On the rampage

 

´Everybody can now see that, under its present government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is a rogue state on the rampage even from the point of view of the capitalist world order. Established as a state to protect the members of a particular minority, it now seeks to defend its existence through waging a ruthless war against other terrorists in the region, regardless of how many ordinary people are killed in the process. Their lives don’t matter because they are not members of the same minority group. 

Let this be a warning of where nationalism and its mindset can lead – “my” nation uber alles. It is the opposite of everything socialists stand for: one world, one people.’

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Estonia cries Havoc, let slip.

 

Major General Vahur Karus is head of the Estonian General Staff. Is he under the impression that he’s Marc Anthony? His recent comments would lead one to think so.

“Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war; That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial.” William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1.

What he actually said was, ‘Estonia could deliver “the first blow” in case of a perceived threat from Russia, Major General Vahur Karus told Vikerraadio in mid-September. “We cannot just wait around to be hit with a sledgehammer and need to be able to do some things first,” he said, adding that his nation’s “deep strike capability is fully a part of NATO plans today.” According to the general, Tallinn could have to “take care of certain targets” to give other NATO members time to “come and take the next steps.”’

Dog owners are aware that small breeds imagine in their dog heads to be much larger and much fiercer.

‘The Estonian defence Forces consist of land forces, navy, and air force. The current national military service is compulsory for healthy men between ages of 18 and 28, with conscripts serving 8- or 11-month tours of duty, depending on their education and position provided by the Defence Forces. The peacetime size of the Estonian Defence Forces is about 6,000 persons, with half of those being conscripts. The planned wartime size of the Defence Forces is 60,000 personnel, including 21,000 personnel in high readiness reserve.’ Wiki.

Major General Vahur Karus, has said that new NATO contingency plans for a conflict with Moscow envisioned the Baltic state launching a strike across the border.

”Our long-range strike capabilities are fully taken into account in NATO plans, and NATO tells us that we have to take care of certain targets [in Russia], and that’s when they can come [to Estonia] and take the next steps.”’

‘Karus described the new mission as a “fundamental change” to Estonia’s military doctrine, noting that prior to the Ukraine conflict the US-led bloc expected the Baltic state to hold out for about 10 days before it could get NATO reinforcements. The former Soviet republic joined the organization in 2004 and has been one of the most vocal supporters of Ukraine in the conflict with Russia.’

The comments from Estonia drew a response from the deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev. The former Russian president and prime minister said, ‘Small NATO members who dream about attacking Russia should know Article 5 is not effective against tactical nuclear weapons.’ “The sillier the state, the greater the arrogance of its individual, insane leaders, People should take into account only one thing: should Russia use, say, tactical nuclear weapons against a state that allows itself such statements, nothing but a stain will remain. Sure, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty may apply, but the state will no longer exist,” Medvedev added, referring to NATO’s famous mutual defence provision.’

‘Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled changes to Moscow’s nuclear doctrine at a meeting of the nation’s Security Council,. Widely regarded as a message to the US and its allies, as well as Ukraine, the updated doctrine would allow Russia to deploy its nuclear deterrent in case of a conventional attack by a state that is backed by a nuclear power.’

The position of The Socialist Party toward war needs no repetition. In a socialist society there would be no need for a military and no need for leaders. One cannot imagine that the Estonian General made the remarks he did ‘off his own bat.’ It’s a reasonable supposition to suppose that his comments were made with the approval of the Executive Committee that run Estonia on behalf of Estonian capitalists. General Karus, like many others in that society is in thrall to to capitalism.

SOYMB fully admits that it is a military specialist but the absurdity of the observations made stike us as being similar to an amateur boxer who has merely sparred in the gym going head to head with the World Heavyweight boxing champion.

Why does the Estonian working class allow a minority to expound such dangerous ideas that put the whole of that society at risk? There is only one solution to the insanity that is emanating from various ‘leaders’ and their minions with increasing frequency – that solution is socialism.

SPGB Meeting TONIGHT 27 September 1930 (GMT + 1) ZOOM

 

WHY WARS HAPPEN (ZOOM)

---

Event Details

• Date: September 27, 2024 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm

---

Friday 27 September 19.30 (GMT + 1)
Why Wars Happen
Speaker: Howard Moss

To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/j/7421974305 in your browser.

Feeling insecure? Why might that be?

‘So-called insecure work is supposed to be a means to progressing to a better-paid and more reliable job. But recent research from the Work Foundation has shown that that is not the case.

More than two in five of those in precarious work were in the same situation four years later, while fewer had moved on to a more secure job. Last year almost seven million people were doing insecure work, and earning an average of £3200 less than those in secure jobs.

But all employment under capitalism is in reality insecure. What needs to be done away with is not insecure jobs but the whole idea of employment and working for a capitalist.’

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

‘TUC analysis of Labour Force Survey data shows that 3.6 million people are in insecure work. This amounts to one in nine of the workforce. When estimating the number of people in insecure work the TUC includes: • those on zero-hours contracts • agency, casual and seasonal workers (but not those on fixed – term contracts) • the low-paid self-employed who miss out on key rights and protections that come with being an employee and cannot afford to provide a safety net for when they are unable to work.’

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-07/insecurework2.pdf

Socialist Sonnet No.165

Splitting Differences

 

Ordnance unleashed. A residential block

Reduced to rubble, families rendered

Into body parts, judgment suspended

By the perpetrators of this attack,

An act of unconscionable aggression

Deviously portrayed as self-defence.

