classwarfare

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts

Saturday, 31 August 2013

Cameron's humiliating defeat over Syria attack

Posted on 09:53 by Unknown

British PM David Cameron
from Roger Silverman in London

It was one of those moments that mark a turning point in history: the defeat this week of David Cameron’s parliamentary motion paving the way for Britain’s participation in the planned US military intervention in the Syrian civil war. It came after years of endless futile foreign wars and economic crisis, during which all but the super-rich had suffered crippling drops in living standards and Britain’s once-famous health service and welfare state had been all but destroyed. Food banks, riots and suicides are becoming commonplace features of British life.

Ten years ago, the whole of central London was ringing to the chants of demonstrators marching against the impending war against Iraq. It was the biggest demonstration in British history. A series of catastrophic adventurist foreign wars was launched notwithstanding, with consequences every bit as devastating as the marchers had warned. At a cost of something like £50 billion and the deaths of around 700 British soldiers, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have each in turn been reduced to chaos, anarchy and civil war.  

The financial crash of 2008 and the election in 2010 of the most right-wing government for eighty years further compounded a general feeling of helpless despair. True, there were a couple of huge trade union demonstrations and some national strikes by Britain’s remaining public sector workers; but overall resistance has been dampened by a feeling of fatalistic gloom. If two million people on the streets could be ignored, what was the point of protesting?

But today the public mood is stretched almost to breaking point. Just as in Turkey it took no more than the threat to build a supermarket over one of the few public parks in Istanbul, and in Brazil the mere announcement of a rise in bus fares in one city, to bring millions of people on to the streets for days on end, so too in Britain patience is running out. No one had predicted even the possibility that a government decision to go to war yet again could run aground. There were no mass demonstrations; just a mounting underlying sense of mute outrage, strong enough to impel even some quite unlikely forces to oppose military action this time: forces that included Britain’s new populist far-right party UKIP, and 39 MPs from the governing Tory and Liberal Democrat parties, who defied the party whips to oppose the government. The mood was powerful enough even to stiffen the normally wobbly backbone of the dithering Labour leader Ed Miliband, who had originally intended to support military action (though, naturally, with the usual token reservations). The government motion had been expected to be just a formality; no media commentator had seriously even considered the possibility that it could be defeated.

The outcome is an utter humiliation for Cameron: the prime minister of a former empire who declares war and then has to mumble apologetically: "OK, I get it. The war's off then". This spectacle will give heart to millions of people who up to now have been demoralised by years of unremitting attacks. An uprising like those in Turkey and Brazil may not yet be imminent in Britain; but the spell has been broken. It is proved at last: even this government can be forced to retreat.
Read More
Posted in Britain, middle east, Syria, War | No comments

Saturday, 27 July 2013

UK returns to growth, but what about investment?

Posted on 07:27 by Unknown
by Michael Roberts

This week, the UK’s Office for National Statistics announced that the British economy had expanded by 0.6% in the three months May to June. All the main sectors of the economy contributed to growth – manufacturing, services and construction.  The media greeted the news with some open euphoria, but secretly tinged with caution.  And caution would be right.  These preliminary figures could easily be revised down.  And even though it appears that the UK economy has not slipped back into a technical recession (defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction), the recovery, just as in many other advanced capitalist economies since the trough of the Great Recession in mid-2009, has been pitifully poor.

Even if we take out the fall in North Sea oil and gas production, the average annual growth rate in the UK over the past four years has been just 1.3%. That compares with the credit and property fuelled annual growth of 3.3% in the decade before the financial crash and a longer-term trend growth rate of around 2.5%.   And in the productive sector of the economy, the situation remains bad.  Manufacturing output is still over 10% below its 2008 peak, whereas the services sector has nearly recovered all the ground lost in the recession.  But the overall economy is still 3.3% below its 2008 peak, some five years on.
bluegraph_tcm77-319485
Exports remain very weak, the budget deficit remains large (and yet to reduce this remains the main aim of this ‘austerity’ government coalition).  At best, the UK economy will grow about 1% in real terms this year.  That is half the rate of the US and much the same as the core of Europe, if better than the depression-struck economies of southern Europe. Median incomes in real terms have declined sharply in the two years to 2011-12 and are back to the levels of 2001-02. Benefits and tax credits are being cut. So real incomes will likely fall further. At best, they could stabilise at the ten-year low they have reached.

There is one overriding cause of the failure of the major capitalist economies to engineer a significant recovery in economic fortunes and thus begin to create jobs (full-time ones) and improve real incomes.  It is the lack of investment.  Government investment has been slashed everywhere as the easy sacrifice on the altar of austerity.  But investment in the capitalist sector also remains anywhere between 15-25% below the peak level in 2008 in most leading economies, including the UK (-24.8%).  And that is despite a record high mass of profits in the US and large cash hoards in the major companies across Europe.  The capitalist sector would prefer to hold cash, or buy back its shares or pay record high dividends rather that invest in new equipment, plants or employees, even though everywhere governments have slashed corporate tax rates and introduced more allowances. Why?

Well, as I have shown in previous posts, the mass of profits may have improved but the rate of profit for UK companies is well below peak.  The return on investment in risky productive capital does not match the returns to be made in driving up the share price or in buying safe and guaranteed government paper.  As long as that lasts, there will be no sustained recovery, just a crawl.
 UK business investment and net return on capital
Read More
Posted in Britain, economics, profits | No comments

Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Royal Baby: Britain's leading terrorist family adds another member.

Posted on 09:03 by Unknown
A long life of thievery and plunder
by Sean O'Torrain

The Windsor family which make up the outfit which sits at the head of British capitalism is a family of international terrorists, war criminals and thieves. They are now celebrating that they have got a new heir. And a male heir at that. Sexism is far from dead as we can see with the gushing over this male child.

It is not only British imperialism that is relieved with the birth. Capitalism worldwide is relieved. In spite of the collapse of Stalinism which gave it a big boost, in spite of the refusal of the workers leaders to fight, Imperialism has been a little shaky of late. The economic bust in 2008 undermined confidence in its system. The never before experienced mass movements world wide have further weakened it. There has been increasing division between the major powers. The massive spying on each other has not helped. The rise of China and the increasing aggressive stance of Japan have been no help either. The Catholic church one of the major institutions of world capitalism has been having its troubles too.

What better way to divert attention than to celebrate the birth of a child. British imperialism will keep a close eye on this one after what happened with Diana who refused to go along with their dictates. She most probably paid for this with her life. I would like to raise on this blog what socialists and especially socialists in Britain say in the present situation. Sarcastic and or agitational remarks are not adequate. What is the program and the demands to end the rule of these bunch of international terrorists, war criminals and thieves.

We can calculate their wealth. We can show how far this would go to rebuild the health service and schools etc. This would be easy.

The supporters of the monarchy say it brings in tourists and makes money. Well they still can do this and even better. The tourists can be taken round the castles and palaces and told where the money came from to build each one, from the plundering of Canada, India, Asia, Africa, Ireland, etc. The tourists can be attracted by coming to see the idiot Charles working at a real job, perhaps in the gardens of one of these palaces. This would be a real draw.  The rest of the lot also working at real jobs, jobs that are commensurate with their skills would bring the tourists flocking in. It should not hard to get jobs which would fall in that category.

End the plundering of the parasites. I would be interested in hearing what the demands and program of socialists in Britain are to this end.
Read More
Posted in Britain | No comments

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

The SSP and the fight for a Better Left in Scotland

Posted on 20:38 by Unknown
Colin Fox on Edinburgh Mayday march 2013
The Scottish Socialist Party's Colin Fox
From Frontline, an independent Scottish Marxist Journal. Via Links an International Journal of Socialist Renewal

by Colin Fox

I attended the Frontline fringe meeting on ‘The prospects for Left unity’ at the Scottish Socialist Party conference in Edinburgh recently and enjoyed listening to Gregor Gall (SSP) and Pete Ramand (ISG) outline the issues facing us. Whilst nothing new arose from the discussion it nonetheless offered a chance to examine the issues afresh with representatives from the SWP, ISG and ISN. So I welcome this further opportunity to calmly consider the position facing those of us committed to building a broad based, mass socialist party in Scotland.

Looking at the left in Scotland today reminds me of Tony Benn’s observation, offered to me as a young socialist some 30 years ago, ‘there are too many socialist parties and not enough socialists.’

 In this article I look at the current situation, the lessons of previous successes, the type of programme and model of unity we need, the impediments to unity and offer suggestions on how progress might nonetheless be made, and last but not least, I consider the views some have presented about abandoning the need for a party altogether. Inevitably an article like this can only scratch the surface of this debate, but I offer it nonetheless.

