealthiest people. Earlier this year he called for a new "flat tax" which would have reduced the top rate of tax to just 30%. He has sometimes been accused of being too close to the City of London. His first mayoral election campaign was heavily financed by City donors. Donations to his second mayoral election campaign were routed through Conservative central office, meaning that names of individual donors did not have to be revealed. " The poor mites bless them... With extracts and quotes from http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/11/18/boris-johnson-super-rich-an-oppressed-minority-like-homeless

The role of the police in 2013

Now I’ve always been one to question the role of the police and their role in society. For myself I have not had any negative experiences with the police I must admit but I have heard a lot and read a lot about them and the role they play in a liberal democracy that we apparently live in. There is a commonly held assumption that the police are a necessary presence in a civilised society, one that ensures the preservation of social order. And yet this assumption is deeply ideological, blurring the distinction between the act of policing with the existence of an institutional police force. I am myself increasingly suspicious of the role of the police in 2013. But looking back at history at which a article I will publish below will demonstrate looks aback upon and tries to draw conclusions and ideas from this institution of capitalism . “While anthropologists have found policing to be a common feature of all societies, studies have shown that the founding of a police force only occurs in conjunction with the development of class and monetary systems (Reiner, 3-7). The establishment of an institutional police service is thus a manifestation of an ascending dominant class securing their interests against those inhabiting a society’s lower strata. What Adam Smith says of ‘laws and government’ is thus equally true of the police force: “Laws and government may be considered in this and indeed in every case as a combination of the rich to oppress the poor, and preserve to themselves the inequality of the goods which would otherwise be soon destroyed by the attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government would soon reduce the others to an equality with themselves by open violence.” This political role of the police was well recognised by the working classes of the UK, with their formation met with much hostility. Indeed much of what is quintessential to the ‘British bobby’ was in fact carefully constructed in an attempt to depoliticise the service – thus the British police were set up as unarmed, low key and legalistic, authorised only to use minimal force and to stand accountable under the same laws as the general public. Despite this, the deaths of the first two police officers killed on duty were ruled ‘justifiable homicide’ by juries. The police were also to be non-partisan, and, most importantly, they were to fulfil a social function, i.e. crime prevention and detection, and it is this role that allows the obscuring of their mandate for repression. However, the legitimacy achieved by these policies would not have been successful was it not for the circumstances of the time. The gradual incorporation of the working classes into the social, economic and political institutions meant the majority of citizens were able to share in economic growth (though unevenly and not completely); thus the societal structure that ensured opposition to the police was ameliorated just enough to facilitate their acceptance (Reiner, 77). Let us now look in more detail at these legitimising practises of the police, and consider the extent to which they have changed over time, the level of their success, and the effect social unrest has upon the public’s acceptance of the institution. Minimal Force The initial opposition to the police necessitated a softly-softly approach in order to gain acceptance; unarmed was sold as non-repressive. While police were given truncheons, they were at first to carry them concealed, and were very much restricted to use as a last resort – even then their use was closely scrutinised and, if found to be unnecessary, likely to end with the police officer’s dismissal. This model of policing, with its strict regulations on force, does not however demonstrate a lack of state oppression: during this time the army were available as back up, and were regularly deployed against civilians in the late 19th and early 20th century. As the police gained acceptance, the use of the army was scaled back – and police use of force was gradually scaled up, now with apparent legitimacy (Reiner, 72-73). Of course the fact that the police were, right from their beginnings, permitted only to use minimal force does not account for those who broke these rules. While accountability will be discussed next, it is important to note that incidents of complaints against the police have never been accurately recorded. From the 1960s onwards the British Police began to militarise. Special units were formed in order to deal with public order and terrorism (the state’s linking of the two already evident), developing paramilitary tactics and formations, and trained in the use of weapons. In the 1970s Police Support Units were founded; whereas these specially trained officers were used in day-to-day policing they could now be called upon to deal with crowds, specifically strikes and demonstrations, and thus purposely formed to be used against the working classes in their struggles against bosses and the state. Police dressed in riot gear became a common sight during the unrest of the 1970s and 1980s (prior to 1977, police at the Notting Hill Carnival used bin lids as makeshift shields), and police tactics proved to be far more than that of minimal force: cars, driven at speed, were used to disperse crowds, and CS gas was used for the first time on mainland Britain. Prime Minister Thatcher also gave government support for the police to use plastic bullets and water cannon, should Chief Constables deem them necessary (Reiner, 85-86) The potential for such tactics to damage the legitimacy of the police was recognised by the more liberal chief constables, with one stating: ‘There has to be a better way than blind repression’ (Reiner, 86). While day-to-day policing in Britain remains unarmed save for the truncheon and CS spray, police access to and use of firearms (and other weaponry) has risen dramatically. Each force has an armed response unit, tasers are now used with increasingly frequency, and the presence of Police Support Units is a common sight at any public event (Reiner, 87-88). The rise of middle class protesters in the 1990s, predominantly around single-issue causes such as animal rights, anti-roads and the free party/rave scene, increased problems of police legitimacy, as lines were drawn between the police and those from their traditional support base (Reiner, 87). This has continued to be problematic in recent years. In 2011 nationwide protests against student fees, and UK Uncut’s actions against tax avoidance, have been met with hard-line policing, and the police have faced much criticism from the liberal press and demo participants who would otherwise support the police role. The increased militarisation of the police undermines the assertion of a non-oppressive, civil force – the facade of social function falling away to many of those on the receiving end of public order policing, revealing the repressive state body beneath. Accountability The original emphasis on police accountability helped ensure that officers were perceived to be subject to the same legal scrutiny as other citizens. The necessity for the institution to obscure its coercive role meant that initially the police were not only held accountable, but actually done so to the detriment of their ability to perform much of their mandated functions. By the mid-19th century however this had changed significantly, with police evidence heavily relied upon and accusations against them readily dismissed (Reiner, 72). In 2008, over one hundred lawyers, employed by an advisory body to the IPCC to handle complaints, resigned, citing the IPCC’s failure to handle complaints effectively and, most notably, the IPCC’s “pattern of favouritism towards the police with some complaints being rejected in spite of apparently powerful evidence in their support”. In 2009, even The Economist opined that “the IPCC is at best overworked and at worst does not deserve the “I” in its name.” Last year Smiley Culture died of a single stab wound to the heart when police raided his home. The police claimed, and the IPCC accepted, that this wound was self-inflicted. All four of the officers present at the house were treated as witnesses rather than suspects, meaning none were formally interviewed – this includes the officer who witnessed the incident and who refused to give a formal interview. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which any other citizen, witness to a violent death, would be spared the formality of a police interview, indeed who would not be considered a suspect at least until s/he could be eliminated from enquiries. Though the coroner gave evidence stating that such a wound would result in death within a few minutes, Smiley Culture was handcuffed, the police say after sustaining the wound. Why such restraints were necessary has not been answered. The case of Smiley Culture is far from unique. Civilians dying in controversial circumstances at the hands of, or in the presence of police, is a common occurrence. Jean Charles de Menezes; Ian Tomlinson; Mark Duggan – these are only the most prominent of cases, given extra significance within the press due to the extraordinary circumstances that surrounded their deaths. Between 1998 and 2010 there were 333 deaths in police custody; not one police officer has been convicted. Interestingly the IPCC have raised this issue, arguing that juries are reluctant to convict police officers. While this may be the case it is evident that the IPCC have a habit of sweeping complaints, misconduct, and potentially police criminality, beneath the carpet, ensuring they never reach court. At the founding of the police service accountability was not simply considered in legalistic terms, the police were also expected (hypothetically if not in practise), as ‘civilians in uniform’, to be held answerable by their communities. Towards this principle, there was much recruitment among the working classes and promotion granted on merit; indeed since the Second World War, the majority of Chief Constables have been from working class backgrounds and entered the service as PCs (Reiner, 74-75). Such recruitment assists in obscuring the repressive role of the police, aspirant members of the working class may view the police force as a route to a professional and secure career, and the presence of relations and friends within the service is likely to increase trust in the institution as a whole. Legitimacy that has been gained by accountability through association is apparent in the idea of the police as ‘workers in uniform’, as espoused by the Socialist Party. It is also evident in the Occupy Movement of the last year where, despite many arrests, police