In Ukraine it’s without purpose or sense,

Being due to a despot’s callous decision.

Conversely in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon

It’s justified proportionate action,

Targeting a known terrorist faction

That, despite civilians, had to be done.

Surely culpable as the attackers

Are their erstwhile belligerent backers?

 

D. A.

Duck and Cover Russian style

In February many MSM carried th story that Russian 14 years to 16 year old students are to be trained in nuclear war survival. The subject, "Fundamentals of Security and Defense of the Motherland,'' will begin, it was said, on 1 September.

Citation: ‘High schools in Russia are soon set to include nuclear war survival training as part of the national curriculum, Newsweek reported. The survival training which will be rolled out in schools across the country in September, the newspaper Kommersant reported, citing a document from the Ministry of Education.’

‘Students will learn about "the combat properties and damaging effects of weapons of mass destruction, as well as methods of protection against them."

They will also be taught to protect themselves in emergencies such as natural, man-made, and biological-social nature disasters and a military threat. Basic military training, how to use a Kalashnikov assault rifle and hand grenades, how to administer first aid in combat and lessons on self-defence will also be included in the curriculum.

The subject will inculcate a sense of "intolerance towards manifestations of violence in social interaction" among students and teach them how to identify "dangerous phenomena in social interaction" and counter "extremist and terrorist activities."

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russian-schools-to-teach-how-to-survive-nuclear-attack-use-kalashnikovs-report-5011786

‘Duck and Cover s a 1951 American civil defence animated and live action social guidance film It has similar themes to the more adult-oriented civil defence training films. It was widely distributed to United States schoolchildren in the 1950s, and teaches students what to do in the event of a nuclear explosion.’ Wiki.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4k2skbJDm8 Nuclear Vault

The below is from the Socialist Standard July 2018

‘The two main threats to the survival and well-being of humankind and the biosphere — war and the environmental crisis – are usually considered separately. In fact, however, the two problems are closely connected: neither of them can be solved without at the same time tackling the other.

On the one hand, the environmental crisis generates conditions that make war more likely. Soil erosion, desertification, deforestation, acidification of the oceans and similar processes intensify competition for control over arable land, sources of freshwater, fishing grounds and other natural resources. Alternating flood and drought augment the flow of refugees. Cross-border impacts fuel new international tensions.

On the other hand, war and other military activity — development, manufacture, testing and maintenance of weapons and equipment, military training, military games and exercises, disposal of waste — themselves make a major contribution to the environmental crisis. Danger and secrecy impede attempts to gauge this contribution and assessments of environmental issues usually ignore it. That is one of the main reasons why global heating is proceeding so much more rapidly than predicted. Even in peacetime, for example, the Department of Defense is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the United States, causing CO2 emissions roughly equal to those of Denmark, but military emissions are excluded from international climate agreements.

War devastation

The list of countries and regions devastated by war is long and growing longer, from Congo and Libya to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the Gaza Strip, Yemen and Kashmir. War devastation takes many forms. Some are well known – the bombed-out buildings, the piles of rubble, the landmines lying in wait for their victims. Less well known but no less noxious are the diverse forms of environmental devastation, including:

* toxic heavy metals (e.g., lead, tungsten, mercury, molybdenum, cadmium, cobalt) and white phosphorus deposited by bombing in the soil and the water supply, causing tumors, congenital deformities and other serious effects

* radiation from the depleted uranium (DU) used in manufacturing munitions, spreading cancer, cerebral palsy and other diseases (militaries like bullets made of DU fused with metal alloys because they are better at penetrating armour.)

* radiation and toxins released into the environment by the bombing of nuclear power stations and chemical plants

* urine and excrement in the streets and streams as a result of destruction of the sewage system

* oil pollution from damage to pipelines and refineries (Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait in 1991 torched 630 oil wells, turning the sea and sky black.)

Even a 'minor' nuclear war would be an ecological disaster felt throughout the world. The best studied case is that of a 'limited' regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 100 Hiroshima-sized warheads (less than half of these states' nuclear arsenals) are detonated mainly over cities. Besides the 20 million projected short-term deaths and longer-term victims of radiation, such an exchange would inject up to 6.5 million tonnes of soot into the upper atmosphere, cooling the global climate for several years and reducing summer crop yields in various countries by 12-16 percent over a 10-year period.

In a full-scale nuclear war between Russia or China and the United States, direct casualties would of course be far higher and the amount of soot much greater. A prolonged 'nuclear winter' would ensue, leading to the extinction or near-extinction of Homo sapiens and other species (with the exception of primitive organisms in the deep ocean that do not need sunlight).

Routine activities

Even in times of peace the military does enormous harm to the environment in the course of its routine activities. Thus the Department of Defense is not only the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the United States, it is also the largest polluter, generating more toxic waste than the five biggest American chemical companies combined (according to an estimate made in the late 1980s – a tonne per minute).

Let us consider three specific activities: weapons testing, waste disposal and war games.

Weapons testing

Large tracts of land are devoted to weapons testing. For example, Jefferson Proving Grounds in Indiana, 250 square kilometers in area, is so badly contaminated that it has been cordoned off and abandoned.

Before 1963, when the Soviet Union, Britain and the US banned nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, these powers conducted a long series of tests of atomic and hydrogen bombs in Kazakhstan, the Australian outback and the Pacific islands, respectively, inflicting radiation sickness on the indigenous people of these areas, who were not evacuated or even warned but used as guinea pigs. China continued nuclear weapons testing at its site in Xinjiang until 1996.