Before I consider all those issues however I feel compelled to focus this discussion on one incontrovertible truth, the Scottish Socialist Party remains the most successful Left unity model in post war Scottish history. That fact seems to be lost on many people, not least those former SSP ‘comrades’ subsequently blinded by their desire to bury us. I would respectfully suggest that instead of writing off the SSP they might be better served studying why we succeeded and what lessons are to be learned from that early experience. No student serious about this discussion would surely dispute that such an exercise offers a treasury of valuable information?

The SSP’s emergence in 1998/9 was no accident. Rather it was the result of a strategic political decision and a lengthy process of deliberation, discussion and agreement. Scottish Militant Labour, the project’s driving influence, began making overtures to others on the anti-capitalist Left in Scotland in 1995/6 about the possibility of a political realignment. This realignment would give voice to substantial sections of the Scottish working class who felt disenfranchised by Labour’s historic lurch to the right. Contact was sought and made with like-minded comrades from the Labour Left, the SNP Left (gathered around Liberation magazine), the Communist Party of Scotland, trade union activists, intellectuals, peaceniks, direct action environmental campaigners and many non-aligned socialists across Scotland.

Agreement was reached on a substantial political programme based on shared anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, pro public ownership policies and not least a pro-Independence programme and to enlist SML’s skills base, its finances, its elected representatives, its full time organisers, its weekly newspaper [Scottish Socialist Voice] and its membership to help launch the Scottish Socialist Alliance. We had been heavily involved in campaigns like the Liverpool Dockers Support Group, the Hands off our Water campaign, the Glacier Metals dispute on Glasgow’s Southside and we had worked well together on single issues. Through this Alliance we achieved a remarkable degree of political unity, cohesion and trust around a programme that enjoyed the support of everyone on most key issues. Where there was discord on policy, such as Ireland, we agreed to ‘park’ those debates for the time being having reached the maximum consensual agreement possible.

On top of this programmatic unity we built organisational strength and trust by adopting a groundbreaking constitution which included a series of clauses based on a pluralist and democratic model. Comrades from SML, for example, recognising the need to display unity and respect in action as much as in words, suggested all platforms, tendencies and groups should have equal voting rights regardless of their numerical strength. This was an important commitment designed to emphasise the politically pluralist nature of the new alliance and build the necessary understanding, trust and respect between all the groups involved.

The undoubted success of the SSA – modest at first – developed into the Scottish Socialist Party. This crucial step from a loose alliance to a tighter party was deemed necessary if we were to win a seat in the inaugural Holyrood elections of 1999. We felt this victory was within our reach and we saw the huge electoral opportunity it offered in gaining further political credibility and mass popular support.

Of course not everyone on the Left joined in this left unity project. The Socialist Labour Party of Arthur Scargill for example rejected the idea as they did not support Independence and also opposed the ‘bottom up’ democratic structure of the new party preferring a powerful hegemonic role for Scargill instead. They were nonetheless an important part of the Left in Scotland at that time and went on to stand against the SSP in the 1999 Holyrood elections. Despite polling more votes across Scotland they did not win any seats. Had there been one left candidate in each region we would have won 5 socialist MSP’s.

The Socialist Workers Party also dismissed the SSA/SSP project out of hand. In fact the SWP denounced the SSP as ‘reformist’ and ‘nationalist’ because we called for an independent socialist Scotland. Whereas until recently they have been ambivalent on the issue of Independence at that time they opposed it. They preferred to call for a vote for Labour in 1997. ‘Vote Labour and build a socialist alternative’ was their slogan as we in the SSA were building that very ‘alternative’. To be fair they did change their minds when the SSP won a seat at Holyrood and tripled our membership in the 12 months following.

The SSP continued to operate on this pluralist basis with an unparalleled democratic constitution unmatched anywhere else on the left. We enshrined open platform rights for all registered tendencies including the newly joined SWP with branches meeting fortnightly, elected Regional Committees, a quarterly National Committee and an annual delegate Conference whose decisions were sovereign.
We built the SSP inside and outside Parliament and confounded sceptics inside and outside the left with our progress. We effectively led the anti-war movement in Scotland and were present on every picket line, community fight back and progressive campaign in the land. In 2003 we won 6 MSP’s, secured 131,000 votes for a full-blooded socialist programme and changed the face of Scottish politics entirely.

We soon had 3,000 members in 80 branches organised across 7 regions.
And what are the lessons? That with a pluralist, inclusive, democratic and bold orientation to the masses, in particular to new layers of activists entering the fray, it was possible to build a popular and effective broad, socialist party. This impressive achievement was widely acknowledged and respected.

SSP Lives On

The SSP remains at the heart of an albeit diminished left in Scotland today. Yet there has been a tendency for many on the left to write the SSP’s political obituary over the past few years. And the words of the American author and wit Mark Twain seem most apt here. ‘Rumours of my death’ he famously noted ‘have been greatly exaggerated’.

And as the National Convenor/Spokesman of the SSP throughout the last 8 years I pay tribute to the incredible dedication, unbreakable loyalty and personal nobility of those hundreds of members who stuck with their party, and indeed who joined it afresh, and carried out important groundbreaking work often in the face of ‘tortuous’ provocation. We defended our party in the bourgeois courts, in the bourgeois press, and most importantly of all, in the court of working class public opinion despite being vilified and blackened by almost everyone including so called former ‘comrades’ to a degree non-members can barely imagine.

So I feel duty bound to insist, and here I put it most modestly, that the SSP has a great deal of experience, judgement and knowledge to offer this debate. Those who talk of a ‘post SSP’ political landscape are guilty of wishful thinking. The Scottish Socialist Party, now 15 years old, has every intention of being here in another 15 years!

Despite the obvious setback the Sheridan debacle inflicted on our project, and I will return to that presently, the SSP today remains the only socialist party in Scotland with an elected Councillor(SSP Cllr Jim Bollan in West Dumbartonshire), the only party with a fortnightly socialist newspaper edited, printed and published in Scotland (the Scottish Socialist Voice), the only socialist party with a seat on the Yes Scotland Advisory Board, with a network of full time organisers and branches throughout Scotland, active on the streets, in communities and in the trade unions. Moreover in former MSP’s John McAllion and Campbell Martin we have two figures hugely respected within the Labour and SNP Left respectively. And last but not least we have a profound knowledge of working class struggle in Scotland, both at community and workplace levels, with an unrivalled track record of engaging in such struggles raising our socialist vision and alternatives.

So whilst I have no intention of belittling anyone else’s role, I am sure no one will want to see the SSP denied the respect we are due.

A Better Left in Scotland

All that having been said I entirely accept the Left in Scotland could and should be doing far better. Our shared frustration then must surely compel us to re-examine what progress might be made.
On the positive side there is much that unites us on policy. Nor do we disagree by and large about the possibilities for advancing socialist ideas. I will therefore not take up much space here outlining those possibilities suffice it to say that the worst economic recession in 80 years is forcing many people to draw conclusions favourable to ours. And their widespread experience, of falling living standards and corrupt mainstream politics, opens up minds previously closed to us. Moreover the movements growing in opposition to austerity and the cuts augurs well for the left. And the rising Independence movement provides further substantial possibilities for advance as Stephen Maxwell points out in his book ‘Arguments for Independence’.

Yet whilst we can be positive about the strength of the programme we share and the rise, albeit uneven, in working class consciousness we must all equally recognise that the Lefts divisions often confuse, demoralise and even anger many sections of the working class looking to us for assistance and leadership.

What then are the impediments to progress and how can they be ameliorated?
If ‘we agree on 90% of issues and disagree on 10% ’ how profound is the 10%?
There is certainly a fundamental difference between those of us who believe you start with a socialist party and try to build it and those who aim to transform existing non-socialist parties like Labour or the SNP. Whilst I respect all tactical considerations, for me this ‘entryism’ appears pointless as Labour continues to move further and further to the right and encompass a neo-liberal model that is the antithesis of social democracy far less socialism. So whilst I respect those socialists like Neil Findlay, MSP, who argues (in ‘The Scottish Road to Socialism’ 2013) that since Labour and the SNP enjoy mass support the Left must work inside them otherwise it confines itself to the electoral wilderness, I think this position is just not credible or sustainable. Either way it is certainly no basis for uniting the left in Scotland.

So if the first aim is a common programme, the second is surely an agreed political orientation. And the best way to build an effective broad left party is by orienting to new layers of activists not joining neo-liberal parties.

