JFK: 22nd November, 1963

 

From the January 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘It is part of the mystique essential to the leadership cult that the leaders themselves, dead and alive, are surrounded by myths. When they die in as dramatically horrible a way as the late President Kennedy, the myths may become more exaggerated than usual. Everyone, except for a few lunatics like the Deep South segregationists who cheered when they heard it, must have felt a chill of horror at the news of Kennedy’s assassination. Everyone must feel for Mrs. Kennedy in her endurance of an experience to haunt her for the rest of her life. It is never pleasant to look upon the results of violence, especially the sort of which simmers beneath the garish shell of a city like Dallas.

But the world is larger than one man, no matter how powerful he may be—and Kennedy was a very powerful man indeed. The eminence of the people who attended his funeral is proof—if more proof were needed—of the fact that the United States stands supreme in world capitalism today. But whatever sympathy we may feel for Kennedy we also feel for the millions of other people who suffer under capitalism. We feel it for those who meet, without headlines, equally horrible deaths in wartime. However much we sympathise with Mrs. Kennedy in her grief, we have the same feelings for the relatives of those who died in battle, or in air raids. We feel for all the unnecessary suffering which property society imposes on the human race—for the hunger and the fear and the cruel struggle that is so often the business of living.

Because we feel these things, and want to do something about them, we are Socialists. And because we are Socialists we try to dispel the myths which help to sustain capitalism, no matter what or whom they concern.

The first notion we have to examine is the one which is held, in different ways, by the man who shot the President and by the people who applauded, and by those who grieved, his death. This is the notion that murdering Kennedy will substantially alter the course of history. Predictably, there have been many comparisons with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln at the end of the American Civil War. Yet Lincoln’s murder did not change anything. It did not alter the fact that the North had won and that as a result the American Union would continue to be solidified and to develop into the great power that it is today. If the American Negro is still, in many parts of the United States, held in near slavery, that is only because one of the real factors in the moulding of history—the massive will of a people—wants him to remain so and not because a man who is mistakenly supposed to have stood for Negro freedom was murdered.

In the same way, the policies which Kennedy followed, whatever superficial effect he himself had upon them, were basically determined for him by the conditions of his time. Kennedy, it is said, regarded politics as the art of the possible which means, among other things, that he tried to acknowledge the realities of modern capitalism. The new President, Johnson, lost no time in declaring that he, too, would work within these realities. Thus there will probably be no change in Washington’s new attitude towards the Soviet Union. This attitude sprang, not from a change of heart on the part of Mr. Khrushchev, nor from a pacific impulse on the part of President Kennedy, but from the new balance of power after the rift between Russia and China. This rift, incidentally, was symbolised by different reactions to the news of Kennedy’s assassination—regret in Moscow, jubilation in Peking. This situation has brought about a change in Russo/American relations; American policy is now the compound of firmness and caution upon which the dead President put his stamp.

We are accustomed, now, to hearing such changes described as the actions of peace-loving leaders. President Johnson has run true to form on this; in, his first speech to Congress he said:

“We will be unceasing in the search for peace—resourceful in our pursuit of areas of agreement even with those with whom we differ—and loyal to those who join with us in common cause.”

There will, too, be no change on civil rights. Racial intolerance is a considerable obstacle to the advance of organised industry in some parts of America; any government which faces modern realities must be opposed to it. Here was one of Kennedy’s greatest difficulties. He knew the importance of desegregation but he also knew that to push a programme of equal rights would cost him votes. And so it did. He was, in fact, in Texas in an effort to heal a split in the local Democratic ranks, and to rally support for his presidential campaign next year, when he was shot down.

The Kennedy policies, then, will continue because they expressed the conditions and the needs of American capitalism today. If some Congressmen opposed them, if fanatical racialist Senators from the South persisted in regarding Kennedy as a dangerous revolutionary, that is only a measure of the fact that they reflect the ignorance of the people who elected them. This ignorance need not concern only such things as class consciousness; it can also apply, as it does in the case of racial intolerance, to the realities of modern capitalism. Johnson will also do his best to make the United States face these realities. “I hate this as much as you do,” he once shouted at some obstinate Congressman, “But this is happening.” Which is a typically Texan way of summing it up.

Kennedy’s image was of a gracefully relaxed, yet energetically driving, young man. A cultured, sincere man; a man whose good looks, background and accomplishments made him something of a model for every modern sales executive. Kennedy was rich enough to have had, and to have taken advantage of, a very good education. One report put his personal fortune at between £3½ million and £4¼ million, and that of his father at something like £100 million. His social regime in the White House showed that he was deeply appreciative of the arts. But at the same time Kennedy was a very cool politician. He planned years ahead for his assault upon the Presidency. The manner in which he convinced the Democratic Party that his comparative youth and his Roman Catholicism did not weaken his power to attract votes was a classical example of his single-minded political campaigning. His professed sincerity and ideals did not prevent him, when he named Johnson as his Vice-Presidential candidate, from working the vote-catching compromise which is usual in American presidential elections. The campaign itself was a masterpiece, with Kennedy the man very much in control. Alistair Cooke reporting the campaign for The Guardian, contrasted the possible reactions of the candidates if they lost. Nixon, he thought, would take defeat bitterly but Kennedy would not let it worry him—he would “sleep sound o’nights.” 