Waste disposal

The manufacture and use of weapons generate a huge quantity of radioactive and toxic waste that somehow has to be disposed of. Often waste is just dumped into the sea. Much is stored in the ground under conditions that do not prevent leakage.

A 100-acre basin for the storage of military waste at Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado has been called 'the earth's most toxic square mile'. However, there are probably sites in Russia that are no less toxic and perhaps even less safe, such as Kildin Island in the Barents Sea, home to used-up nuclear reactors and other parts of old nuclear submarines.

War games

War games and military exercises are a source of less drastic but still considerable environmental damage, both on land and at sea. Naval war games, for instance, poison or otherwise harm numerous species of fish, marine mammals and other sea life. The sensitive auditory systems of many whales and dolphins are injured by underwater sonar from submarines. Many non-marine species are also harmed by noise from military aircraft.

President Trump's decision at his summit with Kim Jong Un to suspend the annual war games in South Korea is some small consolation.

Armaments manufacturing

Then there is the harm to the environment caused directly or indirectly by the process of manufacturing armaments. The production of explosives, for instance, requires toxic chemicals that leak into soil and groundwater.

A telling example of the complex interaction between war and environmental damage is provided by the mining, processing and use of rare metals and rare earth elements. Besides civilian applications, these substances are widely used in military electronic systems for guidance and control, targeting and communications as well as in jet engines. Their extraction causes severe pollution (see The Socialist Standard, MW, May 2011). Moreover, there is high potential for conflict over control of deposits, as in the war in eastern Congo – a rich source of the rare metals cassiterite and coltan (see The Socialist Standard, MW, January 2009

Thus rare metals and rare earth elements are needed for use in war and war is waged to control them, while both their processing and their use in war cause great harm to the environment.

One World

The problem of war and the environmental crisis will find their joint resolution – if, that is, they are to be resolved at all – in the creation of One World – an undivided global community. Material and human resources will no longer be wasted and destroyed in war. People will devote their energy and talents to repairing a poisoned planet and devising an ecologically sustainable way of life.

Stefan

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-military-and-environment-2018.html

Trots in the Labour Party

With tht start of the Labour Party Conference, 22 September, we repost from the Socialist Standard January 1986, Leftist Wonderland: Militant in Liverpool.

Militant Tendency was/is a Trotskyist sect. In 1997 it changed its name to the Socialist Party. An exposure as to why it is dishonest in calling itself socialist can be found at the link below.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search?q=Militant

What odds might we get at the local bookies that the S word won’t be mentioned once at this Labour Conference?

‘For those of you who are confused about what’s been going on at Liverpool City Council, here are the facts:

Militant s a newspaper. The people who sell it are members of the Labour Party, although they don’t support it, and supporters of Militant (the tendency, not the newspaper) although they are not members of it. The Labour Party leaders are neither members nor supporters of Militant (the tendency), and neither do they sell Militant (the newspaper), although you can never be sure since Militant newspaper sellers are notoriously shy about coming out.

The Labour Party leaders want to expel Militant supporters from the party since they think that they are wrecking Neil Kinnock’s chances of moving into Downing Street after the next general election. They claim that Militant (the tendency) is in breach of the Labour Party’s constitution since they operate as a party within the Labour Party, with different aims and objectives. But Labour’s leaders are worried that to expel Militant might upset other Labour supporters and also, presumably, damage Neil Kinnock’s election chances. So instead of expelling supporters of Militant, they have suspended the whole of the Labour Party in Liverpool—home of the Tendency’s most vociferous spokesperson, Derek Hatton, who they especially want to get rid of. (There are rumours that at least some supporters of Militant are no longer so keen on supporting Hatton, but maybe we shouldn’t make this any more complicated than it already is.)

Militant in Liverpool are very upset that the Labour Party is treating them in this way and assert that they, unlike the Labour leadership, are the real guardians of Labour Party conference decisions since they are resisting “Tory cuts” and fighting to “save the jobs and services for the people of Liverpool”, and want to institute Clause Four of the Labour Party’s constitution (the one stating that the Labour Party is committed to nationalisation). The Labour Party conference is supposed to be the main policy-making body of the party, but the leadership ignores conference decisions when they don’t like them. So, just to recap, Militant, which doesn’t agree with the Labour Party, is upholding its constitution and decisions made at conference, while the leadership, who do support the Labour Party, are ambivalent about nationalisation and Kinnock has said that he will ignore conference decisions if he doesn’t agree with them. But it is Militant that looks set to be thrown out of the Labour Party for a breach of the constitution, while Kinnock is increasingly regarded as the party’s saviour.

The Militant leaders of Liverpool City Council, as already mentioned, claim that they are fighting to preserve jobs and services. As part of their strategy to do this they sent out redundancy notices to 31,000 local authority workers and looked set to close down council-run facilities like day-care centres for the elderly and handicapped, children’s homes, libraries, sports centres and swimming pools. Their concern for the workers of Liverpool was such that they asked them to work for nothing after they received their redundancy notices. The workers however could not understand how this was helping them (not surprising, Militant would say, since to them workers are too stupid to recognise their real interests and so need leaders like Militant to protect their interests for them). Teachers in Liverpool took the City Council to court and managed to get an injunction against the redundancy notices. But it wasn’t just the teachers who were too stupid to understand that Militant were looking after their interests; just about every trade union with members working for the local authority have also shown signs of “stupidity” by expressing their hostility to the leadership.