There is one other issue that cannot be avoided in any honest examination of the prospects for principled, sustainable Left unity in Scotland today. And that is the rather euphemistically referenced ‘Sheridan’ issue. Tommy Sheridan’s decision to sue a tabloid newspaper over stories he knew to be true was foolhardy in the extreme. His demand that all 3,000 members of the SSP traipse into court and perjure themselves for him was worse. But his all out attempt to destroy the Scottish Socialist Party did more damage to the socialist cause here than Margaret Thatcher could ever dream of. And despite a 3 years prison sentence, convicted on several counts of perjury, he has never shown an ounce of remorse. Were he capable of taking responsibility for his actions he might eventually be forgiven. In the meantime he remains an utterly divisive and widely ridiculed political figure. Too many people would not work with him again nor trust him not to wreck the socialist movement a second time.

After examining these impediments what do we find? Is any progress possible? I believe it is. After all we work well together in the Yes Scotland movement, in the Radical Independence Campaign, in Trades Unionists for Independence, in the anti-Trident coalition, in local cuts groups and against the hated ‘bedroom tax’.

European Elections

The SSP is keen for example to engage with others on the left to examine the possibility of presenting a common programme and joint slate for next years European Parliament elections. Now it might be possible and it might not, but we are fully prepared to give the project our best efforts.
Clearly working together in joint campaigns with shared goals is one thing, constructing an organised mass party is quite another. The SSP has developed a comprehensive socialist programme over the years that takes up the rights of working class people and links their immediate concerns and struggles to policies that challenge capitalism and promote socialism. No other group on the left in Scotland has invested as much in such a rounded-out socialist challenge to capitalism that can appeal to broad masses of working class people.

A Party or A Movement?

And this brings me to the question others have posed in this discussion ‘Is such a party desirable’? In my view it is essential. For me there are no realistic or workable alternatives to a party. I hear people talk about how the era of political parties is over, bypassed by events and that single-issue campaigns, networks or groups, like the ‘Occupy’ movement, are the way ahead. And I must say whilst I listen carefully to their case I must confess I have never found it persuasive. Groups, networks and alliances have their place of course but they are transitional. The Scottish Socialist Alliance for example was always clear it would aim to become a party.

And as I understand for example that the SNP has just reached 25,000 members in Scotland it would appear they have found a way forward as a party.

There are in truth no short cuts to party building and no substitute for painstaking effort and patient party organisation. The distilled experience and learning a party collects is invaluable to the socialist struggle. There is a quote Jack Straw celebrated as leader of the National Union of Students. Unfashionably it was from Stalin and went ‘When the political line has been decided organisation is everything’. Dare I say it, there is much sense in Josep Djugashvili’s famous aphorism. To suggest the socialist struggle can be advanced in the face of ruthless capitalism and the state, its political instruments and our political enemies without an organised, disciplined and effective party organisation is to deny history and to prepare for failure.

So whom are we all aiming at in trying to build this new party? For me it’s the new layers of young activists changing their political allegiances and open to democratic, pluralist and above all socialist ideas. And in this regard the Yes movement and the Radical Independence Campaign are key. A ‘Yes’ vote in the 2014 Independence Referendum will transform politics in Scotland and throughout Britain. That prospect offers up enormous opportunities for the left in the run up to the crucial 2016 Holyrood elections where we again have a realistic prospect of winning seats.

And what model of party is required? For me the SSP at its height remains the most successful, democratic, plural and disciplined example I’ve ever seen. Regardless of whether you agreed with it or not it had, and still has, a coherent narrative with a fully worked out anti-capitalist programme. The SSP remains a central feature of the socialist landscape in Scotland and can again provide the basis for building the broad based, mass party of socialism we desire. Our party has seen clear and welcome signs of renewal these past few months. We have seen a tremendous improvement in the numbers attending our public meetings up and down the country for example on ‘The case for an Independent socialist Scotland’ with John McAllion, Campbell Martin, John Finnie, myself and Sandra Webster. More than 100 people have applied to join via our national website in the past two months as our support for an Independent socialist Scotland and our opposition to the bedroom tax and the worst recession in 80 years reaches a wider and wider audience. The Scottish working class badly needs a well-organised mass party of socialism and the SSP has proven it can play that role with aplomb. Toughened by recent experiences, this time we are wiser.

The Scottish Socialist Party remains open to all genuine Left unity initiatives but this must mean more than stitching together tiny groups on the Left. It must involve a rather more ambitious vision attracting those considerable sections of the Left who are not members of any political party.

Notes

‘Scotland’s Road to Socialism, Time to Choose’ [2013] Edited by Gregor Gall, Published by Scottish Left Review Press, Biggar.
‘Scotland’s Economy: the case for Independence’ [2013] Published by The Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
‘Arguing for Independence’ [2012] By Stephen Maxwell, Published by Luath Press Ltd, Edinburgh
Read More
Posted in Britain, marxism, politics, socialism | No comments

Saturday, 1 June 2013

Woolwich killing, hypocrisy and censorship.

Posted on 18:36 by Unknown
The organizers of this blog unconditionally oppose the killing of the soldier in Woolwich London. It and the nature it took has increased support for the racists and right wing in Britain and in turn weakened the working class. This killing throws the movement back and our blog unconditionally opposes it.

However we would like to point out the hypocrisy and censorship of the mass media of the capitalists which is whipping up these right wing and racist and anti Islam feelings. To do so we would like to put this killing in context.

Last month, that is May, over 1,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq. This is a direct result and the responsibility of the US and its allies invading Iraq. Then there are the continuing drone attacks which kill innocent civilians in any country US imperialism wishes to attack.

Then there is the force feeding in Guantanamo Bay. Over 60 of the prisoners who are on hunger strike have been cleared to be released but the US government will not release them. Instead they are force feeding them. This means they are strapped to a chair, a hose is forced up their nose and a mixture of nutrients pumped into them. Imagine the pain and panic this causes. A drug with severe side affects is given to prevent nausea but if the prisoners do vomit up the nutrients then they are strapped down again and the process repeated.

This is torture.

Where in the capitalist mass media is the outrage about these events. Where for that matter is the outrage in large sections of the population at these events. Yes we must condemn the Woolwich killing, but we also must condemn the torture and killings of imperialism which out number many times over the Woolwich killings. hypocrisy

Sean
Read More
Posted in Britain, terrorism | No comments

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Woolwich UK: British Muslims hack young soldier to death in street.

Posted on 16:51 by Unknown
We will have more on this tragic event but while this blog does not support acts like these in any way we recognize it is the inevitable savagery of imperialism's attempt to control the world.
Read More
Posted in Britain, terrorism | No comments

Monday, 20 May 2013

The Death of Baroness Thatcher

Posted on 05:42 by Unknown

The Death of Baroness Thatcher
after Patricia McGuigan and Alexander Pope

Her hair was a headmistress dreaming
of again being allowed to use the cane.

Her ambition was a brass door knocker
on what was once a council house.

Her brain was a conversation about money
Sir Keith Joseph had with himself.

Her back passage was Basil Fawlty
complaining about car strikes to the Major.

The look in her eyes was a shoot to kill policy
in Northern Ireland.

Her sentimentality was a spinster’s thimble
in which you could fit what’s left of the Tory Party
in Scotland, Liverpool, Manchester,
Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle...

Her clenched fist was a skinhead
in nothing but Union Jack y-fronts.

She said the word ‘Europe’
like a woman coming down
from a severe overdose of Brussels Sprouts.

Her Christmases were dinner at Chequers
with a recently deceased sex offender.

Her ‘out’, ‘no’, ‘never’
were striking print workers
being given the cat of nine tails.

Her fingers and thumbs
were ten riot shields in a row.

Her final nightmare
was the silent, black eyed ghosts
of Joe Green and David Jones *
who did nothing but each offer her
a hand.

KEVIN HIGGINS


* David Gareth Jones, from Wakefield, died amid violent scenes outside Ollerton colliery in Nottinghamshire on 15 March 1984. On 15 June Joe Green was crushed to death by a lorry while picketing in Ferrybridge, West Yorkshire. 

Kevin Higgins is a poet in Galway Ireland
Read More
Posted in Britain, ireland | No comments

Saturday, 27 April 2013

Thatcher and the coup in Britain.