brutality and no suggestion that the police share their aims or are on their side, individuals within the movement have repeatedly expressed that ‘the police are the 99% too’. Such belief in the police as part of the community is perhaps now a bigger force for legitimacy than accountability before the law. With stories of police brutality and hard line tactics almost ever present during a time of austerity, a person’s link to an individual police officer may grant greater credibility to the police than is warranted by reports of their behaviour. In much the same way that citizens may ‘support the soldiers not the war’, many of the working classes, many of those suffering because of a state protected by the police, are granting credibility to a whole institution based on maybe only a minor personal relationship – the level of accountability to the community is miniscule, but it may just be enough to grant institutional legitimacy at a time when the behaviour of the institution is overtly oppressive. Non-partisan It is important to note that this oppressive behaviour of the police is not related to the incumbent government, but is inherent in the very foundations of the service. At the establishment of the force the police were formed as a non-partisan institution, once again in an attempt to gain acceptance from the working class (Reiner, 74). At the time of the founding of the police this would have had more relevance than it does now, with each party notionally aligned with the interests of a particular class. Yet though the police may not be partisan to any political party, the extent that this helps their legitimacy is highly dubious. It is not the police support of the Tories or of Labour, or any other political party that is of relevance, but of their support for the state that all of these parties seek to uphold. Not being party-politically partisan is irrelevant – the police support the incumbent government, every government supports the interests of the ruling class. The police can never be politically neutral. And this becomes immediately apparent whenever class conflicts flare up. The pro-state establishment credentials of the police hardly need describing, yet it is perhaps worth noting how the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Met are appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Home Secretary, and knighted, firmly making them part of the ruling class, not simply employed to be on their side. The role of the Commissioner and his Deputy is also worth mentioning – they are the key individuals responsible for counter-terrorism and threats to public order, with the potential for the line between them to blur. In the 1980s the police became more explicitly political, campaigning for more funding for law and order, and against the liberalisation of penal and social policy. Criticism of this political campaign was rejected by the Police Federation, justifying their stance with the question, “What is ‘political’ about crime?”(Reiner, 89). The campaign was met with Conservative party support, establishing themselves as ‘the party of law and order’. Labour, wary of appearing ‘soft on crime’ by comparison, supported Conservative policy that itself was dictated by the Police Federation’s campaign (Reiner 89-90). Such a question is then, at best, disingenuous. The police actively support political policies that strengthen the ruling class against the rest of the population; the Conservatives just happened to be the Government to implement them. In the past two decades, incarceration rates have soared; 60% of those imprisoned are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, they are also more likely to be homeless, and more likely to be unemployed (and to be so in the long-term). Of petty offenders who have homes, one-third lose them whilst in custody. Two thirds lose their jobs. 95% of those imprisoned are male, and two fifths lose contact with their families. Any suggestion that such figures are not political, that the campaign for more stringent penal and social policy has not had a disproportionate affect on those most socially and economically vulnerable, is a deceitful distortion of reality. Aside from the socio-economic breakdown of crime and punishment, the definitions of what constitutes a crime (or as unlawful) are also political in nature. So a protest is unlawful if the organisers do not give six days written notice, and it must adhere to restrictions on its time and route. The police may ban or restrict a protest if it poses the potential for “serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption” (Public Order Act 1986, Sections 11-14). By increasing the associations of protest with criminality the state can act against its detractors with apparently legitimate force. Hence in the past year the Occupy camps have been frequently associated with crime and disorder, student protests have been said to have been infiltrated by “hardcore activists and street gangs”, and the Met have aligned anarchism with terrorism. Trade Unions have also been warned that should they use their right to strike, they may face more stringent laws to prevent them from doing so in future. The use of effective action quickly becomes defined as unlawful action when the state feels threatened. Crime prevention and detection By the mid 19th century the police were perceived by the middle and upper classes as an effective law and order service. While members of the working classes also called upon the police they did so with less regularity, the majority of their contact with them unsought and unwelcome. This did not begin to change until political, social and economic reforms gradually allowed many of the working classes to gain a stake in society. Proportionally however inequality has remained pretty much the same and, since the beginnings of neoliberal policies in the 1980s, has actually increased (Reiner, 77). Still, the legitimacy of the police has been found to depend upon the perceived fair conduct of their work, ‘bad’ policing having a greater effect upon this perception than ‘good’. It is notable that police legitimacy is judged to be greater among those who have had no direct contact with them (not just as a suspect but also as a witness or victim); approval is therefore dependant on the citizens’ inexperience of the institution’s practises –for this reason legitimacy is generally perceived to be greater to those higher up the social ladder (Reiner, 69-70). The effectiveness of the police in tackling crime is difficult to measure. Though statistics are available they are notoriously unreliable; they do not account for unreported crimes and are liable to be distorted in order to reflect a desired picture. However it is safe to assert that crime has risen greatly over the past 50 years, as has fear of crime, while faith in the ability of the police has declined (Reiner, 93). The clear-up rate of crimes is, as of 2010, at 28% (though again it must be noted that the figures are imprecise). For specific crimes the police’s effectiveness in dealing with them varies hugely. For example, while murder cases are solved 92% of the time, for other violent crime the figure is a much lower 47%, and for burglary only 13%. The use of the word ‘solve’ is also problematic: “If adequate information is provided to pinpoint the culprit fairly accurately, the crime will be resolved; if not, it is almost certain not to be” (Reiner, 153) The work of the detective as vaunted in television dramas is detached from reality; two thirds of “solved” crimes are in fact self-solvers, i.e. the culprit is either still at the scene or witnesses are able to name and/or provide a full and accurate description. In cases where the crime does not solve itself there are two main tactics of investigation, both of which rely on stigmatising vulnerable groups; the police may “round up the usual suspects” of regular offenders, or rely upon stereotypical notions of what perpetrators of particular offences may be like. A high number of arrests made by foot patrol units conform to the latter tactic, suspicion based upon stereotype (Reiner, 152). This may go some way to explain why stop and searches are disproportionately carried out against ethnic minorities, with black people seven times more likely to be stopped than white people; institutional racism continues to be endemic. It must be recognised that neither of these tactics of investigation are effective, with the majority of cases remaining unsolved. Cases that do not present with likely leads are regularly dropped (Reiner, 152-3). The main social function of the police then seems almost administrative in form; while particular specialists may be required to gather forensics, the majority of an officer’s work appears to be processing self-evident information. The primary justification for a police force is thus effectively made obsolete; the assumption that a civilised society needs a police force is shown to be motivated by ideology, a facade created to conceal a state’s coercive power. Conclusion The depression of the 1930s saw public order become a key issue, with much criticism levied at the police for their brutal suppression of the National Unemployment Workers’ Movement marches (Reiner, 75). Then, like now, the economic situation resulted in a renewed awareness of the political nature of the police. While the state continues to feed us the line that we need the police, that the police are impartial, people are becoming aware that they are not on our side. When the police call for water cannon to be used against protesters, when they threaten to deploy rubber bullets, they do so to defend a status quo, a status quo that protects the interests of the ruling class against the mass interest of the people. However the exposure of the police as political actors damages them; when coercion supersedes consent state legitimacy begins to fall. In the past year coercive policing has been exacerbated by the courts, with individuals convicted following protests and riots receiving significantly harsher sentences than the same offences would usually warrant. The repression of dissent is thus at the heart of the justice system, the appeal for ‘social order’ used to assist in securing the interests of the state and its ruling class. Historically the police have been successful in allaying the fears of the working classes by following the legitimating policies and practises as described above (Reiner, 70-75). However once such acceptance was achieved the necessity to continue in this vein waned, and in times of social unrest the political nature of the police becomes increasingly apparent. While the social role of crime prevention and detection continues to be the principal justification for a police force, the evidence does not bear this out. As the socio-economic circumstances continue to deteriorate in 2012, more people will gain direct experiences of the coercive role of the police, experiences that may serve to delegitimize both their existence and that of the state they seek to protect. Sources Robert Reiner The Politics of the Police Attachment Size Attachment Size The police the case against.pdf 349.55 KB Posted By Ramona Jan 6 2012 19:54 “ With article and thanks to libcom.org at http://libcom.org/library/police-case-against