There is no reason to suppose that Kennedy’s death will basically change anything. Perhaps there will be different decorations at the White House, or fewer famous musicians performing there. But the ideas and the policies which come out will be to all intents and purposes the same as if Kennedy were still alive. This is what American investors thought; Wall Street slumped when the President was shot, but a couple of days later it recovered with a rise the like of which has not been seen for over thirty years. The Stock Exchange in London, and its equivalent in other capitals, were also not slow to express their opinion that, whoever is in the White House, capitalism is going to live on.

The Cuban crisis made Kennedy the first man ever to have wielded, in apparent earnest, the threat of nuclear war as an instrument in capitalism’s international disputes. The manner in which he handled that crisis may be enough to set him down as one of the world’s more incisive leaders. Because of this, he will be buried in the myth that a leader’s political skill, or lack of it, substantially alters history. In fact, Kennedy was very much like the men who were Presidents before him, and the man who has succeeded him. He worked within the art of the possible. Perhaps at times he hated what he was doing yet was compelled to do it—because it was happening.’

Ivan

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/01/kennedy-and-after-1964.html

SPGB Meeting TONIGHT 22 November 1930 (GMT) ZOOM

 WORK

Speaker: Paul Bennett

Studs Terkel’s book Working begins, ‘This book, being about work, is, by its very nature, about violence – to the spirit as well as to the body … To survive the day is triumph enough for the walking wounded among the great many of us.’ This talk will look at one form of work, employment under capitalism, and will mainly make use of the words of workers themselves, as recorded by Terkel and others. We’ll ask why employment is like this, and whether it is necessary.

To connect to a Zoom meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305

US: 'Acceptable' use of nuclear weapons

 

‘The US is ready to use nuclear weapons if necessary but would only do so on terms “acceptable” for the country and its interests, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) spokesman Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan has said.  

Speaking at the Project Atom 2024 event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Buchanan noted that such conditions imply that the US will “continue to lead the world.”  

“If we have to have an exchange then we want to do it in terms that are most acceptable to the United States,” which are namely to maintain a position where the US is largely viewed as a world leader, Buchanan said.  

The admiral noted that in the event of a potential nuclear exchange, the US would seek to maintain a portion of its arsenal for continued deterrence.   

“We’d have to have reserve capacity. You wouldn’t expend all of your resources to gain winning, right? Because then you would have nothing to deter from at that point,” Buchanan said.  

At the same time, he stressed that the US “would not like to be in an environment that would follow the exchange of nuclear strikes,” and seeks to avoid any such scenario. The admiral urged ongoing dialogue with Russia, China, and North Korea to reduce the risk of a nuclear conflict, adding that “nuclear weapons are political weapons.”  

His remarks come days after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new national nuclear doctrine that outlines the scenarios in which Moscow would be authorized to deploy its nuclear arsenal.  

The new doctrine states that Moscow will have the right to consider the nuclear option if Russia or Belarus come under attack by conventional arms, and if such aggression creates a “critical threat” to their sovereignty or territorial integrity.  

Commenting on the updated nuclear doctrine, a number of political experts pointed out that it could force the US and other Western nations to reconsider their military support for Ukraine.  

Following the publication of the revised rules, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained that the new doctrine effectively gives Russia the right to consider a nuclear response to the use of Western-supplied non-nuclear missiles by Kiev against Russian territory.’

What lies beneath....

 If you’ve being paying attention recently, you will have heard Labour ministers claiming that they are “fixing the foundations” of the economy. Convinced? Neither are we. Because the foundations (actually, foundation singular) of the current system is profit-seeking, which works best when it is able to screw the maximum possible amount of unpaid labour from the workers.

Like the previous lot (who were going to Build Back Better, remember?), Starmer, Reeves et al love a construction analogy, but daren’t let on that the capitalist edifice, foundation included, was built for the benefit of the capitalists, and that the role of government is to try to ensure continuing ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of said edifice for the minority class.

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

US call for more meatgrinder victims in its proxy war.

 

‘A shortage of American weapons is not the problem, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has argued

Ukraine should ramp up military mobilization and send more troops to fight Russia, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has suggested in an interview with PBS News on Monday. Sullivan also rejected the argument that more American weapons could turn the tide on the frontlines.

“Have we seen a marked difference since we have provided tanks to Ukraine in terms of the battlefield? Similarly, on F-16s, have we seen a marked difference?” he asked host Nick Schifrin, referring to the firepower donated by the US and its allies to Kiev.

“It’s about manpower, and Ukraine needs to do more, in our view, to firm up its lines in terms of the number of forces it has on the front lines,” he said. “Where is the straightest line between Ukrainian performance and inputs? It’s on mobilization and manpower.”

Moscow has long stated that no amount of Western military aid could change the outcome of the conflict. Instead of chasing a military victory, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky should have compromised and agreed to the terms of the draft truce which the two sides negotiated in Istanbul in 2022, Russian officials have argued.