Posted on 10:27 by Unknown
Dance on Thatcher's grave, but remember there has been a coup in Britain

By John Pilger. 
25 April 2013

In the wake of Thatcher's departure, I remember her victims. Patrick Warby's daughter, Marie, was one of them. Marie, aged five, suffered from a bowel deformity and needed a special diet. Without it, the pain was excruciating. Her father was a Durham miner and had used all his savings. It was winter 1985, the Great Strike was almost a year old and the family was destitute. Although her eligibility was not disputed, Marie was denied help by the Department of Social Security. Later, I obtained records of the case that showed Marie had been turned down because her father was "affected by a Trade dispute".

The corruption and inhumanity under Thatcher knew no borders. When she came to power in 1979, Thatcher demanded a total ban on exports of milk to Vietnam. The American invasion had left a third of Vietnamese children malnourished. I witnessed many distressing sights, including infants going blind from a lack of vitamins. "I cannot tolerate this," said an anguished doctor in a Saigon paediatric hospital, as we looked at a dying boy. Oxfam and Save the Children had made clear to the British government the gravity of the emergency. An embargo led by the US had forced up the local price of a kilo of milk up to ten times that of a kilo of meat. Many children could have been restored with milk. Thatcher's ban held.

In neighbouring Cambodia, Thatcher left a trail of blood, secretly. In 1980, she demanded that the defunct Pol Pot regime - the killers of 1.7 million people - retain its "right" to represent their victims at the UN. Her policy was vengeance on Cambodia's liberator, Vietnam. The British representative was instructed to vote with Pol Pot at the World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from providing help to where it was needed more than anywhere on earth.

To conceal this outrage, the US, Britain and China, Pol Pot's main backer, invented a "resistance coalition" dominated by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge forces and supplied by the CIA at bases along the Thai border. There was a hitch. In the wake of the Irangate arms-for-hostages debacle, the US Congress had banned clandestine foreign adventures. "In one of those deals the two of them liked to make," a senior Whitehall official told the Sunday Telegraph, "President Reagan put it to Thatcher that the SAS should take over the Cambodia show. She readily agreed."

In 1983, Thatcher sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in its own distinctive brand of terrorism. Seven-man SAS teams arrived from Hong Kong, and British soldiers set about training "resistance fighters" in laying minefields in a country devastated by genocide and the world's highest rate of death and injury as a result of landmines.

I reported this at the time, and more than 16,000 people wrote to Thatcher in protest. "I confirm," she replied to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the government of John Major admitted to parliament that the SAS had indeed trained the "coalition".  "We liked the British," a Khmer Rouge fighter later told me. "They were very good at teaching us to set booby traps. Unsuspecting people, like children in paddy fields, were the main victims."

When the journalists and producers of ITV's landmark documentary, Death on the Rock, exposed how the SAS had run Thatcher's other death squads in Ireland and Gibraltar, they were hounded by Rupert Murdoch's "journalists", then cowering behind the razor wire at Wapping. Although exonerated, Thames TV lost its ITV franchise.

In 1982, the Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano, was steaming outside the Falklands exclusion zone. The ship offered no threat, yet Thatcher gave orders for it to be sunk. Her victims were 323 sailors, including conscripted teenagers. The crime had a certain logic. Among Thatcher's closest allies were mass murderers - Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, responsible for "many more than one million deaths" (Amnesty International). Although the British state had long armed the world's leading tyrannies, it was Thatcher who brought a crusading zeal to the deals, talking up the finer points of fighter aircraft engines, hard-bargaining with bribe-demanding Saudi princes. I filmed her at an arms fair, stroking a gleaming missile. "I'll have one of those!" she said.

In his arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. These were her "boys". Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of her boys, mostly cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam on his famous white couch. There is Douglas Hurd and there is a grinning David Mellor, also of the Foreign Office, around the time his host was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds. Following this atrocity, the Thatcher government doubled trade credits to Saddam.

Perhaps it is too easy to dance on her grave. Her funeral was a propaganda stunt, fit for a dictator: an absurd show of militarism, as if a coup had taken place. And it has. "Her real triumph", said another of her boys, Geoffrey Howe, a Thatcher minister, "was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible."

In 1997, Thatcher was the first former prime minister to visit Tony Blair after he entered Downing Street. There is a photo of them, joined in rictus: the budding war criminal with his mentor. When Ed Milliband, in his unctuous "tribute", caricatured Thatcher as a "brave" feminist hero whose achievements he personally "honoured", you knew the old killer had not died at all.
Read More
Posted in Britain | No comments

Sunday, 21 April 2013

Why sell back the viable banks?

Posted on 12:54 by Unknown
by Michael Roberts

As the scandals in the banks globally mount up since the financial collapse of 2008-9 (see my post, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/the-never-ending-banking-story/), with the latest being the Cyprus disaster (see my post, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/cyprus-aphrodite-into-hell/), you’d think that at least the more radical elements of the economics profession would see the merits of taking into and keeping key banks in an economy in public or common ownership.  Then they could provide a proper public service for households and small businesses and provide financial support to any national plan for investment in infrastructure, the environment and jobs.

And yet there is little sign that most radical policies for reform of the financial sector would include public ownership.  Instead we are offered more effective regulation, tighter capital adequacy minimums, or divorcing speculative activities from retail banking, or breaking the banks up into smaller units so they are not ‘too big to fail’.  Take the position of leftist economist Yanis Varoufakis (http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/).  In a recent post on his blog (27 March), he explained his position on what to do about the Cypriot banks.  “I have noticed that a number of commentators have misunderstood my position on the Cyprus debacle and, more generally, on the question of how failed banks ought to be dealt with. As I made clear yesterday, I am all for bailing in the creditors, even the uninsured depositors, of failed banks. In fact I have been arguing this case for three years (see for example our Modest Proposal) so as to avoid the zombification of Europe’s financial system. BUT, I have also insisted that this must be accomplished centrally, by an ESM which, in collaboration with the ECB, takes equity in the failed banks, shrinks them appropriately, recapitalises the viable parts and then sells off the latter to private investors at a profit (TARP and Sweden circa 1992-like – my emphasis).

I have highlighted in bold that part of Varoufakis’ explanation. Even he sees no reason to keep the banks in public ownership once they have been cleaned up.  His solution is the ‘Swedish’ one, where banks were nationalised, cleaned up at taxpayer expense and then sold back to the private sector to recoup the public money – in Sweden’s case that deal broke even for the taxpayer. But why reprivatise these viable banks and return them to a new set of people set to commit the same disasters and scandals as the previous owners? Indeed, that is what happened in the financial collapse of 2008, with many banks in different countries owned by the state originally but sold off.

I am reminded of what Lenin said about public ownership of the banks in contrast (Nationalisation of the Banks, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 25, pages 323-369): “The banks, as we know, are centres of modern economic life, the principal nerve centres of the whole capitalist economic system. To talk about “regulating economic life” and yet evade the question of the nationalisation of the banks means either betraying the most profound ignorance or deceiving the “common people” by florid words and grandiloquent promises with the deliberate intention of not fulfilling these promises.

It
is absurd to control and regulate deliveries of grain, or the production and distribution of goods generally, without controlling and regulating bank operations. It is like trying to snatch at odd kopeks and closing one’s eyes to millions of rubles. Banks nowadays are so closely and intimately bound up with trade (in grain and everything else) and with industry that without “laying hands” on the banks nothing of any value, nothing “revolutionary-democratic”, can be accomplished.

What,
then, is the significance of nationalisation of the banks?  It is that no effective control of any kind over the individual banks and their operations is possible (even if commercial secrecy, etc., were abolished) because it is impossible to keep track of the extremely complex, involved and wily tricks that are used in drawing up balance sheets. founding fictitious enterprises and subsidiaries, enlisting the services of figureheads, and so on, and so forth. Only by nationalising the banks can the state put itself in a position to know where and how, whence and when, millions and billions of rubles flow. And only control over the banks, over the centre, over the pivot and chief mechanism of capitalist circulation, would make it possible to organise real and not fictitious control over all economic life, over the production and distribution of staple goods, and organise that “regulation of economic life” which otherwise is inevitably doomed to remain a ministerial phrase designed to fool the common people. Only control over banking operations, provided they were concentrated in a single state bank, would make it possible, if certain other easily-practicable measures were adopted, to organise the effective collection of income tax in such a way as to prevent the concealment of property and incomes; for at present the income tax is very largely a fiction.

The
advantages accruing to the whole people from nationalisation of the banks would be enormous. The availability of credit on easy terms for the small owners, for the peasants, would increase immensely. As to the state, it would for the first time be in a position first to review all the chief monetary operations, which would be unconcealed, then to control them, then to regulate economic life, and finally to obtain millions and billions for major state transactions, without paying the capitalist gentlemen sky-high “commissions” for their “services”.