What makes someone racist?

Firstly this post is not an excuse for racist behaviour or racist language I for one totally oppose all forms of racism and discrimination on any level however casual it may seem on the surface there is to be no excuse for it in this day and age. But I thought I world try and look all be it quite sensitively at the reasons or possible reasons why some people do hold racist views as such. Coming from a very white background in Hertfordshire in the South East of England hearing racist views is something which I get to hear a lot not through choice but due to peoples held prejudices. You do see a lot more immigrants moving into our area now not in huge huge numbers but certainly more than there ever has been. I do understand or at least try to understand workers concerns on immigration these are often a veiled concern by them of a lack of resources be that affordable homes for their families or a decent job which will pay a decent wage to live on. A lot f racist views I’ve found are held on the so called fear of the unknown and a fear of loosing their so called way of life nothing could be further from the truth in reality. There is a understandable feeling of isolation and feeling over run in a area you previously felt was your own I fully get this but does taking it on those who m are moving in and living their lives peacefully and no harm to you ? I think not. I think most human beings are tolerant people and are accepting of most people. Certainly I think most people are good people and are helpful to others in need but there is always a minority a certain section in society who finds it hard to adapt to new changes and changing social make ups. I do also think we should try and point out to people that racism is a tool used by the ruling class to divide and rule us. Dividing us by race, gender, age or anything like that is designed to weaken our class solidarity and community spirit which has been gradually worn down over the years and years. Racism is a feature of capitalism and is a tool of the ruling class which we must oppose and fight against and speak out against whenever we can. Whilst doing this we must understand to finally end racism for good and to end all discrimination e must end capitalism and inequality of a class system which is hugely ridiculously unequal in so many ways. When you hear a racist view as a socialist it makes me twinge with anger and disappointment in people that they can laugh and have so much hate for other human beings, other workers in many cases who face much the same difficulties and struggles as all of us. The lack of resources is not something which is aimed at a certain race or nationality its inherent to capitalism as the wealth is held in such few hands that being the capitalist class those who own the means of production call the shots. As socialists we shouldn’t write off and hammer those workers who may hold racist views why not challenge them and try to convince them that the enemy is not the a Asian or Polish family just moved in down the road who they think has just taken their job but to explain that wearer fighting like rats in a sack and that there is more than enough resources in society to go around enough jobs and homes for us all if we had a say in the way society was run and run for our needs not for the profits of the few. I stand for a society called socialism a society free of oppression, war, discrimination, the, greed and all the evils that come with a society called capitalism the system based on the blind drive for profits by a rich few and the rest go to hell in a handcart. If you like me believe a better world is possible do ask yourself are you a socialist or if you don’t wish to use that S word do you agree with me and what I say whatever you call it we need to stand together to change things and soon.

Capitalism is corruption

Capitalism wasn’t always like this it did play a progressive role for a time. Yet today it is hard to imagine a progressive era for this parasitical system which is more and more becoming a drag on society and our development as a human race. Corruption is everywhere we look in society now. Any falsehood of democracy is quickly fading away as bourgeois democracy crashes from crisis to crisis. In the last decade we had the expenses scandal which rocked trust in MP’s to their very foundation. The lies and deceit publically displayed by all politicians be them Labour, Tory Lib dem and now Greens who tried to pose as anti cuts and radical only to push through the cuts in Brighton City Council this year shamefully. From all parts of the establishment there is distrust and often contempt from the media to the police to our parliament and undemocratic House’s of Parliament including the unelected lords. It is no wonder society is divided with an establishment which is tearing itself apart too. With a ruling class split as explained in a previous blog post is causing a huge discourse in society where many are dies interested in politics and have good reason to be. Many think politics is not for them and it’s something that those in suits do. This is not true politics is everything and for everyone. A new workers party will have huge challenges to deal with most notably apathy and dies trust of all parties telling them they can help them. I think the point is to agree with people who tell us they hate all politicians. We do too and we are on their side one of you ordinary workers wanting to change society. Capitalism while in one of its biggest downturns possibly ever is finding it difficult to remain true to democracy. Democracy is a means to a end not a end in itself and for the ruling class is something they can do away with if need be but it is the cheapest form of control on the mass’s as the illusions of democracy hold some back from drawing the conclusions for a time. Capitalism is rooted in corruption from the labour theory of value onwards its the suction of surplus value from wage labourers that starts it all off. Corruption has grown to huge huge levels from that stage. Its time it all ends. Everywhere we look the dangers of a breakup in society is clear corruption whilst built in to the capitalist system can seep through into the labour movement and certainly this has been true in parts of the tops of the trade unions. Change needs to happen from the bottom up. Starting with the fight for the highest form of democracy at all levels starting at the bottom sweeping aside the rotten paracitical capitalist system as we go.