Zelensky’s decision to abandon the talks, following intervention from then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, suggests that he is complicit in a Western ploy to inflict maximum damage to Russia while fighting “to the last Ukrainian,” Moscow has alleged.

Sullivan claimed that Russia had deployed thousands of North Korean troops to the frontline in Kursk Region. Moscow and Pyongyang have neither confirmed nor denied this, while Zelensky has claimed that his forces could face as many as 100,000 North Korean soldiers unless the West ramps up support.

Zelensky ordered the incursion into Russian territory in August in what many military experts called a dangerous gamble aimed at slowing down Russian advances. Moscow’s Défense Ministry estimates Ukrainian losses in the operation at almost 34,000 casualties, over 200 tanks and thousands of other pieces of heavy weaponry.’

Has the Doomsday Clock just jumped forward?

‘On Monday, millions of Swedes will start receiving copies of a pamphlet advising the population how to prepare and cope in the event of war or another unexpected crisis.

“In case of crisis or war” has been updated from six years ago because of what the government in Stockholm calls the worsening security situation, by which it means Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The booklet is also twice the size.

Neighbouring Finland has also just published its own fresh advice online on “preparing for incidents and crises”.

And Norwegians have also recently received a pamphlet urging them to be prepared to manage on their own for a week in the event of extreme weather, war and other threats.’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4zwj2lgdo

Shades of the UK’s Protect and Survive.

A report on social media, sourcing the Financial Times, (paywalled) says that Estonia’s Foreign Minister has said that if the President Elect of the USA makes a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, one of the terms is that Ukraine does not join NATO, then a European coalition, led by Britain and Poland should step in to fihght on Ukraine’s side. This apparently will stop Russian aggression.

A Sun ‘journalist’ writes that the USA should have provided Ukraine with the missiles it may now have access to at the beginning of the conflict. The latest decision to provide these weapons will not lead to WW3 he asserts. He opines that, ‘Ukraine is maybe Europe’s front line but its soldiers are fighting for more than their homes. They are defending the world as we know it. ‘

What world might that be? Shades of Billy Bragg’s fighting to keep the world safe for capitalism.

‘US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorized Ukraine to use long-range American missiles to strike targets inside Russia’s pre-2014 borders, according to a New York Times reporting anonymous American officials.

The decision, if accurately conveyed by the newspaper, marks a major shift in Washington’s policy and will raise the stakes in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. The White House has yet to comment publicly on the matter.

The report states that Ukraine is expected to deploy the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) against Russian forces and alleged North Korean troops in Russia’s Kursk Region, where fierce fighting is ongoing. The supposed presence of North Korean forces has been used as part of the justification for the policy change, though there is no verified proof of Pyongyang’s troops operating in Russia.

ATACMS missiles can be fired from HIMARS launchers, which Ukraine has had in its arsenal since 2022. Kiev's forces have had ATACMS missiles since April, but have until now been limited to using them on land considered Ukrainian by Washington. ATACMS missiles travel at supersonic speed and have a range of 300 kilometers (190 miles).

“The move is a significant escalation and may provoke a direct response from Moscow,” the report notes. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that any attacks on Russia’s internationally recognized territory with American-supplied weaponry would be viewed as NATO entering the conflict directly. Such actions, he has suggested, could lead to severe repercussions, including retaliation against Western interests.

The reported US policy shift has also divided Biden’s advisers, the newspaper claims. While some argue the change is necessary to counter Moscow’s supposed  military moves, others fear it could further escalate tensions and risk a broader conflict.

Supporters of arming Ukraine more aggressively believe that previous hesitation by the US has emboldened Moscow, while critics warn of potential Russian retaliation against American and Western European assets.

The Times report also highlights that while the Ukrainian military may first target Russian and alleged North Korean forces in Kursk, the strikes could potentially be expanded to other regions.

The long-range capabilities of ATACMS would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, potentially disrupting supply lines and troop concentrations.

Kiev’s desire for long-range capabilities has been a longstanding request. With Biden’s reported authorization, the geopolitical dynamics of the conflict could now shift dramatically.’

The cost of capitalist destruction

‘The US Congress has allocated $182.99 billion to Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s military operation in February 2022, according to a report from the Pentagon’s Inspector General.

Of the total amount, around $131.36 billion has been directed towards security-related activities. This includes $46.51 billion earmarked for an increased US military presence in Europe and $45.78 billion for replacing weaponry supplied to Ukraine. In addition, $43.84 billion has been allocated for governance programs, which include salaries for Ukrainian public servants, while $4.08 billion has been designated for humanitarian assistance.

The US has provided a range of military equipment to Ukraine, including vehicles, ammunition, weapons, artillery, and demolition equipment. The aid packages have specifically included Bradley fighting vehicles, which Ukrainian troops have come to prefer over Abrams tanks due to their speed and agility on the battlefield, the report says, adding that American maintenance experts continue to offer remote support for this equipment through secure communication channels.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has allocated $3.9 billion in additional direct budget support to Ukraine, part of a larger $7.84 billion supplemental appropriation approved in April 2024. This budget support facilitates ongoing government operations and the provision of essential services in Ukraine. The funding covers salaries for civil servants and school employees, assistance for internally displaced persons, support for low-income families, as well as subsidies for housing and utilities.