This seems like an excellent summary of the benefits of public ownership of the banks, including stopping privately-owned banks from helping tax dodgers avoid tax and criminals launder money, apart from losing and stealing money themselves.

And would taking over the banks and keeping them in public ownership once they are viable and clean again be popular?  Well, a recent poll in the UK found that fewer than one in 10 voters would back a swift return of Royal Bank of Scotland to the private sector and more than three-quarters believe it should stay in public hands for the time being (according to a new YouGov poll).  This stands in direct opposition to the UK government’s plan to sell off its 82% stake in the bailed out RBS before the general election in May 2015, even though – on current prices – this would involve a loss of around £20bn.  Only 9% of respondents told YouGov they would favour “a sale in the near future” to recoup whatever money is available now. Some 44% favour holding on to the stake in the hope that the share price will eventually climb, while a large minority of 32% favour holding on to RBS “for the forseeable future” and running the Edinburgh-based institution “as a nationalised bank”. Together, that means 76% are against the option of early disposal – a crushing overall majority.
The views of the British public are eminently sensible.  In its latest Fiscal Monitor, the IMF calculated that around $1.7trn had been spent directly by taxpayers in the advanced economies to ‘bail out’ the banking sector in the financial crisis and so far only €914bn has been recovered through the sale of assets and other revenues collected from the bailed out banks. So 7% of 2012 global GDP has been used and only 3.7% of GDP has been recovered.  Indeed, only in the US is the taxpayer anywhere close to getting its money back (at 4.2% of GDP compared to a bailout of 4.8% of GDP spent).  In most other economies, the recovery rate is less than 25% after five years.
Financial sector support

Most taxpayers are never likely to get their money back.  But governments are waiting for the first opportunity to sell the taxpayers stake in the banks, even if it is at a loss.  And, of course, the idea that the state should own and run these banks in the interests of the majority is an anathema.
Read More
Posted in banks, Britain, EU, marxism | No comments

Sunday, 14 April 2013

Obama budget: Welfare capitalism – it’s just great!

Posted on 11:22 by Unknown
by Michael Roberts

President Obama’s administration announced its proposed budget for the year beginning October 2014.  The US Congress is paralysed between a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a Democrat majority in the Senate.  So the Obama budget won’t get through in its present form.  Nevertheless, that is not a lot to choose between the two parties on their objectives for the budget and public sector spending for next year and onwards.  Both sides agree that governments deficits are too large and public sector debt levels must be reined in.  The difference is that the Republicans want no tax increases to do it, while the Democrats want some.  But both agree that welfare spending is ‘too high’.  So just as in the UK with the Conservative-led coalition, Obama proposes sweeping reductions in real federal spending on the poor, unemployed, the sick and the old.

One of the most pernicious measures proposed is to change the inflation index used to increase state social security pensions and welfare payments.  I have commented on the iniquity of this before (see http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/the-fiscal-cliff-okuns-law-and-the-long-depression/).  The impact of using the so-called ‘chained CPI’  to index pensions will be to reduce annual increases in pensions and tax thresholds by 5% over 12 years, hitting living standards for average American households six times more than the rich. Over a course of an average retirement, future pensions would be reduced by 10%.  Of course, it is even worse with the Republican proposals for the budget,which combine tax cuts for the better-off with a huge reduction in federal spending, by half in cash terms and by 20% of GDP by 2023.

But apparently there is no alternative as the US economy cannot afford decent pensions that people have paid into through social security contributions over their working lives and/or proper federal public services and Medicare etc.  We cannot afford them, even at their current meagre levels, because we are all getting older and living longer and the workforce as a share of the total population is shrinking, even if it was fully employed (which we know it is not).  So there is no way around either reduced pensions, or higher contributions or a longer period staying at work, or all three.  Across the major capitalist economies, pension and welfare ‘reform’ is the order of the day and on the agenda of every government, whether ‘centre-left’ or ‘centre-right’.

But is it unaffordable?  Well I wrote about this issue in an earlier post (http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-pensions-myth-part-one/) and tried to show that if economies just raised their long-term annual output growth just a little, even just 1% a year more, the ‘problem’ would disappear. Recently, John Cochrane, a leading neoclassical mainstream economist and backer of the Republicans, came out with the same point (http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fun-debt-graphs.html). As he put it: “Suppose growth is 1% and then 2% greater than the CBO (budget office) projects. What effect does that have? To keep it very simple, I assume that spending stays the same, and revenue stays the same fraction of GDP. Thus, I just divide spending/GDP by a 1% and then 2% growth rate (e^(0.01 t)) and we have the new spending as a fraction of the larger GDP. ” His graph repeated below shows that government spending (without ‘reform’) as a percentage of GDP falls from an expected 45% in 30 years time to below where it is currently (23%) if US real economic growth is just 2% pts a year faster than currently projected over the long term.  And the budget deficit (the difference between spending and revenues) would also be insignificant.
cbo_2
So just an increase in the US projected growth rate from 2.5% a year over the next 30 years to 4.5% a year would allow the Federal government to sustain current pensions and welfare spending without changing spending or taxation revenues as a share of GDP at all.

But of course, such a long-term growth rate in any of the major capitalist economies is a pipe-dream.  Long-term trend real GDP growth has steadily declined over the last 50 years and is likely to continue to do so over the foreseeable future (see my post, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/crisis-or-breakdown/).  In reality, the global capitalist economy is in a Long Depression, or as the FT put it, “stuck in a rut, unable to sustain a decent recovery and susceptible to a sudden stall”.  At least that is the estimate of the latest Brookings Institution-Financial Times Tiger (Tracking Indexes for the Global Economic Recovery) as it is called.  The world economy is sluggish with the advanced economies flat-lining and the emerging capitalist economies growing below trend compared to before the Great Recession (see graph below).
tiger index on growth
This estimate was repeated by Christine Lagarde of the IMF at a business economists meeting last week.  She said “We do not expect global growth to be much higher this year than last. We are seeing new risks as well as old risks….In far too many countries, improvements in financial markets have not translated into improvements in the real economy.”  This story is confirmed by another index of global economic activity complied by Bank America.  Their Globalcycle indicator which tracks business conditions in economies covering 80% of the world GDP suggested that the world economy was growing at about 3.5% a year but is beginning to ‘soften’ and go ‘below-trend’ in 2013 to 3.2% a year.  And remember this includes China and all the faster large economies.  And the World Trade Organisation also reported that world trade growth fell to 2.0% in 2012 — down from 5.2% in 2011 — and is expected to remain ‘sluggish’ in 2013 at around 3.3%. “The events of 2012 should serve as a reminder that the structural flaws in economies that were revealed by the economic crisis have not been fully addressed, despite important progress in some areas. Repairing these fissures needs to be the priority for 2013,” Director-General Pascal Lamy said.  So the chances of getting sufficient growth out of these economies to enable governments to protect pensions and living standards (even if they wanted to) are non-existent.

Of course, the likes of Paul Ryan in the US or the Conservatives in Britain would not improve pensions, welfare or Medicare anyway.  They would always argue that there was not enough money or resources to do so.  And it would be best for the poor, vulnerable and sick to have an ‘incentive’ to work by reducing their benefits or pensions.  That contrasts with the view that the best way to incentivise the rich is to reduce their taxes, raise their bonuses and stop trying to ‘regulate’ them.

So the myth of the social security ‘scroungers’ is perpetuated and promoted on both sides of the Atlantic pond.   I dealt with this issue in the UK context in a recent post (http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/who-are-behind-the-blinds-george/).  But the New Economics Foundation has just released an excellent paper exposing the fallacies and lies perpetrated by the British government in its drive to persuade people that there are too many ‘shirkers and scroungers ‘living off the rest of us’ and unwilling to work (Strivers_vs._skivers_online).
As the authors of the paper put, the lies are :“There are two distinct groups of people, one good and one bad; individuals choose to be in one group or the other. ‘Strivers’ work hard and put money into the economy while ‘skivers’ are just lay-abouts who take money out. Claiming benefits traps people in dependency, which is a social evil, passed from one generation to the next. People not in paid work contribute nothing of value to society.”

In reality, people slip between employment and unemployment, often within the space of a few months, as the economy relies increasingly on short-term, low pay, insecure contracts. This happens even more in areas where the economy is especially weak.  The vast majority of those who are not in paid employment are unable to work because they are disabled or have caring responsibilities, or because there are no jobs available. Even in the best of times, it is harder for disabled people and carers to find suitable employment.  A far greater proportion of social expenditure is spent on people in paid work, through working tax credits, than is spent on the fit and able-bodied unemployed. Only 2.6 per cent is actually spent on the able-bodied unemployed (see graph).