Alex Jones and conspiracy theories

At times like these which we live through a fundamental crisis of global capitalism not just a cyclical crisis but a fundamental crisis of the system all sorts of conspiracies can come to the fore. People are understandably looking for an explanation of the current crisis and don’t want to have to look far and wide for one. They want a theory to fit into what they know already and they want someone to blame and fast. “Conspiracy theories have had something of resurgence in recent times. Even during the global Occupy movement it was common to meet people who claimed that a secret clique of bankers are running the world, that money is the source of all our problems, or that 9/11 was an inside job. In general conspiracy theories claim that important political, social or economic events are the products of plots by secret groups that are largely unknown to the general public. They can sometimes ring true because of the fact that banks and big business do exercise an inordinate amount of power over our lives. They can sometimes seem radical because they often attempt to question the way the system is run in the interests of a tiny minority. Why has interest in conspiracy theories risen? The global capitalist crisis, the most serious crisis since the 1930s, has dramatically worsened the problems working people face. Jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate and living standards are declining. For many young people a secure job is not even on the cards. In many ways people are questioning why the capitalist system is failing them. People feel like hidden forces beyond their control dominate their world. There is an increasing sense of alienation and this is leading people to search for explanations and solutions. This is where the likes of Alex Jones one of the most well known internet sensations who hosts a regular radio show with millions of listeners and a you tube channel drawing in even more. The thing is, Alex Jones, his cult-like followers, and those with similar views don't see the system for what it is, as they've been conditioned to believe that the system is supposed to work a certain way and in doing so results in all sorts of freedoms and prosperity for everyone. When the system doesn't work that way, they assume it's because of some alien - some "other" - deliberately fucking the system up. Marxism explains it much better. In the past, people could turn to a strong labour movement, which embodied many critiques of capitalism. Marxism is a highly developed labour movement critique that lays bare the class basis of capitalism. Marxism explains that society is essentially divided into classes: workers who are forced to sell their labour-power in order to live, and capitalists, who pay workers less in wages than the value that workers produce. Through a materialist understanding of these social relations, Marxism, or scientific socialism, is a theory that analyses both the economic foundations of capitalism but also the political and social processes that take place. It is based on the history and real experiences of the working class going back hundreds of years and it can explain in detail the boom/bust cycle of capitalism. In the last thirty years however, the labour movement has been under constant attack. Neo-liberalism became the dominant economic ideology and the mass working class political parties that once existed have either shifted to accept this ideology or disappeared. This process was accelerated by the collapse of Soviet Union, which at the time provided a living, but degenerated, alternative to capitalism. Capitalism, we were told, was the only way of running society. Margaret Thatcher’s phrase ‘There Is No Alternative’ summed up the attitude of this era. Consequently class consciousness has been set back and so has the standing of all alternative ideologies. The lack of popularised alternative ideas means that newly radicalised people are sometimes starting their search for explanations and solutions from scratch. They find these explanations in the many ‘new’ ideas, principles or theories that have been invented or discovered by this or that would-be universal reformer, including conspiracy theorists. Real conspiracies versus conspiracy theories Socialists do not claim there are no conspiracies or that the ruling class does not lie to the public. There is plenty of evidence that they do. One only needs to look at Murdoch’s phone hacking, the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or the Watergate scandal. There is no doubt that members or sections of the ruling class ‘conspire’ and manipulate in order to further their own interests. However, it’s not so much the point that individuals and specific groups conspire to achieve their ends, but rather that behind those individuals are material reasons which cause them to behave in very specific ways. Simply put, these reasons are the necessity for capitalists to maximise profits and accumulate capital, as well as ensuring that the necessary social, political and economic conditions exist to do so. If one group of capitalists were replaced by another, they would behave in a similar ways, with similar outcomes. This is true for the Rothschilds, Henry Ford, and for Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. In this sense, the problem is a systemic problem, not one of individuals. In this sense Marxism is actually the best framework for analysing those conspiracies that do actually take place. This is because it looks at them within the objective drives and contradictions of the capitalist system, rather than seeing them as constituting the driving force of the system itself. Obscuring reality The most obvious problem with many conspiracy theories is the lack of empirical evidence and the tendency to speculate wildly. Having placed a great deal of effort in showing inconsistencies in media and government accounts of events, conspiracy theories often then simply make up their own interpretations, often relying on ‘hidden’ factual information. This is not a solid basis on which to provide a genuine critique of the complex processes occurring in world politics and the global economy. The actions and motivations of business owners and world leaders become much clearer when they are viewed within the framework of class. The reality of the contradictory interests between the working class and the capitalist class is particularly evident in this era of economic austerity. We have witnessed banks and businesses being bailed out with public money, whilst continuing to reap enormous private profit. The result of this has been the piling up of huge sovereign debt, leading to drastic cuts in social spending that has worsened the living conditions of workers in many parts of the world. This is no secret, but cannot be properly understood without a class analysis of how the system works. No singular ‘amazing’ factual revelation will expose or change the fundamental function of global capitalism. Conspiracy theories are also often inherently implausible. Usually they try to claim that control of the system is exercised by members of tiny groups that are usually countable on one’s fingers. How would it be possible for these individuals to make all the decisions necessary to run a complex modern society? Even if they could, such a system would be extremely unstable and easily overthrown. On the contrary most capitalist societies have been relatively stable since the Second World War. While socialists would agree that under capitalism a ruling class (those who own and control the means of production) exercises control over the majority of working class people (those who must work for a wage or salary), it is not true that this class is of such a tiny proportion. The definition of class is based primarily on an individual’s relationship to the economy. Business owners, for example, may compete for market share, but they also have common interests in terms of weakening labour laws, undermining unions, lowing social spending to allow for business tax breaks and so on. Their common interests on the basis of their class position mean many business owners act similarly despite not being members of a secret society. This minority maintains their control of economic relations through a complex state machine which ensures continuation of their privilege. This is achieved not through an all powerful secret society, but through the laws, courts, and dominant ideology taught in schools and university. Despite this, should their privilege be challenged in a serious way, police, armies and jails are used to quell any resistance. For example, in 2008 when numerous banks and credit funds were found to have acted disingenuously and were in danger of collapse, they were bailed out by governments with taxpayer’s money. Rather than being taken into public ownership under democratic, taxpayers control, their ‘right’ to continue business-as-usual, profiting with the use of public funds was backed up by courts, parliaments and the dominant economic ideology. On the other hand, when ordinary people started to protest and question why their money was being handed over to private business, many were attacked, pepper sprayed and jailed by police! These events happened very much out in the open, and very similarly across the world. This is not due to elaborate, underground co-ordination amongst a secret group, but because the crisis of capitalism presented itself similarly in different countries that are part of a highly connected global economy governed by the same ‘free-market’ ideology. This is the logic of capitalism at work, not the arbitrary will of secret elite. By having an understanding of how capitalism works we can see what unites the ruling class but also what divides them. While on the one hand the ruling class is united in its quest to exploit the working class, it is divided in the sense that it is competing amongst itself for profits. Understanding this helps us explain, in scientific terms, the causes of wars and inter-imperialist conflicts that have shaped the last century. Conspiracy theories, including some presented in the ‘Zeitgeist’ films, often claim that a secret group deliberately caused the global economic crisis. This of course begs the question of how it could possibly be in the interest of the system to enter into deep recession, which has wiped trillions off share values, sent production into decline and caused enormous social unrest. The truth is that rather, than being an elaborate conspiracy; economic crises are the result of the internal contradictions of capitalism. Rather than searching for a secret group with unexplained motivations to ruin the economy, we need to focus on the business owners, banks and politicians who openly oversee and defend a system in which internally created the slumps and crises that ruin people’s lives. There is a long list of things that are wrong with conspiracy theories. One of the most serious problems is that they often attempt to cut across working class unity, by creating divisions along national, ethnic or other social lines, for example anti-Semitism in banking conspiracies, or the claim that leaders of the Russian revolution were really aiming for Jewish world domination, for example in the hoaxed Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Real solutions Apart from being a confusing and inconsistent way of trying to understand the world, conspiracy theories do not outline any strategy for practical action to solve the problems we face. It seems many conspiracy theories are solely focused on trying to inform people of a hidden conspiracy, but lack any advice on what to do about it. In this sense conspiracy theories are disempowering and demobilising. History has shown many times that the best way to utilise the power of ordinary people is to unite them in action for social change. Other ‘solutions’ put forward such as those prominent in the Zeitgeist films, amount to withdrawing from the world to try and build a new society. This is impossible given the unceasing (and militarised) search by capitalism for markets and resources. This rejection of the possibility of changing the world we live in is again contradicted by the history of the workers’ movement. Not only have working people organised and won reforms from capitalism, but they have made revolutions that have fundamentally changed societies. It is no accident that historically both reforms and revolutions were often guided or influenced by a thoroughgoing Marxist analysis of capitalism. Over the past 160 years Marxism has developed and tested a strategy for achieving social change. Marx’s understanding of class struggle, Rosa Luxemburg’s conception of the general strike, Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution, and Lenin’s contributions on the role of the revolutionary party are just some of the component parts of a scientific theory that concretely suggests what should be done to advance the interests of working people. This is something that conspiracy theories completely lack. Conspiracy theories can sometimes seem quite radical, because they are hostile to bankers or other exploiters, and decry the status quo generally. However conspiracy theories obscure a realistic understanding of important processes and events. Because of this they offer no real solutions. They can often have the effect of serving the system by deflecting blame and attention from where it belongs. Instead of exposing imagined conspiracies, what is needed is a rigorous scientific approach, one which is capable of laying bare the class nature of the processes that shape capitalist society. This understanding can then inform how and why we struggle against the ruling class and assist in mobilising people to fundamentally change the world for the better.” With extracts from http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/4047

Tories tearing each other apart of Europe

The crisis in the Tory party grows ever deeper with sharper and sharper comments being exchanged from back bencher to back bencher from cabinet ministers now coming out and breaking ranks to support a referendum on the EU David Cameron will have a tough job on his hand to quell descent over his leadership or lack of. Europe has always been a dividing issue for Tories many do not wish to be dictated by some faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and detest the red t ape of the EU and all the laws they have no say over. Yet on the other side the business world the other part of the ruling class are worried and are jumping up and down worried that we may actually end up leaving the EU damaging business and trade. So this issue the ruling class in Britain really are split more so than most other issues it would seem. Even President O’Bama has weighed in saying the UK should remain part of Europe as they find it easier to do business with one block rather than several different nations. No doubt their interests go deeper than this with economic benefits being high on the agenda. But the way the Tories are hammering each other over Europe and pressuring David Cameron to go for a referendum is very interesting to see. For many years it’s been a divided and faction riddled labour party we all remember the famous spats between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and their people who couldn’t work together now its Cameron being marginalised in his own party as minister after minister decries his lack of leadership and support for a referendum for Britain. Let’s be clear though the Tories do not want this for the so called national interest it is all about their own pure class interests all along. The fear of having the city of London dictated to by Brussels over a financial transition tax and more regulation worries their banker friends and there donors as a result. The Tory party is so interwoven within the city of London now that any event that happens in the city and in government affects the other so acutely now. It is to the Tories detriment that they rely so heavily on the city of London for their backing which has backed them into a corner on this issue. Where in the past they would receive backing from more industrial capitalists now they rely solely on the financial sector. This will continue to play out right up until the general election. With a threat that it may tear the coalition apart with the Lib Dems still refusing to back a tin out referendum this will heighten tension between the coalition partners who are drifting further and further apart all the time. Deliberately maybe the closer we get towards the next election they will want to make themselves separate as much as they can but we all know they are tied on the main policies of cuts, privatisation and austerity. The issue of Europe won’t go away and with UKIP gaining more influence this will only grow. How the Tories play their hand now with a declining support now in the polls will be interesting to see. No doubt they will try and tack right play on the immigration card as much as they can and increase the divide and rule they use so effectively. The question for the working class is how we fight back. Labour has clearly shown they are no alternative to cuts and misery so we need a political alternative. TUSC looks to lay down an early marker of a marker for a new workers party with anti cuts candidates standing across the country. This is just a start but is an important start none the less.