Militant also claims to be working for racial harmony in Liverpool and to that end they appointed a community relations officer. That appointment has resulted in almost every community group representing black people in Liverpool refusing to have anything to do with either the council or the community relations officer and trade unions have advised their members not to co-operate with him. So much for racial harmony and community relations.

Finally, Militant claims to be “socialist”. Apart from the doubt cast on this idea by their membership of the anti-socialist Labour Party, their support for state-capitalism, their undemocratic organisation, their patronising attitude to their fellow workers, besides all that, this “socialist” tendency has just accepted £30 million from those well-known supporters of socialism, the Gnomes of Zurich, to bail them out.

So, to sum up: Militant are members of the Labour Party although they don’t agree with the Labour Party. Labour’s leaders want them out because they are in breach of the party’s constitution even though the leadership itself does not honour decisions made at the party’s conference. Derek Hatton and his fellow Militants on Liverpool City Council claim to be acting on behalf, and in the interests, of the working class of Liverpool and demonstrate this by threatening workers with the sack or asking them to work for nothing. They claim to be “socialist” but are quite happy to take money from a bunch of capitalist financiers who are no doubt rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of making a financial killing from all the interest they are going to receive on this loan.

Still confused? So you should be!’

Janie Percy-Smith

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/02/leftist-wonderland-militant-in.html

Russia defends 'traditional values'. Still Capitalism.

 

Godfather Putin is making an offer to the working class of forty seven countries. He might prefer that the capitalists in those states take him up on it.

Those who imagine that that political asylum in Russia would be preferable to the situations they currently find themselves in would be very much mistaken.

On initial reading, ‘wokeism catastrophe’ was misread as workism catastrophe. Which is slightly more apposite to capitalist exploitation of the majority.

What is Russia’s beef with Andorra, the Bahamas, Iceland, Micronesia, Monaco, and San Marino one wonders? How many ‘dissidents’ are there in those places seeking to escape? Capitalism is though global so no matter where in the world the working class is to e found it is in the interests of that exploited class to make itself apolitically aware and work toward the replacement of capitalism by socialism.

‘Moscow has listed 47 countries whose “destructive attitudes” contradict Russian values, opening the path to their nationals to seek asylum in Russia if they so choose.

President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in August allowing foreigners who share Russia’s traditional values and disagree with the “neoliberal” agenda pushed by their own governments to apply for residency.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin has published the list of countries and territories that “implement policies that impose destructive neoliberal ideological attitudes contradicting traditional Russian spiritual and moral values.”’

Russia can “offer the world a safe haven for normalcy” by defending traditional values from the “wokeism catastrophe” that has come to dominate the collective West...

According to Putin’s edict from August, nationals of “destructive neoliberal” countries are eligible to seek temporary residence in Russia without having to satisfy the standard immigration requirements, such as national quotas, Russian language proficiency, and knowledge of Russian history and laws.’

The below is from the Socialist standard December 2019

It’s not neo-liberalism that’s to blame – it’s capitalism

In Marx’s day the doctrine that the government should not interfere in the operation of the capitalist economy was known as ‘Manchesterism’ after the city in the north of England where capitalist industry was then most developed and whose capitalists wanted to be free to pursue profits as they thought fit.

Its advocates preached ‘free trade’ (the abolition of tariffs on imported goods and bounties on exported goods) and letting market forces operate freely. They even opposed laws against adulteration and to limit the hours of work of those they employed. Also known as ‘economic liberalism’, it had roots in the eighteenth century in French manufacturers and merchants who told the royal bureaucracy to leave them alone and let them get on with their business (‘laissez faire’) and in Adam Smith’s curious theory that behind market forces was some ‘invisible hand’ ensuring that these operated for the common good.

However, a practical problem soon arose over industries and services which all capitalist businesses had to make use of, such as transport (roads, canals, railways) and communications (post, telegraph). Capitalists did not want these to be in the hands of any one group of their number who would thereby be in a position to hold the rest of them to ransom and charge monopoly prices. This was why in Britain, as early as 1844, a Railways Act contained a clause providing, if need be, for state ownership, so-called ‘nationalisation.’ In Europe railways had been in the hands of the state almost from the beginning because of their strategic importance for transporting troops in times of war. In the event Britain settled for price regulation by the government, which was also a violation of laissez faire.

Economic liberalism never caught on in its entirety outside Britain as ‘free trade’ was seen, not without justification, by rival capitalists in other countries as a means of giving British capitalists a competitive advantage. They demanded that their governments ‘protect’ them from such competition through tariffs on imported British goods. Beyond that, however, they embraced the doctrine that governments should not interfere with their pursuit of profits.

Enter Keynes

Between the two world wars of the last century even Britain abandoned free trade and the gold standard. An era of government-created fiat money opened up, in which governments had to pursue an interventionist policy to manage their currency. With the financial crash of 1929 and the big slump in production that followed, governments also came under pressure to intervene in the capitalist economy to try to get it expanding again. ‘Public works’ programmes were initiated, such as Roosevelt’s New Deal in the USA and Hitler’s rearmament in Germany. In his 1936 General Theory of Employment, Interest and Income the British economist John Maynard Keynes provided a theoretical justification for such ad-hoc schemes. He argued that left to itself – laissez faire – capitalism would not necessarily recover from a slump of its own accord, as economists had preached till then, but that government intervention, in the form of a tax policy to stimulate demand was required. In the event of a boom, this could be prevented from ending in a slump, as booms had previously always done, by the government pursing the opposite policy of using taxes to discourage consumption. Thanks to government intervention, steady capitalist expansion could be engineered.