While the administration of US President Joe Biden has maintained its commitment to providing financial and military support to Ukraine “for as long as it takes” amid the conflict with Russia, concerns have arisen regarding the potential impact of President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory on future military assistance.

Trump (has) stated that his administration will work diligently to resolve the conflict, stressing the need to prevent further bloodshed.’

Estonian equates poverty and crime: Someone explain Capitalism to them.

 

‘Poverty is to blame for rising crime rates in Estonia, the country’s justice and digital minister, Liisa Pakosta, has claimed. The comments came ahead of a European Commission report partially attributing Tallinn’s recent economic woes to severing trade ties with Russia.  

After a decade of decline, crime levels started to grow in 2023, Pakosta told a press conference, as quoted by the ERR public broadcaster. The upward trend has continued this year, with overall crime rates up 4% year-on-year. Scams have seen the most notable jump of 25%, the minister said.

The figures are part of a “wider European trend” of growing crime rates, which analysts blame on the deteriorating socio-economic situation, she added.

“Unfortunately, the number of people who say that they steal because they otherwise do not have money to buy food and basic necessities has also increased,” Pakosta said.

Around 20% of Estonia’s population of 1.37 million people is at risk of poverty, while the absolute poverty rate stands at 2.7%, according to official statistics. Inflation rose by 4.1% in October year-on-year.

Estonia's gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 3% in 2023, and the country is expected to remain in recession in 2024 amid weak domestic demand, according to the European Commission.

The latest economic forecast released by the Commission’s Economic and Financial Affairs department on Friday projects the Estonian economy growing by 1.1% in 2025. However, growth will remain weak in the coming years “as a result of several factors, including the permanent loss of cheap inputs from Russia.” 

Among other factors are “weak growth in the country’s main trading partners,” which in 2023 were the EU member states, and “lingering geopolitical concerns,” the report states.

SPGB Meeting TONIGHT 15 November 1930 (GMT) ZOOM

 

YET MORE WAYS THAT SOCIALISM CAN HEAL THE WORLD (Zoom)

---

Event Details

• Date: November 15, 2024 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm

---

Speaker: Paddy Shannon

To connect to a Zoom meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305

SPGB Meeting Friday 1 November 1930 (GMT) ZOOM

 

YET MORE WAYS THAT SOCIALISM CAN HEAL THE WORLD (Zoom)

---

Event Details

• Date: November 15, 2024 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm

---

Speaker: Paddy Shannon

To connect to a Zoom meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305

Socialist Sonnet No. 172

Lest We Forget

 

‘Lest we forget’ the pious legend runs

Around the cenotaph, fallen leaves swept

Away for the marking of that unkept

Promise, the final silencing of guns,

Rumbling ever since. Led by royalty

Decked out in their martial pomposity,

While conflicts with all gross ferocity

Make a deadly mockery of loyalty,

The gathered all silently bow their heads

And whisper to themselves, ‘Never no more!’

But such sentiment does not prevent war:

Indeed the living thus betray the dead.

There’s no peace, not even an armistice

While capitals continue to claim their price.

 

D. A.

Billionaires already benefitting from Trump election

‘Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election has led to the net worth of one of his biggest financial backers, Elon Musk, skyrocketing by $26.5 billion, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index.   

The Index is a ranking of the world’s 500 wealthiest people based on their net worth. It takes into account fluctuations in the share price of companies in which they have holdings.    

Musk, the owner of Tesla, SpaceX CEO, and X, has led the ranking as the world’s wealthiest person with a fortune estimated at $290 billion.  

Shares of Tesla surged by 14.8% on Wednesday as investors bet that Musk and his electric vehicle producer will benefit from Trump’s return to the White House.    

Musk, who campaigned alongside the president-elect, supported Trump to the tune of millions of dollars since officially endorsing him in July. According to media reports, he donated about $119 million to the Republican’s political action committee.

Tesla, which dominates sales of EVs in the US with a market share of 48.9%, is expected to make sharp gains under a Trump administration, given the Republican’s plans for extensive tariffs on imports of Chinese cars.  

“Tesla has the scale and scope that is unmatched,” said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, in a note to investors. “This dynamic could give Musk and Tesla a clear competitive advantage in a non-EV subsidy environment, coupled by likely higher China tariffs that would continue to push away cheaper Chinese EV players.”   

Trump has repeatedly warned he will impose tariffs of up to 200% on vehicles imported from China.   

“They’re going to pay a 100% or maybe even a 200% tariff because we’re not going to let them come into our country and destroy what’s left of our auto industry,” he pledged in October.  

Earlier this month, Trump also promised the Tesla CEO a role in his administration.   

Apart from Musk, the fortunes of a number of other billionaires also skyrocketed following Trump’s victory.   

Amazon owner Jeff Bezos saw his net worth surge $7 billion to $223.5 billion, maintaining his position as the world’s second-wealthiest person behind Musk.  