Democratic deficit in Europe

Right across the Euro zone and beyond the crisis in capitalism is deepening by the day. When all seems calm and stable another shock is set off the latest in Cyprus where people’s personal bank accounts have been raided by 10% on their savings to bail the country out. Were people asked first? No they weren’t this is the democracy of the Euro in action. Or not. Since the onslaught of austerity was placed on the shoulders of working people and the poor across Europe people’s democratic rights as limited as they always are under capitalism are being slowly eroded under our very eyes. This crisis is not just a financial crisis it’s a series of crisis’s and one that myself and certainly the Committee for Workers International CWI including our own MEP Paul Murphy MEP have pointed out for a while now the democratic deficit we are seeing in Europe now. The ruling class is not afraid to take away democratic rights if their system or profits are under threat and wish to safe guard their interests. Although now Greece has a elected government back in power and Italy well who knows they are still trying to figure something out already we have seen the lengths the ruling class will go to safe guard their system by installing their own men in power. The imposition of the 'technocrats', in reality bankers, in both Italy and Greece, shows the seriousness of the crisis for the capitalist class nationally and across Europe. To try to save their system across Europe, the democratic rights of people to decide who will govern them have been trampled on. The markets, through the Troika of the IMF, EU and ECB, have usurped democracy and placed their own men in charge to ensure that the cost of this crisis is placed on the shoulders of the working class, unemployed and poor. The technocrats elevated to rulers in Greece and Italy, Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti, are the banking sector's choice of leader. Monti was an as advisor to Goldman Sachs until his appointment. Papademos was a former vice-president of the European Central Bank, and has publicly been opposed to the write down of Greek banking debt as it would hurt the banking sector. Goldman Sachs was described in a 2010 Rolling Stone article as: "The world's most powerful investment bank" and "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." It can manipulate "whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere - high gas prices, rising consumer credit rates, half eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts." These 'technocrats' have been presented to the world as the experts who will be able to solve the financial crisis, as some sort of wise men who can rise above politics. It has been put out that these men will put the 'national interest' first. This is a lie. The 'dictatorship of the technocrats' is an attempt to divorce economics from politics. The technocrats will act, not in the interests of the mass of the people, but in the interest of the people they represent - the financial elites. The protest movements and strikes that have swept across Greece and Italy need to be intensified against this anti-democratic and anti-working class move by the national and European establishment. No matter how much they try to persuade us that the technocracy is above politics, a mass movement of workers, the unemployed and young people which builds its own party, can brush away this dictatorship of the markets and start to create a society that is democratically run in the interest of the mass of the people.

How the ruling class uses divide and rule to effect

Over the years divide and rule has been tactic or a strategy you could say which the ruling class’s across the globe have used to quell dissent and divide us all the working and popular mass’s. Be it on racial, gender, in work or not, sexuality and nowadays private or public sector and so on its been a way of getting their policies through while distracting us from the bigger issues. While we are focusing on fighting our next door neighbour for claiming benefits they shouldn’t the ruling class and the rich are literally laughing all the way to the bank. We are also divided by the nation state too the working class as Karl Marx rightly told us in the community manifesto has no nation so creating false nation boundaries it leads the workers to nationalistic lines which are muddied all the time. Nation states arose from the development of capitalism. To the rising capitalist class in countries like England and France fell the lot of sweeping aside feudal particularise, knitting together their national territory and attaining recognition as a separate nation. To replace the power of the feudal heads of society with those of the capitalist state, the bourgeois drew behind them all the oppressed social orders. Having used the lower layers of society as a club to lay waste the vestiges of feudal power and consolidate their own class rule, the bourgeoisie set about curtailing the activities and demands of these layers, very often re-imposing the superstructure of the old system in order to do so. Dividing workers is to distract them from the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current system of capitalism and replacing it with a democratic socialist society based on the many not the few. Anyway the ruling elite can distract working people from drawing these conclusions and uniting on class lines they will try and try they have done successfully over the years. Socialists oppose all forms of division and discrimination and stand for the rights of all oppressed people to have representation. We say no to the boss’s divide and rule and call for class unity based on the advancement of the working class and middle class. Society can be changed but not if we fall for classic divide and rule tactics. The Tories are good at it we must be equally as good at resisting their cynical divide and rule tactics and unite against our class enemies.

Austerity is working, for the 1%

We talk so often as socialists and the left that austerity has failed and is not working. But when we look at it from the capitalists point of view which we fall foul of not doing nearly enough in my view we’d understand things a lot better if we did see things from their point of view sometimes austerity is working very well indeed. Essentially we are seeing policy after policy being pushed that the right has always supported but has not been able to get away with them up till now such as large scale privatisation and eye watering cuts to welfare and social spending. But now in an economic crisis and telling us thing like we’re all in this together and this is for the national interest they have largely succeeded in dividing people to ram their austerity home. Those who think we have to take the medicine for a bi and we’ll then be ok are starting to look a bit worried this I’m afraid is the new norm for capitalism. Austerity is simply the latest phase of capitalism we are going through and it is working very well for the 1%. The welfare state is under attack, workers’ rights are being eroded and poverty and inequality are on the rise. This is not a new crisis. The austerity measures now being imposed in the UK and Europe have been replicated around the world for decades. Time and again, debt crises created by casino banks have been paid for through austerity measures which have fallen on the poorest in society. The global history of austerity shows us how it has been used to create an economy that is built for the benefit of the 1%. Wherever austerity has been tried people have responded with inspiring resistance and new ways to create a fairer, more equal and more democratic economy. So far this has not succeeded but for the 1% the ruling class austerity has seen a huge transfer of wealth from the poorest in society to the richest in society. The rich as they say have never had it so good. It really is high time for them. The rich see opportunities in every crisis every crisis is a possibility to make a killing and boy many have. What are the policies of austerity? They involve the cutting of public investment and services such as education, health care, and retirement insurance. In addition they also include the privatizing of existing government assets. Public employees suffer wage freezes or cuts and mass layoffs as part of austerity measures. Labour laws are revised to empower employers at the expense of employees’ job security, wages, benefits, and voice on the job. And austerity also involves increased taxes and fees on working class people. Austerity is sold as the only available means of reducing the debt. However, there is plenty of money to take care of these financial imbalances. It is in the pockets of the wealthy and big business elites whose think tanks and politicians are, not coincidentally, the architects of austerity. They want nations’ economies to be run more like the corporations and banks, prioritizing that their shareholders get paid first and foremost at the expense of everyone else. In Europe the level of debt is 87 percent of its collective GDP, necessitating a severe approach, according to their outlook. However, in the U.S., which is in the beginning stages of an austerity campaign, the level of debt is over 100 percent of GDP. Considering this level of debt and the size of the U.S. economy, the largest dose of austerity measures are yet to come, and it will be working people who will be expected to swallow them. The truth is that the world economy is not in crisis because of debt. It is because too many have too little to buy what has been created. Without a stronger consumer base the capitalists have no reason to invest in making more commodities and creating more jobs. How are they going to realize a profit if few can afford to buy what is produced? Before the Great Recession the big business elites of the world had gotten around this problem by indulging in an orgy of financial speculation, especially in the U.S. This extra cash, created out of nothing, enabled them to continue handing out dicey loans while repackaging and selling these toxic assets as good investments. As long as the cash spigot was flowing today, why worry about tomorrow, was the line of reasoning for the 1%. This created massive financial bubbles in, for instance, housing in the U.S. and several European nations. The ultimate effect of all this financial gambling was to inflate the fundamental problem with the economy, which was the crisis of overproduction. When it was no longer possible to get beyond this limit, the resulting crisis was so deep and wide that even today, four years later, there is no real end in sight. This has been greatly exacerbated by massive bailouts to the banks both in the U.S. and Europe as well as costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan conducted by the U.S. and its allies Big business is hoarding trillions of dollars rather than investing these funds in job creating production and services. In the U.S. alone it is estimated that these funds are up to $2 trillion. (1) Without a thriving consumer base, the big business owners have no motivation to invest in goods and services. Without this investment, there will be no thriving consumer base. The economic elite sees no way out of this Catch 22, so they are looking for other ways to enrich themselves. One way they are doing this is by treating the world economy as an enormous casino. For instance, it has been estimated that the total amount of derivatives being played in the market comes to $1.2 quadrillion — 20 times the amount of money currently in the global economy. (2) While the results of such reckless investment produce impressive portfolios for a few today, everyone else is exposed to potentially disastrous risks in the future. The 1% does need to obtain real money from somewhere, however. Productive investment is out of the question for the reasons discussed above. Austerity is a weapon they can use to muscle their way towards grabbing the vast pools of social capital in government programs meant to benefit working people. Rather than acting as organizers of production, the corporation and bank owners are using austerity to act as parasites, draining the economy as a whole. Austerity also serves the business elite’s interests at the expense of everyone else in another way. Without a strong safety net, workers are left in an even more desperate competition with one another to find work. This enables those on top of the economy to depress wages, benefits, and rights since they have a larger reserve of workers to pick from who are willing to take anything. Finally, austerity is a weapon to weaken the Labour Movement, the first line of defence for working people against corporate greed. For instance, in the U.S., it is not a coincidence that austerity measures are aimed first and foremost at public employees and teachers. These are the nation’s two most heavily unionized sectors. If their unions can be broken into accepting austerity, sweeping aside the rest of Labour in the pursuit of greed will be an easier task for the 1%. In short, austerity is a program of class war. Austerity never was about bringing debt or deficits down if anything they have gone upwards not down. Its time to expose the real ideas behind austerity and that is a huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Knowing the facts is just one part fighting back to change this is another. Allowing people to know the truth is the first stage exposing the lies of the ruling class’s across the world knowing that taking a wage cut or redundancy isn’t helping you, other workers or the country only a minority of very rich individuals at the top this must be challenged and exposed for what it is. The rule of capitalism