Naturally this theory, especially stimulating demand in a slump by redistributing purchasing power from the rich to the non-rich, was acclaimed by reformists as a justification for the reforms they already favoured. Those that had still regarded themselves as in the Marxist tradition abandoned Marx for Keynes.

Keynesianism was not consciously pursued as a government policy till the beginning of the Second World War. When that war was not followed by a slump, as the end of the First World War had been, but by a 25-year period of capitalist expansion with only minor ‘recessions,’ many open supporters of capitalism hailed Keynes for having saved capitalism.

But this was an illusion. Put to the test when the post-war boom came to an end in the 1970s, Keynesian policies resulted in what was called ‘stagflation’ – a rise in the general price level while the economy remained stagnant. The post-war boom had been caused by other factors such as reconstruction and the spontaneous expansion of internal and world markets.

Exit Keynes

The end of the post-war boom led to what was called a ‘fiscal crisis of the capitalist state’. Governments depend for what they spend on levying taxes, which ultimately fall on capitalist profits, and on borrowing money from those who have it. With less profit being made, there was less to tax and less to borrow. Government had no alternative but to cut their spending rather than increasing it as Keynes had advocated they should do to get out of a slump. Another economic theory was required to replace Keynesianism and justify this.

The new theory, popularised by the American economist Milton Friedman, called itself ‘monetarism’ as it advocated a tight monetary policy, i.e. cutting government spending, and letting market forces revive the capitalist economy by restoring profitability of its own accord as asset prices and real wages fell. This was not really a new theory but a revival of pre-Keynesian economic liberalism.

There is some justification, then, for calling this replacement policy ‘neo-liberalism.’ What is not justified is seeing its application as a free choice on the part the part of governments. It was something imposed on them by the workings of the capitalist economy, given the situation it was in. Governments had no choice but to apply it. In other words, capitalism was the cause, with neo-liberalism merely the political and ideological justification.

What the capitalist conditions imposed was that governments should cut their spending or, rather, cut taxing profits with the result that they had less to spend. With less to spend, ‘austerity’ was the order of the day in all countries irrespective of the political colour of their government. It was not just Reagan and Thatcher in the USA and Britain but also Mitterrand in France. Public services were cut back. ‘Welfare’ and ‘benefits’ were slashed, especially for those who for one reason or another were not able to find a job. Since the economists preached that there was a so-called ‘natural rate of unemployment,’ which could be as high as 6 percent, millions of already poor people had their standard of living reduced even further. Other reforms enacted during the post-war boom were whittled away or rolled back.

To reduce their borrowing, governments sold off state assets to private capitalist firms, who were granted the right to make profits from them in return for themselves raising the capital to finance them.

As a policy of trying to ensure steady sustained capitalist development, neo-liberalism has been just as much a failure as Keynesianism was, as spectacularly shown by the Crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. What this showed is that, no matter what policy governments adopt, capitalism goes relentlessly on its way, repeatedly going through the boom/slump cycle that it has done since the 1820s. The fact is that governments do not – cannot – control the way the capitalist economy works. It is the other way round. It is the operation of capitalism that constrains what governments do; all they can do is little more than react to what capitalism throws at them. There is a sense in which they do have a choice. They could choose to try to defy what capitalism’s economic forces dictate but, if they do, they will make matters worse. As Marx pointed out with regard to banking legislation, while governments cannot make things better, they can make things worse:

‘Ignorant and confused banking laws, such as those of 1844-5, may intensify the monetary crisis. But no bank legislation can abolish crises themselves’ (Capital, Volume 3, Chapter 30, Penguin Books edition, p. 621).

This warning is apt because left-wing populists are calling for neo-liberalism to be replaced by government intervention to spend money to end austerity and get capitalism expanding again – a revival of Keynes’s discredited idea that could be called ‘neo-Keynesianism.’ As Marxists know, both from the past experience of such attempts and from a knowledge of how capitalism works, this is doomed to fail and would make things worse.

It is not neo-liberalism that is the problem, but capitalism. It is not a change of policy that is required, but a change of socio-economic system.

Adam Buick

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/12/neo-liberalism-old-religion-repackaged.html

SPGB Meeting Friday 20 September 1930 (GMT + 1) ZOOM

 

MORE WAYS THAT SOCIALISM CAN HEAL THE WORLD

---

Event Details

• Date: September 20, 2024 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm

---

Friday 20 September 19.30 (GMT + 1)
Some More Ways that Socialism can heal the world
Speaker: Paddy Shannon

To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/j/7421974305 in your browser.

Socialist Sonnet No. 164

Conference Party Season

 

Government and opposition benches

Deserted: Ministers and their shadows

Have left and the cogs of government slow.

Called up to their political trenches

Delegates - left, right and centre – gather

For their celebrations of platitudes

And misdirection, pompous beatitudes

Of concern and tele-prompted blather.

Jam for tomorrow will be generous,

But jam for today is more thinly spread

Or even denied to those on dry bread,

Who should be thankful and not make a fuss.

Broad discussions and debates are arranged;

Then it’s all over, and nothing has changed.

 

D. A.

Political assassination accomplishes nothing

 

It appears that a second assassination attempt has been made on the life of American ex-president Donald Trump. Trump is the Republican Party’s nominee for the November election to install a new president.

From 1861 until 1961 four sitting American presidents have been assassinated. There have been attempts made to kill other presidents and presidential candidates. Robert F Kennedy, brother of assassinated president John F Kennedy was killed in 1968 when campaigning to become president.