Crypto magnates also made out well. The net worth of Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of crypto exchange Coinbase, soared by $2.6 to $11 billion, according to Bloomberg, while Binance crypto exchange founder Changpeng Zhao added $12.1 billion following the election, boosting his fortune to $52.7 billion.’

SPGB Meeting TONIGHT 8 November 1930 (GMT) ZOOM

 

THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (ZOOM)

---

Event Details

• Date: November 8, 2024 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm

---

Discussion about the result.

To connect to a Zoom meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305

'Interesting Times' ?

 

The results are in from the American election. Donald J Trump has become the forty seventh President of the United States and now has a second term of four years in the White House.

As the Socialist Standard Editorial, below, points out this is not a win for the working class. Neither would it have been if 'Democrat' Vice President Kamala Harris had secured victory.

In Socialism there would be no need for ‘leaders’, for states, or for class conflict. The exploitation of the majority by a minority would be ended.

Americans, who voted for, or supported for any of the five candidates, would

be better served by working toward the replacement of capitalism by socialism. But not the ‘socialism’ as advocated by a standing candidate, Claudia De La Cruz and the Party for Socialism (sic) and Liberation 

The PSL PSL identifies as a Marxist-Leninist party. The party describes its primary goal as the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the institution of state socialism as a transitionary stage toward a communist society, stating that "humanity today has only two choices: an increasingly destructive capitalism, or socialism". According to Wiki ‘PSL defends the Soviet Union's suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The party supports the Communist Party of China,[criticizing only its capitalist economic reforms.PSL argues that "militant political defence of the Chinese government" is necessary to stave off "counter-revolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment".[PSL defends China's human rights records, and strongly denies that the People's Liberation Army massacred student protestors in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. PSL denies that China has suppressed democracy in Hong Kong. PSL supports Kim Jong-un. PSL describes North Korea as "one of the few top-to-bottom, actually-existing, alternatives to the global capitalist system" .PSL supports North Korea's nuclear weapons program. PSL rejects criticism of North Korea's human rights record, which it calls "thinly veiled justification for U.S. aggression toward North Korea"] and argues that "conditions in North Korea are vastly better than those in other developing countries"’.

State socialism’ is state capitalism. The American working class deserve to know about real socialism, not this outdated twaddle instigated by Lenin et al.

Editorial from the November 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘As we go to press the US presidential election is approaching its conclusion amid a febrile atmosphere of fear and mutual loathing, with each side trolling the other during a punishing schedule of rallies in the decisive swing states, and Trump-backer Elon Musk offering to pay $1m a day to petition-signers in Pennsylvania.

‘What happens on 5 November could change the world we live in,’ pants the Guardian, reflecting the breathless fascination of the world’s media for an election which may in truth have a significant bearing on tariff-versus-free-trade tensions playing out across world markets, as well as on Israel and the Middle East war, Russia’s war in Ukraine, the growing power of China, and implications for US carbon commitments. Many fear the consequences of a Trump victory. Many others fear the fireworks Trump may unleash if he rallies his fanbase to reject a defeat.

According to Pew surveys, domestic US voters are not overly concerned with geopolitical questions or foreign trade, and even less with global warming. 81 percent of those polled say their main concern is the economy, which a barrage of Republican disinformation has represented as a failed basket-case under Biden. This isn’t so, objectively speaking. The economy is in fact very healthy, at least for wealth owners, but for many workers it’s a catastrophe of low wages and high prices. Both things can be true, of course. A healthy economy of desperate workers is capitalism’s ideal operating condition.

Many US voters probably grasp, at some deep level, that they don’t matter, their views don’t count, and their needs will go unmet. The Democrats make no apology for standing primarily for the urban, college-educated, white-collar ‘middle class’, by implication writing off the rural, non-college, blue-collar majority as a rabble and a lost cause. If capitalist democracy is a rigged circus anyway, some will think, why not elect the most outrageous clown, if only to wind up the establishment and the liberal woke opposition?

From an outside perspective, this vicious race to the bottom looks frankly surreal, framed as it is partly by America’s privately owned and heavily polarised news media, with Fox touting Trump and CNN touting Harris, and partly by their peculiar libel laws, disguised as ‘free speech’, in which anyone ‘has the right’ to slander and tell lies about anyone else without the legal obligation to substantiate or retract.

Unlike the recent UK general election, there is no foregone conclusion here, with polls showing Trump and Harris neck and neck. But we can certainly predict that, whoever wins, and failing a global environmental disaster or nuclear war, American workers will not see much if any difference. Governments can’t control markets anyway, regardless of ideologies. They are like roller-coaster riders, hanging on for dear life as capitalism hurtles through its booms and slumps, powered by its own insatiable frenzy. The main effect of capitalist elections is not to bring about real change but to promote the illusion of change while the runaway acceleration of exploitation remains unaddressed and undisturbed.