Smashing the myth of strivers and skivers

Divide and rule is an age old tactic of the ruling class has been used for decades if not centuries it’s simple yet effective. Well recently or longer depending on your point of view the British government has been embarking on the demonising of the poor in a attempt to force through benefit cuts, pay freezes job cuts and so on. Their latest divide and rule tactic has to pit so called strivers and skivers the deserving poor against the undeserving poor, the unemployed against the employed, public sector vs. private sector the disabled against the non disabled. I could go on and on all ways of dividing the working class. Lets be clear society as it stands consists of two great social class’s directly opposed to each other the bourgeois i.e. the so called 1% at the top the ruling class who use their state the police and the army a body of armed people as Engel’s once described it and the working and middle class below these called99%. New Labour and the Tories have been great at muddying the lines of class phrases like we’re all middle class now and if you work hard you can get on and throwing money at the poor and the use of the credit system to inflate a boom period all served to drag everyone up. This was not sustainable of course under capitalism and we are now seeing the results of this. Since the financial crash of 2008 all governments around the world Bara few have embarked on a austerity drive in their words to cut the deficit never mind most deficits have continued to rise ever since. In the UK the con-dem government who came to power in 2010 have set about making some huge huge cuts which will change the face of the country for good. We have coined the phrase a scorched earth policy as I think personally the tories do not think they will get back in in 2015 and as so are going for broke in order to turn as much of the public sector over to the private profiteers. Also their main drive in cutting the deficit has been to cut welfare and the idea that you should not earn more on benefits than you can in work. Which is a complete lie have any of these Tory rich boys ever been on benefits or out of work? Currently JSA is at a pitiful rate of 75 quid a week roughly and even less if your younger with other cuts to housing benefits to the under 25’s cuts elsewhere and the rising living costs this is not the life of luxury the government and previous governments have made out. On 8 January Parliament voted to limit increases in benefits to 1% rather than by the rate of inflation as they had previously been. Cutting the link between prices and benefit rises is effectively a huge cut to future benefits because people will be able to afford less with the money. Iain Duncan Smith, minister for work and pensions who is driving the attacks, said it would be 'absurd' to raise benefits by inflation (currently officially 2.2%). He said it was unfair because benefits are paid by the taxes of those who are working who are not seeing their wages increase by inflation. But contrary to the government's talk of 'shirkers' the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has shown that this change will affect the benefits of far more working people than unemployed (7 million compared to 2.5 million). This was just a day after the changes to child benefits came into force. Households where one person earns over £50,000 will see their benefit cut and over £60,000 will see it stopped altogether. The IFS has worked out that these families will lose an average of £1,300 a year. The Trade Union Congress (TUC) has published research which shows government and media attacks on 'scroungers' are based on lies. On average members of the public think 41% of the welfare budget goes to the unemployed. This 'fact' is used to justify attacking the unemployed as scroungers. In fact the figure is 3%. And, with huge job cuts, any of the "hard-working taxpayers" of today could be denounced as the "work-shy scroungers" of tomorrow. Alongside the massive tax dodging of firms like Vodafone and Starbucks, the amount of benefit fraud is even more miniscule. The public has been led to believe it is 27% of the welfare budget. The figure is actually less than 1%. Compared to the legal and illegal expenses claims of MPs most benefit fraud is tiny. All this has not stopped the Tories of Westminster City Council from floating the idea of cutting benefit for people they deem too fat. And next week people they deem too thin or too tall no doubt. People in work are being asked to approve attacks on the unemployed because they 'get too much money'. However, one of the questions in the TUC survey was about the benefits entitlement of an unemployed couple with two children aged six and ten. The imagined figure was £147 a week, when £111 is the real figure they would be entitled to. But the amount that those surveyed thought the couple would actually need to live on be £202 a week (excluding housing costs). The old adage would seem to be true. Figures can't lie but liars can figure. The Daily Express contained headlines "a new ice age", "a cure for cancer" and "the economy is booming" in the same month. Why on earth believe it when they tell you 80% of benefit claimants are frauds? To give a example of real laziness Youth Fight For Jobs a organisation set up in 2009 to fight their system a system which was not providing young people with enough jobs and opportunities were set to debate with Tory minister Matthew Hancock on Thursday morning on the ITV breakfast programme Daybreak about the governments new traineeship programme. Guess what Matthew could not even get himself out of his bed to defend his own flawed policy. What a shirker you may think. Youth Fight for Jobs supporter, Ian Pattison, said, “Can you imagine my surprise when I discovered a minister whose government berates so-called ‘shirkers’, couldn’t be bothered to get out of bed to defend his own policy. Unfortunately, the Tory Business Minister, Matthew Hancock, overslept and missed our debate. If the Minister was a jobseeker, he could lose his benefits for up to 3 months for such an offence. Luckily, the Tory MP doesn’t have to worry about things like that, as I’m sure he’s more than happy with his meagre £97,000 salary, on top the £43,230 he claimed last year in expenses – a new personal record.” “Hancock’s Traineeship scheme is the latest gimmick coming out of the Tories’ to disguise the fact they have failed to tackle the staggering problems of unemployment effecting young people. Hancock and his government are trying to shift the blame for youth unemployment away from them and their failed system and onto the unemployed.” “Young people are not lazy. In fact, it is the Tories’ cuts agenda that is worsening the economic crisis, slashing jobs in the public and private sector. Jessops is the latest high-street chain to go bust; 2000 workers could lose their jobs. Research has revealed that it is harder to get an apprenticeship than get into Oxbridge. Hancock claims his Traineeships are a stepping stone to apprenticeships, but the whole point of an apprenticeship is secure people with the training they need for a job. Hancock’s scheme doesn’t create any new jobs, or even promise any apprenticeships. Hancock isn’t genuine about developing young people’s skills, he voted to increase university tuition fees to £9,000 a year, which alongside the scrapping of EMA, has priced a huge number of young people out gaining the skills they could use to secure a job.” So lets smash this myth of striversand shirkers, we are the working class the 99% and we are all under attack from this system of capitalism . Its time we threw off our chains and united. Lets not fall for anymore divide and rule lets united and bring down this system of the rich once and for all.

Hiroshima, we don’t forget, end the threat of nuclear destruction

The first use of a nuclear weapon against people was sixty-seven years ago today, August 6 1945, when the United States Army destroyed the Japanese city of Hiroshima at the end of the Second World War. The city of Nagasaki was destroyed by another bomb three days later. Some two hundred forty thousand people, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians, died from the attack and its aftereffects. Over the past six decades a historical consensus has emerged: the atomic bombings were by no means militarily necessary. The Empire of Japan, which had begun the war, was by summer of 1945 defeated, the people of its home islands starving, the capital ships of its navy sunk, its army in China about to collapse before a Soviet onslaught. Historians now believe the key motive behind the bombings was political, the American government's goal to intimidate the Soviet Union as generals on both sides looked ahead to the next war. The use of the atom bomb never to have been used again and only ever used by the United States that fine beacon of peaceful lands is a timely reminder to us all the huge destruction and death that a nuclear world can produce. The whole idea of a nuclear war scares the wits out of me. I once visited a disused nuclear bunker in Essex now a museum thankfully really brings it home to you how a nuclear attack would devastate everything and anything in its path. The potential power of a nuclear war could possibly end this planet we live on. It is more the threat of the use of one that scares people I’d say lot of saber rattling went on during the cold war years between the US and Soviet Russia where an arms race ensued. I dream of a nuclear free world, a world which can sustain itself on renewable green energies which can meet the needs of the people not just the ruling class. Now I’m a member of the CND campaign for Nuclear disarmament but these days the CND is not a c campaigning tool it’s more of a front for becoming a labour party bureaucrat which is not what I want. I remain a member as I fundamentally oppose nuclear weapons and the idea of them. I think a socialist world will be nuclear free and a safer world to live in. But just joining a campaign to say we’re against nuclear or signing a petition will never be enough. Only a mass movement of the working class arming themselves with the power and the knowledge to change society on the basis of a socialist society removing the wealth from the 1% and bringing democracy to all for the first time allowing decisions to be decided by the mass’s democratically will put a end to wars, exploitation and the potential for disasters. I for not one minute think this will be straight forward. If changing society was easy they’d have done it already I’m regularly told but it doesn’t make it less of a goal to aim for. A society and a world which offers so much are possible. A world without the threat of nuclear disaster is possible and entirely realizable. Wars are more often than not taken place on the basis of markets and over trade as this global economic crisis deepens lets unite the international working class to oppose disputes and conflicts by over throwing our ruling class’s across the globe to emancipate human beings and uncapping their latent power and knowledge. With extracts taken from http://networkedblogs.com/AG3kg

What is Bourgeois democracy?