Wikipedia provides a long list of leaders throughout world history who have suffered this fate. As the article below demonstrates, the supposed ‘benefits’ of these acts seldom achieve what they set out to accomplish.

The below is from the Socialist Standard February 2017.

‘The recent assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey reminds us that this particular form of political violence is still very much in use. Both states and those without states (‘terrorists’ or ‘freedom fighters’) believe this tactic still to be useful in furthering their political agendas. Perhaps a brief historical perspective on the phenomenon could help us decide whether they are correct in their continuing belief of its efficacy.

We begin with what is still, probably, the most infamous example of this form of homicide in western Europe’s history – the assassination of Julius Caesar. Fearful of losing their power as a class in Rome a gang of patricians including Brutus and Cassius decided to end the meteoric political career of Julius Caesar. Under the banner of ‘saving the republic’ from a tyrant they stabbed him to death en-masse on the senate floor. Subsequently they were hunted down by Caesar’s hatchet man Mark Anthony who himself was obliged to commit suicide by Caesar’s nephew, later his adopted son, Augustus. Rome was then in the power of such successive madmen as Tiberius, Caligula and Nero. This particular assassination, then, was an unmitigated failure and Rome became a totalitarian state dominated for centuries by megalomaniacs. Could they have been successful? Historically Rome followed many other cultures in evolving from some form of a republic into a monarchy and it would appear that they were defying economic and political necessity which, in the end, defines historical progression. Ironically, because of the assassination and the subsequent power achieved by his descendants, Caesar’s name was taken by the all of the rulers of Rome, and in its form of Czar and Kaiser together with the medieval title of ‘Holy Roman Emperor’ has been used ever since to designate political absolutism.

The term ‘assassin’ originated in Persia and later Syria and was used as a pejorative to describe a murderous Ismaili sect active in the middle ages. During the crusades the Franks encountered them and brought back the term to describe the similar internecine phenomenon in the West. The word may well have been used to describe our next victim of political murder in 1170 –Thomas Becket. Henry II of England had expected his friend to be an ally in the struggle for power with Rome when he made Becket archbishop of Canterbury. However this was not to be as Becket defended the autonomy of the church fiercely against his king’s political machinations. Upon hearing one of Henry’s most ferocious condemnations of his old friend four of his knights took it upon themselves to murder the ‘troublesome priest’. Henry maintained that he was shocked by the killing and did penance as did Beckett’s assassins who, ironically, ended up as crusaders attempting to find redemption for their sins. Thomas Becket was pronounced a martyr and canonised only two years after his death – giving valuable propaganda to the Pope and thus strengthening his power in England; yet another example of the failure of assassination to achieve the desired political aims.

It would appear that John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of American president Abraham Lincoln was motivated primarily by revenge. As a supporter of the Confederacy he was outraged by Lincoln’s support of voting rights for blacks and swore vengeance. Although the fifteenth amendment of 1870 did guarantee these rights it was repealed in 1894, something that would have delighted Booth. To the shame of the USA black people had to wait until 1965 before they again had the legal right to a vote in every State in the Union. Booth’s act, then, had no impact on the course of US history. Karl Marx, on behalf of the First International, had sent Lincoln a letter of congratulation on his re-election just before the assassination and was sincerely saddened by his death. No doubt this event featured in his fierce debate with Michael Bakunin and the anarchist element within the International who supported assassination as a valid political strategy. Marx won the debate but lost the International which split along an Anarchist/Socialist fault line. Since that time no socialist has seriously believed that assassination can change anything politically but it has remained something of an anarchist fantasy.

No historical assessment of assassination would be complete without a mention of the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in 1914. The decaying Austrian empire took advantage of this event to rattle its rusty sabre one last time. In doing so it provided the catalyst that sparked the First World War in which all of the European powers vied for supremacy. Princip was motivated by his knowledge that the Austrians sought to prevent the pan Slavic nation that he so desired and as part of the ‘Black Hand’ group he conspired to assassinate the Archduke. It could be argued that this event did contribute to the creation of Yugoslavia after the war in 1918. However the religious and cultural tensions within the peoples of that region led to its dissolution in 1991. A look at the ebb and flow of national borders in Europe during the twentieth century makes it obvious that nation states composed of federations of different ethnic and religious communities are often unstable and exist only courtesy of the strength or otherwise of the political illusions used to manipulate the populations by ruling classes. Princip’s anachronistic politics, and those who shared them, ensured the eventual doom of his dream.

In my own lifetime it was the assassination of President Kennedy that caused the most outrage. I remember, as a child, the sense of shock in my parents as they watched the drama unfold on TV. Without commenting on the numerous conspiracy theories that surround this event, it does seem possible it was more than the just act of one isolated ‘lone gunman’ in the shape of Lee Harvey Oswald. We will never be entirely sure of his motives as he was himself murdered soon after the killing of the President; it may have been revenge for the aborted invasion of Cuba or merely an act on behalf of what he saw as an ideological struggle between the USSR and the USA. We do know that it made no difference to the momentum of US militarism and imperialism across the globe.

We also know that none of the above acts of violence made any significant difference to the course of history; and that they will continue to be politically irrelevant. Only the ideologically naïve believe that individuals hold immense power and that to annihilate these people would change anything in the lives of the majority. In contrast if we can convince the majority of the illusion of this belief, in both the legitimacy of attempting to allocate power to single individuals and the possibility that they can wield it successfully, then we can assassinate one of the causes of political murder.’

Wez.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-history-of-assassination-2017.html

'Take a tip from Bill Sikes'

 

‘In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts
I'm afraid these don't grow on trees
You've got to pick a pocket or two
You've got to pick a pocket or two, boys! ‘

Lionel Bart Oliver

It is said that there is no honour amongst thieves. Neither is there any amongst capitalists. Exploiting each other, makes a change from exploiting the workers. But until capitalism is abolished they, and their class, will continue to derive their wealth from screwing over the working class.

‘Brazilian toys and electronics mogul Leo Kryss is suing the real estate agent who he claims persuaded him to knock $6 million off the asking price of his mansion without telling him the buyer was Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Kryss claims he would not have agreed to the discount and would have extracted more than the $79 million that he sold the property for had he known the world’s second-wealthiest person was behind the bid.

Bezos is currently worth over $200 billion, trailing only Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Bezos bought the 19,000-square-foot mansion on Miami’s Indian Creek island, dubbed the “billionaires’ bunker” for being home to numerous billionaires and celebrities, in October. The house, which boasts a wine cellar, library and theater, was initially listed for $85 million.

Kryss is now taking US real estate company Douglas Elliman, which handled both sides of the sale, to court for allegedly concealing the Amazon founder’s identity.

Kryss claimed that Bezos had bought the adjacent property for $68 million in June of the same year, so he suspected that the billionaire was behind the bid on his house and inquired if he indeed was the prospective buyer, according to court filings. Douglas Elliman claimed to have had no such knowledge, according to legal documents. Kryss, who put down $28 million to buy the place back in 2014, agreed to sell the property for $6 million below the asking price.

Only later did he find out that he had sold the property to an entity linked to Bezos. Knowing who the real buyer was would have been “highly material to [Kryss’] negotiations and his decision on the ultimate sales price,” the legal filing states.

His lawyer also claimed the realtor “knew or should have known who the ultimate beneficial purchaser was and misrepresented that very important fact to our client.”

Indian Creek island has 41 addresses, with residents including former US President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, NFL legend Tom Brady, and model Adriana Lima.

In April, Bezos brought his total investment in the area up to $237 million with a $90 million purchase of a third mansion on the Island.’

Grenfell

 

An Unquenchable Blaze

Imagine waking at night, surrounded by flames, the air scalding your lungs. Grenfell Tower's residents experienced this horror on June 14, 2017, when the 24-story block was engulfed in fire, causing 72 deaths. The fire began with a malfunctioning fridge-freezer but spread due to the building's combustible cladding, revealing systemic safety failures in UK construction and government oversight.

Construction Failings and Cladding

Originally, fireproof cladding was planned for Grenfell's refurbishment. However, the material was downgraded to save money. Emails revealed that the cheaper, less safe cladding was chosen despite warnings. The decision, which saved £293,368, directly led to the rapid spread of fire. The cladding served more for aesthetic purposes, making the building blend in with the affluent neighbourhood of Kensington rather than improving its safety. One inquiry expert aptly described it as "a time bomb waiting to go off."

People's Disenfranchisement

The Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), responsible for managing Grenfell, repeatedly ignored safety concerns raised by residents. Residents had formed grassroots resistance against the faceless body managing their lives, but their warnings fell on deaf ears. The KCTMO, motivated by cost-cutting and profits, neglected the safety of Grenfell’s predominantly working-class residents.

Systemic Inequality and Class Divide

Grenfell Tower, located in one of London’s wealthiest boroughs, was an eyesore to its rich neighbours. While properties in the area were worth millions, Grenfell’s residents, many of whom were working-class and from immigrant backgrounds, lived in unsafe conditions. The fire has since become a powerful symbol of the deep inequalities that plague London and the UK more broadly. Survivors testified that the fire would likely not have occurred in a building housing wealthier residents, where safety standards would have been higher.

Edward Daffarn, a Grenfell resident and campaigner, stated: “We were treated as second-class citizens because of our postcode and because we were poor.” Housing in the UK is increasingly seen as a commodity rather than as satisfying a basic human need, and Grenfell epitomises the dangers of such a system. Social housing has been underfunded and neglected for decades, often outsourced to private contractors whose primary concern is profit, not safety.

Government Oversight and Accountability

The government's role in the tragedy cannot be overlooked. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 weakened fire safety regulations in an effort to reduce "red tape." Responsibility for fire risk assessments was transferred to building owners and landlords, relying on private contractors under constant pressure to cut costs.

Eric Pickles, the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government from 2010 to 2015, played a key role in these deregulations. During his tenure, fire safety recommendations following the 2009 Lakanal House fire were largely ignored. More recently, Pickles faced backlash for his dismissive comments during the Grenfell inquiry, further highlighting the indifference toward the victims.

Corporate Negligence

The companies involved in Grenfell’s refurbishment, including Arconic, Celotex, and Rydon, prioritized profit over people’s lives. Arconic continued to supply flammable cladding despite being aware of its fire risks, as internal documents revealed. The inquiry also exposed how contractors like Rydon made decisions based on cost, often sidelining fire safety. One Rydon project manager testified that he knew about the fire risks but felt it wasn’t his role to question the overall design.

Survivor and Campaigner Testimonies

Survivors and bereaved families, represented by groups like Grenfell United, have consistently criticised the lack of accountability from authorities. They argue that Grenfell happened because the people in power saw the residents as expenses, not individuals. As survivor Edward Daffarn stated during the inquiry: “No one has been held to account for what happened at Grenfell. We don’t just want words; we want to see real change.”