So, whichever way it goes, the working class won’t win. There is no way to win, except by abolishing capitalism in favour of truly democratic global common ownership. Otherwise, all the glamour and fireworks are merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2024/11/editorial-fireworks-on-november-5-2024.html

November 5th

 Editorial from the November 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The only man to enter Parliament with good intentions”. So some describe Guy Fawkes, though this isn’t the official line on the Gunpowder Plot which was uncovered four hundred years ago this month. Actually, this saying is wrong on two counts. Guy Fawkes did not enter Parliament with good intentions, and to wish to blow up Parliament can’t really be said to be a good intention (blowing them up wouldn‘t achieve anything; voting them out is the intelligent thing to do).

Four hundred years ago the English ruling class was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Spain which, with the backing of the Pope, was trying to incorporate England into a revived Holy Roman Empire. Capitalism had only come into being in the previous hundred years or so and the English ruling class was in the process of transforming itself from a serf-exploiting feudal nobility into a ruling class whose wealth and power would be based on producing for and trading on the world market. To achieve this it was essential to avoiding being incorporated to an economically stagnant Absolutist Empire such as Spain was trying to establish in Europe.

The ideological smokescreen under which this conflict of economic interest was fought out was Protestantism versus Catholicism. Henry VIII had broken with the Pope in 1529 and Protestantism became the ideology of that section of the English ruling class striving for a national capitalist state. Catholicism that of its enemies. Throughout the 16th century in England, Catholics and Protestants were successively burned at the stake. Guy Fawkes was a Catholic and had entered Parliament with a view to blowing it up in a bid to re-establish a Catholic regime in England.

From the point of view of the English ruling class, he was a traitor, and has traditionally been portrayed as such in school history books. In fact, anti-Catholicism remained a key feature of English nationalism right up until the end of the 19th century. By then it had become an anachronism. England – since the union with Scotland in 1707, “Great Britain” – had long since established itself as the leading capitalist power in the world and was no longer under even the remotest threat of being incorporated into some backward-looking Absolutist Catholic Empire.

In view of the anti-Catholic aspect the media didn’t know quite how to mark the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot. They had no such doubts about how to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar – by an obscene display of jingoistic nationalism.

The ground had already been prepared by London’s successful bid to stage the 2012 Olympics and England’s regaining of the Ashes from Australia, both of which saw a mindless mob gather in Trafalgar Square to sing jingo songs known to socialists as “Fool Britannia”, “Land of Dopes and Tories”, “Good Save the Queen (and all who sail in her)” as well as – though quite out of place – Blake’s “Jerusalem”.

Socialists are utterly opposed to such manifestations of nationalism. In fact, we find disturbing the revival of nationalism in Britain in recent decades, as seen in the acceptance into the mainstream of formerly fascist usages such as the term “Briton” and the flag of St. George. At one time, British patriots used to call on people to die for their “country”, i.e. for the state which for accidental historical reasons happened to have jurisdiction over the geographical area where they lived. Nowadays, the appeal is to the “nation”, i.e. to an imaginary community. But there never can be any real community under capitalism. A “nation” is a false community, and a dangerous illusion because of its divisive nature.

Britain, like every other country or state in the world, is class-divided: a minority of rich owners and the rest of us. We have no interests in common with them and anything which encourages the illusion that all the people of Britain form a community with a common interest can only serve their interests. They need us to believe this because their rule and privileges depend on our acceptance. They are few but we are many. They know this but most of us don’t, yet.

When we do then we will see that the only community possible today, given the integration of the world economy, is a world community. But to be a real community there must be no class division. There must be common ownership of the globe’s resources so that they can be used for the benefit of all the members of the human race. We will then recognise ourselves, not as British, French, American, Australian or any of the other labels our rulers impose on us, but as members of the human race, citizens of the world, Earth people. Then the sort of narrow-minded nationalism orchestrated on Trafalgar Day – and let’s hope it’s not going to become an annual event – will be looked back on with a shudder as a manifestation of a barbarous past when ruling classes incited people to regard themselves as members of rival, competing “nations”.

Socialist Sonnet No. 171

Drama or Farce?

 

Viewed through red and blue tinted spectacles,

The two candidates perform as per script,

A political pantomime that’s gripped

The media at least. To raise the hackles

There’s the villain and his dastardly schemes,

With a reasonable heroine who charms:

Their parts deliver pathos and alarms,

While nothing in the plot’s quite what it seems.

With faux audience participation

People are moved to laughter, tears and rage,

But know they will never be centre stage;

This drama is not of their creation.

Both actors appear sincere and intense

Enough to fascinate the audience.

 

D. A.

Pensions and poverty

 

A charity points out the effects of capitalism in the UK on working until you drop . Charities, will be unnecessary in a socialist society, are always calling for more government action, or asking for more money to be thrown at a particular problem, which in itself is caused by capitalism, are merely seeking sticking plaster solutions on open wound issues. There’s only one solution to society’s ills -socialism.

You're never too old, or too young, to fight for socialism.

‘Our analysis shows that, each year, over 92,000 adults die before they can draw their pension. This figure will rise by thousands for every year the pension age increases. That means thousands more dying people and their families will lose out on this crucial benefit. The poorest in our society and those living in areas with low life expectancy and high working age poverty will be most badly affected. Nobody should die in poverty, and we are calling for change.

For each year the pension age is increased, thousands more people will die without being able to access their pension.