The term bourgeois democracy is often put about as describing life under capitalism and how life is for the masses of ordinary people. This blogpost will attempt to describe what democracy is like under capitalism and the limits of democracy under this current system.

Bourgeois democracy essentially is A government that serves in the interests of the bourgeois class. The word Democratic is attached to such a government, because in it all people in such a society have certain freedoms: those who own the means of production , the bourgeoisie, are free to buy and sell labor-power and what is produced by it solely for their own benefit. Those who own only their own ability to labor , the proletariat, are free to sell themselves to any bourgeois who will buy their labor power, for the benefit of maintaining their own survival, and giving greater strength and power to the bourgeoisie.
The state fundamentally represents the interests of one class over others. On this basis Lenin named bourgeois democracy bourgeois dictatorship. On the same token, Lenin made no distinction that the socialist state, being a state that represents the working-class, is a dictatorship of the proletariat.
In no civilized capitalist country does "democracy in general" exist; all that exists is bourgeois democracy, and it is not a question of "dictatorship in general", but of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, i.e., the proletariat, over its oppressors and exploiters, i.e., the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance offered by the exploiters in their fight to maintain their domination.
Vladimir Lenin
First Congress of the Communist International
In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy", "cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.
Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich - that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the "petty" - supposedly petty - details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for "paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., - we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been inclose contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.
When the term democracy is used today we tend to think of using our vote every 5 years to elect a new government to attack us each time. It’s that thought that democracy is tied up in that tiny voting slip you have when you enter the ballot box. Many people consider democracy simply that. But for socialists we see democracy a far wider term with the access to society being just one part. Having democracy over the economic and social situation is key to a truly democratic society. Socialism would truly be democratic and the illusion of what excuse for democracy we have today would be shattered.

I think as capitalism comes under further pressure from its internal contradictions which are bound up within the system the grip on democracy becomes tighter and is limited to the mass’s unless democracy is used too much to affect change which could put the system into danger. Democracy is something which can be picked up and retracted if the ruling class in a given country feel threatened. Such as when a fascist regime is ushered in to protect the bourgeois society from revolution. The idea of democracy is certainly I will return to in the future when it comes to changing society to benefit the many not just the few.

No such thing as a national interest only class interest

We are often told that a certain thing has to happen in the national interest we need to make cuts to reduce our deficit in the national interest is one notable one. But what is this so called national interest?

It certainly doesn’t cover all of us as the 99% are facing all of the cuts while the 1% increases their wealth.

The politicians in the UK and across Europe whether on the centre left or centre right you can hardly tell the difference these days all talk of acting in the national interest but this can be translated to in the interest of the markets, the city and the capitalist system. When Ed Miliband told David Cameron he should be looking after the British interest he meant the city of London’s interest. It is clear to me as a Marxist who sees the world in a class based system not through wish but through reality and the ways things are.

As I explained above the rich and the ruling class do not share the same interests as the poorest in society and the workers the working class’s if you like. The workers wish to improve their life their pay, conditions and living standards all the time while the rich 1% look to hang on to their wealth and only look to invest when they can see a profit opportunity and increasing their already vast wealth’s.

So I for one do not believe there is such thing as a “national interest” a nations interests are bound up in a class based society whose interests are polar opposites.
For me until the class based system of exploitation is abolished for good this will continue to haunt us. With the use of language in a broad sense of a national interest the ruling class and their capitalist politicians who do their bidding like to try and distort class lines and try and catch all in affect claiming we are “all in this together” is another well known one from this present time. It’s to distort the true reason behind the capitalist crisis and also lay the blame at ordinary peoples doors, even though they played no part in such things. Its to pass the burden like is happening right now that we all must pay for this mess we are in and we all spent too much which frankly is just not true at all.
So I and others struggle for a new society a better society based in the interests of all not a fictitious national interest how about a socialist interest.

Under socialism there would not be nations as such any borders at least. This is not possible under capitalism due to the havoc it would cause but under socialism and eventually communism this would be possibly with free moving people as all would have access to what they need there would be no great reason to move about to a better area for a job or house as the idea would be that you could have that where you are if you so wish.

Socialism can only be democratic. At one time Socialism was known also as "social democracy", a phrase which shows well that democratic control would extend to all aspects of social affairs, including the production and distribution of wealth. There is an old socialist slogan which speaks of "government over people" giving way to "the administration of things"; meaning that the public power of coercion, and the government that operates it, will have no place in Socialism.
The State, which is an organisation composed of soldiers, policemen, judges and gaolers charged with enforcing the laws, is only needed in class society for in such societies there is no community of interest, only class conflict. The purpose of government is to maintain law and order in the interests of the dominant class. It is in fact an instrument of class oppression.
In socialism there will be no classes and no built-in class conflicts: everyone will have the same basic social interest. There will be genuine social harmony and community of interest. In these circumstances there is no need for any coercive machine to govern or rule over people. The phrase "socialist government" is a contradiction in terms. Where there is Socialism there is no government and where there is government there is no Socialism.
Those who wrongly assume that government and administration is one and the same thing will have some difficulty in imagining a society without government. A society without administration would indeed be impossible since "society" implies that human beings organise themselves to provide for their needs. But a society without government is both possible and desirable. Socialism will in fact mean the extension of democratic administration to all aspects of social life on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. There will be administrative centres but they will merely be clearing-houses for settling social affairs.
But will not the administrators become the new ruling class? Democratic organisation does indeed involve the delegation of functions to groups and individuals. Such people will be charged by the community with organising necessary social functions. They will be chosen by the community and will be answerable to it. Those who perform the administrative functions in Socialism would be in no position to dominate. They will not be regarded as superior persons, as tends to be the case today, but as social equals doing just an essential job. Nor will they have at their command armies and policemen to enforce their will. There will be no opportunity for bribery and corruption since everybody, including those in administrative jobs, will have free access to the stock of wealth set aside for individual consumption. The material conditions for the rise of a new ruling class would not exist.
The purpose of socialist production will be simply and solely to satisfy human needs. Production solely for use will replace production for the market with a view to profit, in line with the social basis that the means for producing wealth will belong to and be under the democratic control of the entire community. The production and distribution of sufficient wealth to meet the needs of the socialist community as individuals and as a community will be an administrative and organisational problem. It will of course be no small problem but the tools for solving it have already been created by capitalism.


Capitalism has developed technology and social productivity to the point where plenty for all can be produced. A society of abundance has long been technically possible and it is this that is the material basis for Socialism. Capitalism, because it is a class society with production geared to profit-making rather than meeting human needs, cannot make full use of the world-wide productive system it has built up over the past two hundred or so years. Socialism, making full use of the developed methods of production, will alter the purpose of production. Men and women will be producing wealth solely to meet their needs, and not for the profit of the privileged few.
Using techniques for predicting social wants, at present prostituted to the service of capital, socialist society can work out how much and what sort of products and services will be needed over a given period. Men and women will be free to discuss what they would like to be produced. So with social research and after democratic discussion an estimate of what is needed can be made. The next problem is to arrange for these amounts to be produced. Capitalism, in modern computing machines, input-output analysis and information technology, has developed the techniques which socialist society can use.
When the wealth has been produced, apart from that needed to renew and expand the means of production, all will freely take what they feel they need to live and enjoy life. This is what we mean by "free access" There will be no buying and selling, and hence no need for money. What communities and individuals want does not vary greatly except over long periods and it will be a simple administrative task to see that the stores are well-stocked with what people want. If any shortages develop they will not last long. Planned reserves will be produced as a safeguard against unforeseen natural disasters.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is another long-standing socialist slogan. It means what it says: that men and women will freely take part in social production to the best of their abilities and freely take from the fruits of their common labour whatever they need.
Confronted for the first time with this proposal for free distribution according to need, many people are sceptical. What about the lazy man? Or the greedy man? Who will do the dirty work? What will be the incentive to work? These are objections socialists hear time and time again. These are perhaps understandable reactions to what seems, to those who have never thought about it, a startling proposition. As a matter of fact, behind these objections, is a carefully cultivated popular prejudice as to what human nature is. This is dealt in the section "Is human nature a barrier to Socialism?" Suffice it to say here the biological and social science and anthropological research conclusively show that so-called human nature is not a barrier to the establishment of Socialism.
Work, or the expenditure of energy, is both a biological and a social necessity for human beings. They must work to use up the energy generated by eating food. They must work also to provide the food, clothing and shelter they need to live. So in any society, be it feudal, capitalist or socialist, men and women must work. The point at issue is how that work should be organised. A very strong argument against capitalism is that it reduces so central a human activity as work to the drudgery it is for most people, instead of allowing it to provide the pleasure it could, and would be in a socialist society.
To suggest that work could be pleasant often raises a laugh; but this only shows how much capitalism has degraded human life. Most, but certainly not all work under capitalism is done in the service of an employer so that people almost without thinking identify work with employment. Working for an employer is always degrading, often boring and unpleasant and sometimes unhealthy and dangerous. But even under capitalism not all work, as we have defined it, is done in the course of employment. Men and women are working when they clean their cars or dig their gardens or pursue their hobbies -and enjoy themselves at the same time. So close is the misleading association of work and employment that many would not even regard such activities as work. They think anything that is pleasant cannot by definition be work!
There is no reason at all why the work of producing and distributing useful things cannot be as enjoyable as are the leisure activities today. The physical conditions under which work is done can be vastly improved. So can the relations between people at work. Human beings, as free and equal members of a socialist community, will no longer have to sell their mental and physical energies to an employer for a wage or a salary. The degrading wages system will be abolished so that there will be no such thing as employment. Instead work will be done by free men and women co-operating and controlling their conditions of work, getting enjoyment from creating things and doing socially-useful tasks.
In socialist society there will be no social stigma attaching to any kind of work. Nor will there be pressures, such as exist at present, to continue - because they are cheap and therefore profitable to the capitalist -industrial processes which are harmful or dangerous to those engaged in them. In any event, with human needs and enjoyment as the guiding principle, there will be no need for anybody to be tied to the same job continuously. The opportunities for men ands women to develop and exercise their talents and to enjoy doing so will be immense.
Finally, Socialism must be world-wide because the productive system which capitalism has built up and which Socialism will take over is already international. There will be no frontiers and people will be free to travel over the whole earth. Socialism will mean the end to all national oppression -and indeed in its current political sense to all "nations" -and to discriminations on the grounds of race and sex. All the people of the world wherever they live, whatever their skin colour, whatever language they speak, really will be members of one vast human family. Socialism will at last realise the age-old dream of a world-wide community of interests.

Are we heading towards a part police state ?

It was said that if the UK transformed into a police state some day not a lot would have to change. We are one of the most policed societies in the world believe it or not. There is CCTV nearly everywhere you go and all this is put down to the fact terrorism is a bigger problem than ever before.

Well to me as a marxist terrorism is something that if it didn’t exist would be created by the ruling class. It is used to divide people from the class struggle and rule them with a bit of nationalist words to get us all thinking we must protect ourselves against these foreign terrorists wishing to ruin our way of life.
So am I surprised when I hear of this governments latest plans to monitor our activity on the internet and more ? no I rarely am these days.
Proposals for real-time monitoring of email and social media show the government has caved in to the security services
'The Terrorism Act was introduced by Tony Blair with the promise that it would be used only in the gravest of cases. Less than five years later it was used to bar an elderly man [Walter Wolfgangfrom the Labour party conference for heckling.'
If the government were to suggest monitoring every building that each person in the UK visits, and making a note of every conversation they had, the policy would be seen asfurther breach’s on the nanny state which we were told the tories were dead against before the election..
Assurances that the actual content of conversations wouldn't be recorded would be unlikely to help.
It's a telling sign of how many real-world freedoms have been sacrificed online, then, that a government that just two years ago pledged to "reverse the rise of the surveillance state" feels able to propose real-time monitoring of all email and social media communications.
The information stored would include the sender and recipient of an email, the time it was sent, and details of the computer it was sent from. This would build a profile of who contacts whom, with what frequency, and from where.
The government says such measures are essential to counter organised crime and terrorism, citing that 95% of organised crime investigations and "every" major counter-terrorism investigation use communications data. However, this statistic does not show if such information was essential or even useful to these investigations – merely that investigators chose to get hold of communications records on almost every occasion, usually via warrant or use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).
This kind of surveillance is nothing new: it's been gradually expanding in the UK over the past decade, from measures that make it easier to obtain permission to monitor communications, to requiring internet service providers to store information on email communications to all their users. Under Ripa, state employees as junior as Royal Mail officers are allowed to "ping" mobile phones for location information on the basis of a simple, unrecorded, verbal request.
Information about each email sent – the data that would be covered by the new proposals – already has to be stored by providers for at least a year under UK law. The change would make it accessible to intelligence services in real time, presumably to allow for patterns or unusual activity to be spotted.
Such efforts sound impressive, but whether adding to the huge pile of data at the disposal of the UK's intelligence agencies will make us safer is questionable. Trawling big data for suspicious activity is the 21st-century version of finding needles in a haystack. Terrorists are thankfully very rare relative to the size of the population. As such, attempts to identify suspicious patterns of activity may generate many "false positives": examples of innocent behaviour


All this comes in the background to what we hear on G4S security who is now one of the largest if not the largest employers of workers in the world now. A huge private security firm making profit out of security is it any wonder the government who have been found to have links to this company are wishing to have these nuggets of information about us and our habits opened up to a wider audience.

I wonder

Warning against reformism

I was having a talk to a comrade in our party the other day and he was warning us against a tactic that the capitalists could use to help them out of this crisis. One that has been tried before but would not solve the underlying contradictions of capitalism.

As we know the economy in Britain has been based on a financial reliance for some time now and the banks are currently being spanked by capitalist politicians left right and centre. They are falling over themselves to criticise the bankers and their bonuses and we’re hearing terms being introduced a fairer ethical capitalism. If there is such a thing.

But today we have seen more of this idea with Ed Miliband in his speech on “made in Britain”.

Labour leader Ed Multiband is to call for more "patriotism" in manufacturing policy to boost British industry.
In a speech to the manufacturers' organization EEF, he is expected to say protectionism should be avoided but "pride and patriotism" are needed in order for British business to succeed.
He said government should support a 'Made in Britain' mark for products.
Business leaders will suggest measures they want to help "rebalance" the economy over the next few years

This has been floated about several times with the idea of a British investment bank designed to invest in British businesses and manufacturing. This may seem a utopian idea but we could see the state playing a bigger part again as a way of saving the capitalist system from collapse.

Of course the capitalists won’t like this idea straight off but if it means saving their system from ruin and keeping up their profits they may just be tempted. As this financial crisis deepens more radical ideas like this may get more airing. The talk of a fairer capitalism is an attempt to put a nicer face on the exploitation of millions of workers and appear like the system can work for us all. In reality we know differently and we must be prepared to go back to look at “state capitalism” and its ways of working as it could play more of a role in the future.

I am not saying this will happen just saying this could be a possibility for the ruling class to turn to protect their system.

As revolutionary socialists we must learn about state capitalism and take up its meanings. Warning the class that this will not ultimately bring us prosperity and the underlying contradictions of capitalist production will still remain. The contradictions of over production and workers not being able to afford the products they make. This will not also end the periodical boom and busts that capitalism has bred in to it either therefore will not bring fairness and equality to the many still only benefiting the few.

Only a full transformation of society not just state nationalised industry along state capitalist lines but true nationalisation of the banks, top companies and run the economy based on people’s needs not profits of a select few. For this the working class needs to gain power and remove the class system basing production on need first. This can happen under a socialist transformation of society which we must look to convince people of.