Grenfell Action Group (GAG) was instrumental in raising concerns before the fire, repeatedly warning that a disaster was inevitable. Their warnings, however, were ignored. In a blog post written months before the fire, GAG chillingly predicted, “only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord.”

The Inquiry and Its Findings

The public inquiry, chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, was divided into two phases. Phase one, released in 2019, focused on how the fire started and the response from emergency services. Firefighter Michael Dowden admitted in his testimony that, with hindsight, he would have done things differently.

Phase two, published on 4 September, is investigated the broader circumstances, including the decisions made during Grenfell’s refurbishment. Testimonies have revealed that fire safety was often sidelined in favour of aesthetics and cost efficiency. Architects and contractors ignored basic safety practices, contributing to the disaster. As lawyer for the survivors Stephanie Barwise KC noted, there were repeated opportunities to prevent the fire, but none were taken.

The inquiry has also shone a light on the inequality and indifference shown towards social housing tenants and marginalised communities. Survivors and campaigners continue to push for accountability and systemic reform. However, as of 2024, many feel that this remains elusive.

Housing as a Commodity

A major critique emerging from the Grenfell tragedy is how neoliberal capitalism treats housing as a commodity rather than a basic human right. Under this system, housing policy has shifted towards privatization, with little regard for the safety of those living in social housing. Dr. Lee Elliot Major, a social mobility expert, noted: “Grenfell exemplifies how housing policy in the UK, driven by neoliberal economics, has led to a profit-driven culture where the most vulnerable are treated as afterthoughts.”

The Role of Capitalism

The decisions leading to the Grenfell disaster are a reflection of capitalism’s systemic failures. The drive for profit at all costs, the deregulation of safety standards, and the neglect of social housing tenants are all inherent features of this economic system. As a result, the lives of working-class people are deemed expendable in the pursuit of wealth.

In 2017 David Lammy (now the Foreign Secretary), summed up the situation: “This is what happens when you deregulate and allow market forces to dictate safety in housing. Profit comes first, people come second.”

Grenfell is not just a story of corporate and governmental negligence; it is a symbol of deep-seated inequality. The fire exposed the glaring class divides in London, where working-class residents of social housing are treated as expendable. Survivors and campaigners remain determined to hold those responsible accountable and to ensure that no other community suffers the same fate.

‘Justice for Grenfell’ is not merely about criminal charges or compensation—it is about systemic change, ending capitalism with its class inequality and profit priority.

Swallowing Capitalism Hook, Line and Sinker

The Guardian has a piece on a survey which says that ‘Britons struggle to name common fish, while two-fifths admit that they have “only ever eaten it in batter or breadcrumbs”.’ 

‘Over half of those surveyed had no idea that a John Dory was a spiny fish; 12% mistakenly thought “he” was a famous poet, according to the Marine Stewardship Council poll.

‘Another 6% said the only pollock they had heard of was the American artist Jackson Pollock. A similar number thought that a hake was a garden tool.’

Would Jackson pollock fans have been delighted that as many as six per cent recognised who he was? A hake might easily be a dialect word for a rake so is excusable.

‘It confirmed that 60% had never tried John Dory, which is a common sea fish…’ To show how surveys should always be taken with a pinch of salt, and lots of vinegar if eating fish and chips, this writer read ‘John Dory’ as ‘Richard Cory’, a Simon and Garfunkel song about an American capitalist.

The poll came from the Marine Stewardship Council, who say that in September they are, ‘encouraging people to try something different”, particularly sustainable varieties of fish and seafood caught by fishing communities around the UK.’ So a marketing exercise then.

So how many, or how few, would respond to a survey asking what was the cause of many of the life problems they were experiencing on a day to day basis? Would ‘capitalism’ top the list? Knowledge is power. The MSC is encouraging people to learn more about fish.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/13/garden-hake-poet-john-dory-ignorance-fish-is-off-the-scale

The below is from the Socialist Standard March 1942

Conchies equals Conscientious Objectors

‘The Sunday Pictorial publishes letters from its readers under the title of "Voice of the People." On Sunday, January 25th, a hater of conchies urged that they should all be made to catch fish with pay at 1s. a day. Alternatively, they should be issued with conspicuously marked ration books which only allowed them foods which men have NOT risked their lives to get.

[This is similar to Covid when people who said they would inject themselves with unknown substances were threatened with all sorts of additional freedom restrictions.]

So conchies should catch fish for one shilling a day! Speaking of fish, we remember a time when particularly large catches of fish were thrown back into the sea. This happened, of course, in the piping days of peace and prosperity. They were discarded, because certain interested capitalists feared that so large an abundance might interfere with their rate of profit. Many workers, particularly the free unemployed, would have enjoyed some of this "surplus" fish.

May we be permitted to suggest that it would be quite a good idea to make the individuals responsible do a spot of fishing themselves. Possibly, after several months at sea, they would consider the advisability of tipping unwanted catches into the briny.

But, of course, these people are not conscientious objectors. They are busy trying to fight, or urging others to fight, for freedom—the freedom to burn food, pour milk down the drains, use wheat as fuel, and, of course, thrown fish into the sea, as their profit-making activities require.

The view that conchies should not be allowed to eat food for which other men have risked their lives affords us some cynical amusement. Workers also risk their lives during the periods of capitalist peace. They suffer mutilation and death in the mines and factories. And the fruit of their labour is used to make easy and joyful the lives of the propertied few. Shall we issue these people with specially marked ration books? But ah, they are not conscientious objectors.’

Kaye

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/06/fish-and-conchies-1942.html