For the first time ever in the UK, in-work poverty has overtaken workless poverty, with 6.1 million people in working households living in poverty. Instead of tackling the problem of low income, the government is subsidising employers offering poor quality employment through working tax credits. Taxpayers are picking up the bill by topping up wages so that paid workers can feed and house themselves and their families.  The vast majority of people claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance do not claim over the long-term. Less than half claim for more than 13 weeks and only 10 per cent of all claimants claim for more than a year.  And a great many people who are not in paid employment do valuable unpaid work, caring for others, bringing up children and looking after their families, homes and neighbourhoods.  The formal economy would grind to a halt without it. Even if time spent on child care and housework were paid no more than the minimum wage, it would still be worth the equivalent of 20 per cent of GDP. Many people are not in paid work because they have prior responsibilities that involve unpaid labour. These so-called ‘skivers’ contribute a great deal more than nothing for the something they receive.

So there it is.  Reduced pensions, reduced public services, reduced welfare and health services – because capitalism cannot afford them.
Read More
Posted in Britain, Democrats, economics, Obama, US economy | No comments

Friday, 12 April 2013

Why we hate Thatcher

Posted on 08:19 by Unknown
by Felicity Dowling *
April 11, 2013

Thatcher was our enemy, she led the forces ranged against working people in the eighties. We engaged her in battle, believing we could win. We lost and were bereft, bereaved and massively damaged. Thatcher hated us as socialists, hated the miners, the trade unions, the Irish. She hated Liverpool. She was a strategist and propagandist for her class globally. Internationally, she befriended Pinochet and greeted Afghan Mujaheddin leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as a “freedom fighter”. He trafficked in opium and threw acid in the face of women who refused to wear the veil (http://www.us-uk-interventions.org/Afghanistan_fullchron.html).

She was of course a great ally of Ronald Reagan. She went to war with Argentina causing the deaths of thousands for the mineral wealth beneath the South Atlantic and to secure an election victory.
She hated the ANC, labelling Mandela as a “terrorist”. Her reactionary politics extended to victimising Gays, and attempting to control teachers, implementing a reactionary national curriculum. Even mentioning homosexuality in school risked prosecution under Clause 28.
Our struggle in Liverpool too was internationalist. South African exiles worked with us day and night in our campaigns, Chileans, comrades from Pakistan were there too and comrades from around the globe gave us support and solidarity.

What is the history of our enmity with Thatcher? Liverpool was one of her chosen battlegrounds; she was determined to break the organised working class. The trade unions were one battleground, another was the democratically elected Local Authorities, mainly Labour controlled. Labour was in flux. At the end of the Thatcher era, Labour had gone entirely over to the neo-liberal project, but at the outset labour still had working class roots.

We had a history of struggle. Women workers in the Ford factory in Liverpool fought alongside those from Dagenham in the struggle for equal pay. From women in the tobacco, sugar and biscuit factories to the seafarers, shipbuilding, bus drivers and Dockers, being organised at work was as natural as breakfast. Liverpool builders took their trade unionism wherever they went – and they travelled far and wide.

Liverpool has centuries old Black and Chinese Communities. In 1981, parts of Liverpool rioted not once but twice. Unemployment and racist policing spurred the riots. An appallingly racist Police Chief, a friend of Thatcher, used ‘Stop and Search’ relentlessly. The police publicly characterised the black youth as ‘the offspring of African sailors and prostitutes’. They used teargas and drove mini buses at speed against pedestrians as crowd control – David Moore, a disabled man, was killed outside his house by a police van.After the riots Thatcher had full reports on the terrible poverty but instead of intervening she planned “managed decline”.

In the late 70s and early 80s, factory after factory closed despite bitter struggles, creating mass unemployment and deep, grinding poverty with 30-50% unemployment in some areas. Poverty of the kind where people wore shoes with holes in the soles through to their socks, and mothers often went without food to feed their children. Yet in the sixties and early seventies things had been Ok, getting better for most families in Liverpool. This poverty was new, well represented in Boys from the Black Stuff; (the author of this though was won over to Thatcherism.)
http://gerryco23.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/liverpool-81-the-voice-of-the-unheard/
http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/15/hillsborough-was-drunk-liverpool-fans-fault-margaret-thatcher-told-353486/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_from_the_Blackstuff

The Labour Party had deep and radical routes in Liverpool, and had had marxist currents since its inception, but the city was not ‘safe’ electorally for the party, as other major cities were. The time Labour in Liverpool spent in opposition allowed us to build a radical program well researched and ready to implement. There were organised working class socialists in every area of the city. Some of the youth from the riots moved over into left wing politics. The Militant played a leading role and there were other left wing socialists in the fight. The MPs for the city were working class fighters.
The City Council was previously run by Liberals. They implemented savage cuts years before Thatcher, so spending on services in Liverpool was already at dangerously low levels before she arrived.

The Local Authority manual workers had built a reputation for struggle in the Winter of Discontent (1979). The manual workers were staunch allies and comrades of the councillors; the white collar workers less so.

Labour first won control of the city in April 1983. In March 1984 before the next local elections a huge demonstration took place. There was no legal budget and the possibility of the Government sending in commissioners was very real. The results were an endorsement of our campaigns. We won elections with large turnouts and good results. These results came from detailed canvassing and campaigning. “In a citywide survey, voters were asked what action they thought could be taken to oppose a Tory government takeover: 62 per cent of Labour voters supported demonstrations; 68 per cent occupation by redundant workers; 59 per cent a strike by council workers; 48 per cent a rent and rates strike; 56 per cent supported a refusal by council workers to cooperate with commissioners; and an incredible 55 per cent in favour of a city wide general strike. Moreover, 28 per cent of Liberal voters favoured occupation of council premises by redundant council workers. Even 8 per cent of Tories favoured similar measures – Liverpool was like a tinderbox: one false move from the government and it would explode” (City that dared to Fight. Mulhearn and Taafe)
 
We came into office in 1983 on a programme to create 1000 jobs, to build 1000 houses, and refuse to implement government cuts. “No Cuts in Jobs or Services!” Somehow, the majority of Councillors stood firm. In the first battle with the government after the ‘84 elections they blinked first and we got enough money to balance our books with no cuts. We created the jobs, we built the houses, (many more than 1000) demolished the slums, reorganised the schools, built new Nurseries and a large urban park and we led a huge campaign; quite a lot in a short time.
http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/leisure-parks-and-events/parks-and-greenspaces/everton-park/ (Building council/social housing has an excellent effect on an area in economic downturn. It creates jobs but it also pulls money into the economy; a young couple moving into a decent home somehow gets the money for a carpet; (either granny buys it from her paltry savings or someone sells some thing or….).We reckoned it was a multiplier of 10 for every pound spent on the building. It was propaganda in bricks and mortar.

In the second year it looked as though the other labour councillors in other parts of Britain would join us in the struggle but under pressure from the press, the government, and above all, from the right wing of the Labour party, one by one they crumbled and made the cuts, leaving only Liverpool and Lambeth to fight alone

In the course of our campaign we held huge demonstrations and built our socialism deep in the communities. At one point Thatcher came to Liverpool and was personally affronted to be met with actual negotiations, rather than to be treated as royalty. “They have no respect for my office” she complained
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-government-liverpool-riots-1981

We failed to win a critical vote for all out strike from the local Authority workers in September 1985. The Tories took courage from this and moved against us.
By defeating the political struggle in Liverpool she also defeated the trade union struggles of Local Authority employees. The employees in the big utilities, gas, electric, water, telecommunications followed.
In her time in office, Thatcher attacked the building workers, print workers, Local Authority workers, miners and the local authorities
The Government and the employers in the late seventies launched an attack on building workers’ trade unions. Many Liverpool building workers are to this day affected by blacklist:
http://www.shrewsbury24campaign.org.uk/
http://www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

In 1983 the print workers were also under attack from Thatcher and her big business allies. Eddie Shah deliberately opened a non union print works in Winnick Quay in Warrington. The unions, mainly from Liverpool picketed it, but physical the battle that ensued with the police was unprecedented on a picket line. The police were used like soldiers against us. They drove mini buses full speed at us and beat the hell out of those they could. This use of the police against trade unionists became a trade mark of Thatcher. Murdoch claimed that it was Thatcher’s promise to provide police support that was the decider in choosing his battle with the printers. New York had not promised such Government ordered policing. Murdoch gained supremacy in the print media in the UK and eventually to the monstrosity that is Fox news
“Margaret Thatcher was an inspiration in the fight against the print unions” Murdoch
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/rupert-murdoch-margaret-thatcher-was-inspiration-fight-against-print-unions

Thatcher re configured British capitalism; she privatised most of industry and de facto broke the unions. She left the NHS to rot. Queues were endemic; my som waited two years to get on a waiting list.The hospital cleaning was privatised so MRS disease became rampant
She gave priority to the finance sector which ballooned in her time. She presided over the de industrialisation of Britain. Labour, like fools, bought her theories and so presided over the huge banking crisis that is still rocking the economy.