In 2022, 1 in 7 deaths (14%) in the UK were of adults who died before they were able to access their pension at the age of 66 (excluding those who died from causes such as poisoning, injury, accidents or related to pregnancy and birth), equating to 92,000 people. State Pension age is due to rise to 67 in 2026/7, which will lead to an extra 7,700 individuals dying before receiving any of their pension.

With an increase to age 68, as currently proposed to happen between 2041 and 2043, an extra 15,800 people per year compared to today would be denied their pension before they died. This would equate to 108,000 people each year.’

https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/blog/rising-state-pension-age-poverty/383583

The below is from the Socialist Standard August 2002

‘The class war, between the owners of the means of production (the capitalists) and those compelled by threat of poverty to sell their capacity to work (the workers) is an essential and continual feature of capitalist society. Romantic notions of class struggle – of rowdy mass meetings, strikes, battles on the barricades – concentrate on the exceptional forms, rather than the brain-throttlingly dull reality of the class struggle of every day life. In this category we can place things as seemingly dull and complex as retirement pensions.

Pensions account for a massive proportion of economic activity in the UK. According to the Office of National Statistics self-administered pension funds (funds set up by employers to pay occupational pensions, or private pension schemes) had a market value of £765 billion in 2000, paying out a total of £29 billion in benefits in the same year. Between them they account for some £300 billion-worth of shares in businesses, giving them considerable voting power in publicly quoted companies. This is alongside the £38 billion paid out by the government in state retirement pensions.

All capitalists now?

This concentrated ownership through pension funds has led some commentators to claim there has been a fundamental change in the basis of society. It’s not just overt pro-capitalists who look at things this way. Many leftists have seen controlling pension investments as a way of bringing the economy under social control. Indeed, the Labour government still see encouraging pension schemes to invest in riskier long-term venture capital projects as a way of overcoming the British productivity gap.

Funded pension schemes operate by investing the money paid in by or for scheme members on the stock exchange, and paying pensions from dividend income to those members who have contributed enough. Through the investment decisions of the pension trustees, the commentators maintain, the pensioners have control of vast investments. Thus, workers, they claim, must own part of the means of production, and have a vested interest in receiving a share of the profits. They would point out that in 1996 57 percent of pensioners reported to be receiving income from such occupational pension schemes.

The changes made by pension funds, though, are largely illusory. For starters, “an individual’s stake in an occupational pension scheme cannot be ‘cashed-in’” (Social Trends 2002, ONS, p.102), i.e., the pensioners do not own the capital of the pension funds. Coupled with this is the fact that the pension fund trustees are bound by strict legal guidelines regarding the manner of their investment: their first duty is to invest to maximise the profitability of the funds. That is, via their control of the state, the capitalist class exercise a form of collective control over the pension funds to ensure that their investment decisions are aimed at maximising their income from profits. Finally, even though 57 percent of pensioners receive an occupational pension, this accounts for only 27 percent of their total income. In other words, most workers do not earn enough to pay for a pension that will entirely support them on retirement.

From a Marxian perspective huge pension funds still mean capitalism as per usual. The need for pensions arises from the fact that as workers get older, they become less able to work, and become surplus to the requirements of capital. Those workers have spent their lives selling their capacity to work, in return for a wage which represented the cost of maintaining and reproducing their capacity to go on doing that work. If they cannot work, they have no other means of securing their means of living. Since the capitalists do not want to hire them, and workers are unwilling to work until they drop, the capitalist class has to pay out to keep workers alive upon retirement. So in this sense pensions reflect the existence to the class struggle.

As pension payments are a huge burden on them the capitalist class have an interest in ensuring that the pensions paid out do not get too out of hand. The capitalists at the sharp end of wage negotiations are well aware of this, as Larry Elliott noted in his Guardian column, when discussing TUC plans to make it compulsory for employers to make full occupational pension contributions. This, he wrote, “would eventually be paid for by workers through lower wages”. (Guardian, 24 June). That is, pensions are effectively deferred wages, with employers weighing their expected contribution to the pension fund off against current wages laid out (in the 1970s, this calculation was used as a way of circumventing wage restraints via reducing immediate employee contributions or just raising future pensions).

Maximising profits

Capital is always seeking to maximise the profits made from pension funds. In 2000 pension funds paid £3 billion in commission to stockbrokers alone, and paid £329 million in tax. As can be seen from the pension mis-selling scandal, there is plenty of incentive there for private pension funds to want to attract investors, to the extent of fraudulently persuading people to invest. The size of their repayment, £12 billion, indicates the scale of the scandal and the amounts they stood to gain from it.

As the TUC point out in their document Pensions in Peril: the Decline of the Final Salary Pension (http://www.tuc.org.uk/pensions/tuc-4672-f0.pdf), Inland Revenue statistics indicate that employers have netted a sum of £19 billion through reducing pension contributions or taking contribution holidays on the back of the surpluses in the pension funds between 1988 and 2000. That is, they pocketed profits from the pension funds by the back door, using the revenue they generated to cut the amount of money they need to pay to wages out of current receipts. By way of contrast, over the same period the workers only got back some £10 billion out of the surplus by way of reduced contributions and increased benefits.

