Should workers support state intervention ?

Whenever there is a crisis and a huge number of workers are in danger of loosing their jobs such as with Grangemouth last week the thing that comes from the left is to simply nationalise the company in question but very rarely the question of workers control is raised. Simply shouting "public ownership" is the answer to all our woes is wholely inadequate in my opinion. Much like with the big 6 energy companies who are ripping us all off at present the answer from the left is to "nationalise" them everytime. Yet all this is calling for is state capitalism. But would this be benificial to us in any way ? State capitalism was the way of things after the Second World War with many industries being brought into public ownership like the Coal and water industries for example more followed with a national health care system known today as the NHS of course. But the labour government at the time saw it fit to keep the boss's in charge of these state backed companies which meant they were no more democratic or accountable than before. Ok they had huge government funding but remained with teh same boss's as they did d before. This was not socialism and was rightly called state capitalism . "However, that does not answer the question of what we do in the here and now when faced with demands that the welfare state (for the working class, not corporate welfare) and other reforms be rolled back. This attack has been on going since the 1970s, accelerating since 1980. We should be clear that claims to be minimising the state should be taken with a massive pitch of salt as the likes of Reagan were "elected to office promising to downsize government and to 'get the government off the people's back,' even though what he meant was to deregulate big business, and make them free to exploit the workers to increase profits. The state may be influenced by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of capitalist rule. It may intervene in society as a result of people power and by the necessity to keep the system as a whole going, but it is bureaucratic and influenced by the wealthy and big business. Indeed, the onslaught on the welfare state by both Thatcher and Reagan was conducted under a "democratic" mandate although, in fact, these governments took advantage of the lack of real accountability between elections. They took advantage of an aspect of the state if you substitute government ownership for private ownership, "nothing is changed but the stockholders and the management; beyond that, there is not the least difference in the position of the workers." "Privatisation of public services -- whether it is through the direct sale of utilities or through indirect methods such as PFI and PPP -- involves a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the pockets of private business interests. It negates the concept of there being such a thing as 'public service' and subjects everything to the bottom line of profit. In other words it seeks to maximise the profits of a few at the expense of wages and social obligations. Furthermore, privatisation inevitably leads to an attack on wages and working conditions - conditions which have been fought for through years of trade union agitation are done away with at the scratch of a pen." [Gregor Kerr, "Privatisation: the rip-off of public resources", pp. 14-18, Black and Red Revolution, no. 11, p. 16] is important to point out that the 'nationalise it' or 'take it into public ownership' slogan is far too often spun out by people on the left without their taking into account that there is a massive difference between state control/ownership and workers' control/ownership . . . we all know that even if the revenues . . . were still in state ownership, spending it on housing the homeless or reducing hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of the government. "Put simply, state ownership does not equal workers' ownership . Thus an revolutionary socialist approach to this issue would be to reject both privatisation and nationalisation in favour of socialisation, i.e. placing nationalised firms under workers' self-management. In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, they could be self-managed by their workers in association with municipal co-operatives -- based on one member, one vote -- which would be a much better alternative than privatising what is obviously a natural monopoly (which, as experience shows, simply facilitates the fleecing of the public for massive private profit). Christie and Meltzer state the obvious: "It is true that government takes over the control of certain necessary social functions. It does not follow that only the state could assume such control. The postmen are 'civil servants' only because the State makes them such. The railways were not always run by the state, They belonged to the capitalists [and do once more, at least in the UK], and could as easily have been run by the railway workers. " In the long term, of course, the real solution is to abolish capitalism "and both citizens and communities will have no need of the intervention of the State." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 268] In a free society, social self-defence would not be statist but would be similar in nature to trade unionism, co-operatives and pressure groups -- individuals working together in voluntary associations to ensure a free and just society -- within the context of an egalitarian, decentralised and participatory system which eliminates or reduces the problems in the first place SO in conclusion its all about control and workers control at that . Putting it simply you cannot control waht you dont own. Fighting for democratic workers control from below is the only way forward in my opinion when situations like Grangemouth come up again which no doubt they will do as capitalism fails to develop itself out of a huge rutt. with quotes and extracts from http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionD1#secd15

13 trillion in tax evaded each year by super rich, time for socialist change ?

Below i re publish a excellent article bpunblished on the CWI website www.socialistworld.net £13 trillion hidden from tax by super-richwww.socialistworld.net, 04/08/2012 website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI Take the wealth off the 1%! Naomi Byron, Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales), first published in the Socialist A sum of money the size of the US and Japanese Gross Domestic Product (GDP) together is being held in offshore tax havens. This enormous hoard could immediately pay off most of the deficits and debt that are being used to justify austerity, and create millions of jobs. Instead it sits in places like the Cayman Islands, making the tax dodgers that put it there even richer. The report by James Henry for the Tax Justice Network, shows that between £13 trillion and £20 trillion has been looted from national economies so that the super-rich can avoid paying tax. It’s no exaggeration to say that we are ruled by the very people that are dodging tax. In Britain ’Lord’ Ashcroft, who was treasurer of the Tory party for years and has donated more than £10 million to its coffers, has most of his wealth offshore so he won’t pay UK tax. The fortune David Cameron inherited comes partly from his father’s use of tax havens. One rule for us... Trust me, I’m a banker - Youth Fight for Jobs Austerity Games, July 2012, photo Paul Mattsson Far from too much money being spent on public services, it is the banksters, speculators, profiteers and tax dodgers who are the cause of the massive debt burden being used to enforce austerity on the 99%. But when Barclays and Bob Diamond are caught fiddling millions, or HSBC seems to be using their massive finances to help gun-running, money laundering and terrorism, they hardly receive a rap over the knuckles. Henry points out that with the sums looted from sub-Saharan Africa, many of the countries there could have paid off their debts entirely. However in this respect the report misses the point - most "highly indebted poor countries" have already paid off their "debts" many times over. But because of the economic power of imperialism and the legalised robbery of the finance industry, the interest alone has now ballooned to sums that would make a loan shark proud. Not a penny more should go to pay for these fake debts. We have always been told that capitalism may be unfair, but it is the best system available because it creates jobs and wealth. This report exposes the big lie that private profits will be ploughed into creating more wealth. The money sitting in tax havens dwarfs even figures like the £750 billion currently sitting un-invested in the banks of big business in the UK. Capitalism is not only creating misery for billions, it is a bankrupt system, incapable of maintaining current living standards let alone taking society forwards. As long as the banking and finance industries remain under the control of the looters, we have no chance of even enforcing the existing puny laws on the super-rich. Public ownership The banks must be taken into public ownership, and run under democratic workers’ control, in the interests of the 99%. Free personal banking, with cheap loans for small businesses and cheap mortgages. The banking system, like health and education, should be run in the benefits of society as a whole, not a minority of super-rich speculators.

The fair society

So we all know about David Camerons "big society"

He has been banging on about this idea since before the general election which let me tell you is nothing new really

The big society let me describe quickly is the idea of giving power back to the people, allowing people to volunteer and work and unpaid wage and do more for others. I do however feel this is a huge smokescreen to the biggest attack on the welfare state since well ... ever i think.

While people are loosing jobs left right and centre we are being asked by David cameron who has probably never volunteered in his life for us to do more in our communities and volunteer more, for less.

In this modern day Britain we are very time poor and have little time to even stop and think let alone stop and help out by putting something back into your community.

Let me state the idea in principle is not a bad idea but the back drop to how he is implimenting his ideas is all wrong. Sure it would be nice if we all acted more of a community and helped out others more. This is a very good thing but the way Cameron is going about the cuts to public services which would in my view do a very similar job is a big smokescreen in my eyes.

So i propose a fair society, my idea stems from a similar logic, but has one main difference, it is and will be fair for all.

Firstly i would reign in the banks hold them to account for the mess they have brought us. I would consider nationalising them to gain back our money which we lent them to save them. Once we would be in control of the banks in public ownership they would have no choice but to start lending and lending money back to the people who helped them out in the first place.

This would be my first plan. I would then offer fair alternatives to the savage spending cuts going on in the public sector right now. They are wrong and are not nessesary or unavoidable according to the prime minister. The public sector did not create the financial crisis, the disabled didnt create the financial crisis the young and elderly didnt create the financial crisis eitehr.

So why should they be the ones to suffer the most. I should mention a lot more other groups of people including women and low income families will also suffer too.

I believe the big society is not a bad idea in principle and i'm not just opposing its creation just because a tory came up with it. But the way it is being implimented is all wrong and badly orchestrated. Perhaps the timing is wrong, perhaps if we were not in a big financial mess the idea would sit better with people, But when people are loosing jobs the last thing they want to hear is they can do some work for nothing when they have a mortgage to pay and children to feed.

I think we need to look for a more fairer society where the rich wealthy tax dodgers are clamped down on and the banks are not allowed to get away with almost anything. We must stop this ridiculous big bonus culture that has not stopped even through the recession i might add. How a banker and a broker can be worth giving that sort of bonus to on top of a salary for essentially risking huge amounts of our money is incomprehendable to me.

Its like rewarding risk taking, yes its ok if it comes off but what if it doesnt, its our money they are playing with and we should hold them accountable.

People in the media and teh tory party warn us if we regulate the banks and tax them too much they will just up sticks and leave. Well to me, even though i bank with a bank i dont feel this threat is worth worrying about. This may sound nieve but there will always be other banks ready to take the ones who want to leave. Who knows they might be a lot more fairer and a lot better at their jobof holding our money and not taking risks.

I suggest we take a look at cooperative banks and institutions and having part public part private ownership of the banks to always keep them in check.

This is my first part of the fair society idea and outlines some of my feelings on the financial crisis we face right now.