Drugs She brought the drugs into our city. It was critical to the success of our enemies that they could convince the world Liverpool was full of thieves and thugs. When we came into office drugs were not a huge problem but they hit the city like a sledge hammer. Drug dealers had links to the Tories especially through one Michael Howard and the local drug lords went directly to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan for their heroin. They had to fight the older gangsters who wanted none of it. The street price of heroin dropped to 25% of its 1981 price by 1984. The police were deep in the drugs trade. It wrecked communities, damaged families, established thugs in charge of areas of the city. Many of us believe it was an actual decision Thatcher to bring drugs into the city.
Miners strike in 1984-5

There were mines north of Liverpool in St Helens and just into Wales at Point of Ayr. They gave their all in fighting for the union, staying on strike for a year. Politically we worked closely with the miners nationally. Locally, women who could ill afford it, would drop off tins of beans and other basics at our Saturday collections as they shopped for their own families and this would be driven down to the miners’ welfare. Thousands of pounds were collected in Bucket collections on a Saturday.
Again the police acted like soldiers fighting the pickets. We marched back to work with the miners at the end of the strike but the industry has been obliterated and with it the rich culture of the organised workers.
http://www.minersadvice.co.uk/reviews_coalwsrlife.htm http://www.powerinaunion.co.uk/orgreave-truth-and-justice-campaign/
Thatcher needed the right wing of the labour party to defeat us. We had the press and media ranged against us but just when we could have faced the Tories down the Labour Party launched its attack on us. That though is another story
47 Councillors were eventually surcharged and removed from office. We were replaced by a second team also committed to no cuts but this was short lived; the new right wing labour party established control.

Our supporters in the city raised our huge “surcharge” in collections. Thatcher was denied the sight of our heads on pikes around the city.

The deepest wound though was Hillsborough. Liverpool FC went to play in Sheffield. 96 died that day, by police incompetence and cruelty. The crush was caused by the police, they refused to call the emergency services, and people died who could have been saved. One of my pupils, at 15 a big lad, was held by his feet above the crush to pull people from the disaster; his was not the only heroism. Then in a cruel conspiracy, Thatcher’s friend’s in the police and the press slandered our dead. The police concocted the story with Downing Street. Murdoch used his rag “The Sun” to claim our people were drunk and to blame, that they urinated on the dead and stole from corpses. The truth that our own people had given their all to save each other was known in the city but across the globe our dead were slandered. Thatcher’s personal slave Ingham was implicated. It has taken 26 years of long hard struggle to get the truth published
• http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/reading/9983688/Reading-to-have-minutes-silence-for-Hillsborough-disaster-not-Margaret-Thatchers-passing.html/


So we hate Thatcher because she:
• pioneered the new neo liberal economics of greed and de-industrialisation, she wrecked our hospitals, damaged our schools.
• because she used the press and media as a finely tuned tool against us,
• because she made the police fight workers like they were soldiers,
• because she wrecked our communities, destroyed our industries
• because she hated our friends around the world
• She tried to make it a crime to support gay kids in school.
• She colluded in the defamation of our dead.

“ Ding Dong, the witch is dead, the wicked witch, the witch is dead” (as the song says) but we have serious unfinished business with her political heirs.

*Felicity Dowling is a socialist from Liverpool England and a former Liverpool Councillor involved in the struggle against Thatcher in the 80's
Read More
Posted in Britain, politics | No comments

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Glenda jackson on Thatcher in the House of Commons

Posted on 15:05 by Unknown
Compare Glenda Jackson's view of Thatcher to Obama's statement.

"With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend. As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best. And as an unapologetic supporter of our transatlantic alliance, she knew that with strength and resolve we could win the Cold War and extend freedom’s promise. Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history—we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will. Michelle and I send our thoughts to the Thatcher family and all the British people as we carry on the work to which she dedicated her life—free peoples standing together, determined to write our own destiny."
Read More
Posted in Britain | No comments

Tuesday, 9 April 2013

Thatcher: there was no alternative

Posted on 07:53 by Unknown
by Michael Richards

The Thatcher period lasted from 1979 to 1990.  Much is made of ‘Thatcherism’ as some counter-revolutionary force on behalf of Capital, widely acclaimed by its supporters as saving Britain for capitalism , or turning it around from disaster.  But the reality was is that Thatcherism was just one strand of a general sea change in economic strategy forced on Capital by the crisis that major capitalist economies had got into by the end of the 1970s.  These economies had experienced a steady and sharp fall in the profitability of capital from the mid-1960s onwards.  This was the result of tightening labour markets – no longer supplied with influxes of cheap labour from unemployed after the war or a fast-rising baby boomer working population.  And also there was a rising level of investment in technology relative to labour that began to deliver so well on raising the productivity of labour.

According to my own calculations, between 1963 and 1975, the UK’s rate of profit for the whole economy fell by 28% from around 26% to 19%.  The rate of exploitation fell 20% while the organic composition of capital (the ratio of the cost of plant and technology to labour) rose 20%.  This was a classic crisis period for capitalism as explained by Marxist economic theory.  See my book , The Great Recession, for further details.
UK rate of profit
It was the same phenomenon in the US, Japan and many parts of Europe.  Something had to be done – as Thatcher herself said: “there is no alternative” (TINA).  The only way out was to destroy the power of labour and shift the distribution of the value created by labour towards to capital i.e raise the rate of surplus value as a counteracting factor to the fall in the rate of profit.  Also, in many major economies, there was need to destroy the value of old unproductive capital and industries.  They would be much more productive and profitable with new technology and with cheaper labour elsewhere.  The aim was to end the production of many manufacturing and heavy industries in the mature capitalist economies and shift them to the likes of East Asia and China where profitability was so much greater i.e globalisation.

That strategy required a new ideology based on so-called free markets and a break with the Keynesian-style ‘mixed economy’ where governments provided some level of welfare and public services and ‘interfered’ with capitalist production for the ‘public good’.  But as Thatcher infamously said “there is no society”.  Above all, ending the power of labour, reducing the cost of the state through privatisations, and in the case of the UK and the US, developing a financial services-based (rentier) economy were the tasks.  This required leaders with nerve and commitment – Thatcher was one, but so was Reagan in his own way.

But what is often forgotten is that this counter-revolution to save the mature capitalist economies began earlier than Thatcher or Reagan.  The neo-liberal era, at least for the UK, began in the mid-1970s.  The data confirm that.  The UK rate of profit reached a bottom in 1975 at the trough of the first simultaneous worldwide economic slump of 1974-75.  The Labour government under PM Callaghan and Chancellor Healey reacted to this dire crisis that forced the UK to ask for IMF aid in 1976 by beginning the long struggle to slash government spending, squeeze back wages and reduce industry.  As Callaghan put it baldly to the Labour conference at the time: “We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists and that so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment at the next step.”  Keynesian economics was rejected first by Labour not Thatcher.

The terrible global slump of 1980-2 did the job even better than Thatcher in raising unemployment to new heights, reducing real wages and closing down old and unproductive (i.e, unprofitable) plant and industries.  By 1982, UK manufacturing was decimated.  Thatcher merely presided over the collapse and then continued the process during the subsequent boom by privatising what remained.   She made sure it happened by crushing any resistance from labour through abolishing the minimum wage law and introducing draconian anti-trade union legislation enforced by cynical and corrupt police force. These transformations of the labour market, Thatcher concluded, “allowed management once more to manage and so ensured that investment was once again regarded as the first call on profits rather than the last.” 

At the same time, The Big Bang deregulating financial services shifted the focus from manufacturing to finance.  It made London the financial capital of Europe, if not the world, although British banking was virtually wiped out as most of the major financial institutions operating in the City are now American or European.