Of course, these are just the legal ways that capitalists seek to gain from pension funds. As has been seen over the years, pension fund present a fabulous opportunity for fraud and chicanery on the part of our masters. Robert Maxwell famously stole £400 million from the Mirror group’s pension fund. “I own the pension scheme,” he declared, and proceeded to use its wealth to prop up his empire. This resulted in substantial changes to the law, including preventing pension funds from investing more than 5 percent of its funds in the employers’ companies.

Of course, it’s not just private employers who try to plunder these shimmering hordes of money. When the bus companies were privatised in 1986 in England, the state withheld £300 million from their pension schemes, and a further £250 million in Scotland. It took until last year, through countless legal wrangles, to get the money back, and even then the treasury held on to £100 million of the money from Scotland.

Due to burgeoning costs, employers are currently scaling back drastically the number of final salary (or defined benefit) pension schemes, that is, pensions where the final annuity is guaranteed as a proportion of the employee’s final salary by the employer. That is, the onus is on them to make up any shortfall in receipts from the fund and pay the pension. This is as opposed to defined contribution pensions, wherein returns are not guaranteed and will only apply according to the sums invested, as with any other personal pension. This exposes the pensioners to the full market risk of investing in the stock market casino. According to the TUC, there were 5.6 million workers on defined benefit schemes in 1991, and this is projected to have fallen to 3.8 million in 2001. This change in pension terms means a fall in employer contributions (defined contribution schemes are cheaper for them) and exposes them to less risk.

Whilst many point to changing demographics – with an increasingly ageing population in Western countries – as a key reason for the pensions problem, there are several other factors impelling capitalists to try and cut back on their pension costs and liabilities. As we have seen recently, one is the problem of a falling stock exchange.

Declining value

Between 1999 and 2000 pension funds’ total value fell from £812 to £765 billion. Contributions from employees and employers remained relatively stable over that period, but the value of shares held by the pension funds fell from £353 billion to £295 billion. This had the knock-on effect of reducing income from dividends – in 2001 dividend receipts fell from £13.02 billion for the previous year to £11.85 billion. According to the Guardian (2 July), over three-quarters of local authorities have deficits in their pension schemes, some of which will be compelled to increase council taxes to cover the cost.

On top of this, changes in corporate accounting, some which were inspired by the ongoing problem of transparency over pensions, mean that companies must quote their potential pension liabilities in their accounts, making them less potentially attractive to investors as they weigh against current profits. When British Airways changed to a defined contribution pension scheme their chief financial officer is quoted as having said that “the change to a defined contribution pension arrangement for future new UK staff is a measured and necessary response to the competitive environment in which British Airways operates”. That is, the competition for investment and profits between capitalists.

Given the scale of the problem, it’s no wonder that pensions are becoming an increasingly large political issue. Several trade unions, mostly noted for their quiescence over most matters, are actually threatening strike action over pension funds – largely since a great deal of the importance of unions lies in their role of negotiating and guarding employees pensions. The Tories, likewise, have begun to harangue the government over pensions, trying to win over workers’ votes by being the party of prudent finance and protectors of pensions.

The government themselves are still recovering from the outrage caused by their pensions increase of 75p in April 2000, and are currently trying to make up for it by providing a series of means-tested benefits. That is, rather than give extra income to pensioners, they guarantee to pay directly for certain items (e.g. winter fuel), with lots of strings attached. Currently, with the ongoing goal of reducing the size of the state sector in mind, the government aims to have 60 percent of pensioners on personal pensions rather than state pensions, moving risk to individuals and moving more money from the current consumption through taxes onto investment and accumulation on the market.

By moving more pensions to the personal and occupational sector, the government will be transferring dependence over to people’s employers and direct wage packets, thus increasing the level of market discipline on the labour force. That is, it is part of the continuing function of the state to impose the wages system on the majority of people and maintain its existence both in terms of physical maintenance of the system and providing its ideology.

There has always been strong ideological side to the pensions system. The Tories, for instance, favour private pensions and individual savings because it promotes the consciousness of personal responsibility and property (and also has the fringe benefit of moving some of the administration costs of pensions off onto the commons of peoples’ free time). Labour, however, historically said it believed in the state pension as a means of generating a sense of social belonging and responsibility.

These, of course, also relate to the different interests between different forms of capitalist appropriation of surplus value and the interests of different sections of the capitalist class. That is, the Tories’ friends in the City of London versus the labour intensive industries backing Labour.

For workers, the struggle is not only over the size of pensions, but over identity, security and, ultimately, working conditions too. The pensions problem within capitalism once more proves the market economy’s incapacity to go beyond the limits of the wages system, and adequately provide for the needs of those who have worked all their lives. As the capitalist class endeavours to encourage us to share their interests, we find our lives opened up to the chaos and insanity of the stock market casino. But the market system cannot provide any security for us in the long run, which is why we need to turn the class struggle on the economic front into a fight for a society based upon the direct satisfaction of needs.’

Pik Smeet

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/08/pensions-pay-and-poverty-2002.html