So from 1975 to 1996, the UK rate of profit rose 50% and even though the organic composition of capital also rose 17% (although this was in the 1990s), the rate of exploitation of labour jumped 66%!  If we isolate just the Thatcher years, it’s the same story: the rate of profit rose 22%, technology and plant was decimated so the organic composition fell 3%, but the rate of exploitation rose 20%.  The Thatcher years were devastating to labour but the process had already begun under Labour before and continued until the mid-1990s.

There are two myths that the supporters of capitalism like to peddle about the Thatcher years.  The first is that economic growth was much better under Thatcher than before or after and enabled the UK to ‘catch up’ with other capitalist economies.   Even Paul Krugman seems hint at swallowing this one in his latest post:  “I guess there is a case that the Thatcher changes in taxes, labor regulation, etc. created a more flexible economy, which made the good years under Blair possible.”  Well, it’s true that between 1982 and 1997, UK real GDP growth was better than between 1965-82, when the rate of profit was plummeting.  But economic growth (and profitability) was nowhere near as high as between 1946-65 in the UK and in all advanced capitalist economies.

The ‘golden era’ for capitalism was in the 1960s not the 1980s – and the golden era was also one when progressive income tax rates were operating (a 99% top rate in the US under Eisenhower in the late 1950s); there were student grants in the UK for higher education (no fees and loans); pensions were tied to average wages; important sections of the economy like water, energy, transport and power were under state control (including the Bank of England) and unemployment was relatively low.  The Thatcher years did not match this in any way.
UK growth
Indeed, if it had not been for one piece of luck, the discovery and harnessing of North Sea oil and gas in the late 1970s, the UK economy would have done much worse and would have been no better than in the 1970s.  It was a short window of an oil boom that allowed the UK to ‘catch up’ with the likes of the US and Germany.  And again it began before Thatcher, but her government benefited most from it as oil prices rose sharply up to 1986.  There was negligible growth of manufacturing output in the UK from 1973-93.  And of course, the highly capital-intensive energy industry created few jobs, just large profits.  The primary sector as a whole accounted for 4.2% of GDP in 1973. The boom in oil extraction in the North Sea in the 1980s resulted in an increase to 6.7%.
UK oil
The other myth is the control of public spending.  In these days of ‘austerity’, it is ironic that the Thatcher years actually did not see much of a reduction in government spending or taxation, at least as a share of GDP.  Indeed, this fact is bemoaned by some right-wing strategists today.   As this table shows, taxes as a share of the gross domestic product in Britain actually increased sharply during Mrs. Thatcher’s first seven years in office before falling in the later years. Even at the end, they were significantly higher than they were when she took office. Spending also rose during her first seven years before falling in Mrs. Thatcher’s later years.   Lower taxation, the mantra of the current government, was never applied under Thatcher.

Although the Thatcher government cut the top personal income tax rate to 60 percent from 83 percent immediately upon taking office, the basic tax rate was only reduced to 30 percent from 33 percent. And in 1980, the 25 percent lower rate of taxation was eliminated so that 30 percent became the lowest tax rate.  And Mrs. Thatcher paid for her 1979 tax cut by nearly doubling VAT to 15 percent, from 8 percent.   As one right-wing commentator put it: “the effect of the Thatcher program has been a substantial increase in taxation on virtually all taxpayers.” 

The real result of reducing income tax rates for top income earners and abolishing capital gains tax, lowering property taxes but hiking consumption taxes for all was greater inequality of income and wealth. But the main reason for rising poverty and extreme levels of inequality now, only matched by the US, was the decimation of well-paid secure jobs in industry and their replacement by insecure, lower paid services work.  And, of course, there was the massive rise in incomes and wealth for the elite in the financial services sector.  And we all know how that ended in tears.

Thatcher did her job of destroying millions of Britons’ jobs, incomes and lives with enthusiasm, dedication and arrogance.  But in the interests of capitalism, there was no alternative (TINA).
Read More
Posted in Britain, economics, politics | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

Categories

  • Afghanistan (4)
  • Africa (8)
  • Afscme 444 (1)
  • anti-war movement (1)
  • art (6)
  • asia (15)
  • austerity (29)
  • Australia (4)
  • auto industry (3)
  • bailout (10)
  • bangladesh (9)
  • banks (11)
  • BART (13)
  • body image (4)
  • bradley Manning (17)
  • Britain (22)
  • California (17)
  • california public sector (18)
  • Canada (6)
  • capitalism (44)
  • catholic church (10)
  • child abuse. (1)
  • China (2)
  • consciousness (3)
  • debt (3)
  • Democrats (4)
  • domestic violence (7)
  • drug industry (6)
  • economics (43)
  • education (9)
  • Egypt (5)
  • energy (7)
  • environment (12)
  • EU (18)
  • family (1)
  • financialization (1)
  • food production (7)
  • gay rights (2)
  • globalization (17)
  • greece (3)
  • gun rights (4)
  • health care (13)
  • homelessness (4)
  • housing (3)
  • hugo chavez (4)
  • human nature (6)
  • humor (4)
  • immigration (2)
  • imperialism (14)
  • india (4)
  • indigenous movement (4)
  • Internet (1)
  • iran (4)
  • Iraq (4)
  • ireland (22)
  • Israel/Palestine (13)
  • Italy (3)
  • Japan (7)
  • justice system (11)
  • labor (15)
  • Latin America (17)
  • marxism (52)
  • mass media (4)
  • mass transit (1)
  • Mexico (4)
  • middle east (24)
  • minimum wage (4)
  • movie reviews (1)
  • music (2)
  • nationalism (2)
  • NEA (1)
  • Nigeria (1)
  • non-union (11)
  • nuclear (3)
  • Oakland (5)
  • Obama (14)
  • occupy oakland (2)
  • occupy wall street (1)
  • oil industry (2)
  • OUSD (1)
  • Pakistan (3)
  • Pensions (2)
  • police brutality (6)
  • politicians (6)
  • politics (22)
  • pollution (11)
  • poverty (7)
  • prisons (8)
  • privatization (6)
  • profits (21)
  • protectionism (2)
  • public education (9)
  • public sector (15)
  • public workers (6)
  • racism (18)
  • rape (2)
  • Religion (10)
  • Russia (1)
  • San Leandro (2)
  • sexism (21)
  • sexual violence (2)
  • Snowden (7)
  • socialism (22)
  • soldiers (1)
  • solidarity (1)
  • South Africa (15)
  • Spain (2)
  • speculation (1)
  • sport (2)
  • strikes (35)
  • students (3)
  • surveillance (1)
  • Syria (9)
  • tax the rich (4)
  • taxes (1)
  • Teachers (6)
  • Team Concept (4)
  • terrorism (22)
  • the right (2)
  • Trayvon Martin (3)
  • turkey (3)
  • UAW (3)
  • unemployment (1)
  • union-busting (3)
  • unions (51)
  • US economy (22)
  • us elections (6)
  • US foreign policy (41)
  • US military (26)
  • veterans (1)
  • wall street criminals (13)
  • War (15)
  • wealth (9)
  • wikileaks (12)
  • women (26)
  • worker's party (2)
  • worker's struggle (65)
  • workers (44)
  • Workers International Network (1)
  • world economy (28)
  • youth (5)
  • Zionism (13)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (410)
    • ▼  September (21)
      • Remembering 911
      • Buffet and Lemann: two peas in pod
      • Amtrak: Washington DC to Huntington, West Virginia
      • Kaiser cancelled from AFL-CIO convention
      • Starvation, poverty and disease are market driven.
      • Austerity hits troops as rations are cut
      • Chile: 40 year anniversary.
      • The US government and state terrorism
      • Canada. Unifor's Founding Convention: The Predicta...
      • Syria, Middle East, World balance of forces:Comin...
      • Bloomberg: de Blasio's campaign racist and class w...
      • Beefed up SWAT teams sent to WalMart protests
      • U.S. Had Planned Syrian Civilian Catastrophe Since...
      • Syria. Will US masses have their say?
      • US capitalism facing another quagmire in Syria.
      • The debate on the causes of the Great Recession
      • Seamus Heaney Irish poet dies.
      • The crimes of US capitalism
      • Talking to workers
      • Don't forget the California Prison Hunger Strikers
      • Mothering: Having a baby is not the same everywhere
    • ►  August (54)
    • ►  July (55)
    • ►  June (43)
    • ►  May (41)
    • ►  April (49)
    • ►  March (56)
    • ►  February (46)
    • ►  January (45)
  • ►  2012 (90)
    • ►  December (43)
    • ►  November (47)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile