The Fake "Prevent" Initiative

Yesterday (see below), I wrote about the Manchester Bombing in the City in which I was born and brought up, and about the responses literally across the board, commending a "we will not be intimidated" response. Literally everybody interviewed blatantly ignored the real causes in a constantly repeated hymn to so-called British Values and Intransigence.

How dare they include us in their guilt, and their way of coping with it! We didn't cause such an inhuman reaction: they did.

And, when it couldn't be avoided any longer, they finally got around to what was already being done, and could in future be done, to combat the rising tide of militant Islam, among Moslem youth. And, "everyone agreed" it was this Prevent Initiative, only more so, that would do it! What a proof of both blatant lying and implacable incompetence.

As if such a web of their lying words could gain-stay the real causes of such hate, namely intolerance, racism and even imperial invasions, as have been, and are still being carried out by the Western Capitalist Governments across the Middle East and North Africa.

And a whole range of people from Politicians, and Experts-on-Terror, to even "moderate Imams" were paraded out to support this mockery of a policy.

"Prevent!" - such a fake smokescreen merely covers up their real motives -they somehow want a quiet and quiescent Middle East, so they can get their valuable OIL cheaply and in peace.

The only valid policy, is for the Left to recruit moslem youth in large numbers into the anti-capitalist fight across the World.

Workers of all countries must unite against the war mongers and the murderers!

For Socialism and Freedom!

Thoughts on Democracy

Services to and Control by the People

It is hard to disagree with the concept of the organisation of a Society for the benefit of its people – the idea of Service. Just as it is similarly obvious that such an organisation should be under the control of the populace – the concept of Democracy.

So, historically, it has been necessary for those in power to in some way subscribe to both of these principles (or at least pretend that they do).

Let us look, critically, at some significant examples.

The fabled properties of Democracy, both as the will of the people, and also their overall control, are, of course, total myths in current so-called “Democratic States”, and the evidence for these assertions can be found everywhere, and can show exactly whose wants and needs are serviced by this lauded system of rule. Of course, it must be where both wealth and power reside that has to be addressed, but, in a somewhat distorted way, for the nearest thing to what is desired is delivered, if only marginally, by Local Democracy, where known and accessible representatives do things that immediately affect people – that is in local or District Councils of various types. For, one aspect of these organisations did take things out of the control of the oligarchs, and it was in the services owned and run by these elected Local Authorities.

Of course, the composition of these Councils would represent the area, which elects it, and in affluent areas the local authority would see its task to serve that constituency, and its occupants. Whereas in a working class city, the majority would have very different priorities, and these would be, sometimes at least, evident in the actions of their elected Council.

But, that is Democracy, and a comparison of how such different Councils see their priorities is very interesting and informative, and always distorted by misleading comparisons such as in efficiency and expenditure priorities.

Clearly a prosperous area would not need to allocate large resources to support the poor, nor would they have any sympathy for those Councils that did. They would compare expenditures and condemn the “high-spending” Council that have large populations of people needing all kinds of essential support.

Now, it is precisely these kinds of criticisms that are used to discredit “Serving Councils” for the affluent take pride in “paying their own way”, while assuming that those who cannot are lazy or worthless, while, at the same time, lavishing vastly more on their own ill family members than could ever be spent on a poor patent by a social service.

So, let us look objectively at certain social services, which have shown great contributions to the good of the populace, and were and occasionally, still are supplied by Local Democratic Organisations. 

Public Transport

Let me start by giving an example from my own experience.

It also should be made clear that I am a working class person from the City of Manchester in England, and was born and brought up in a slum area called West Gorton. I am certain you would get a very different story from someone in Withington or the Stockbroker Belt in North West Cheshire, but their view is available everywhere, whereas the one I will give certainly isn’t.

Oh, and just in case the reader has already pigeonholed me... I finally retired some 20 years ago as a Professor in London University, so what I relate cannot be dismissed as sour grapes from a social failure (as is regularly slapped onto any criticism of society from the working class).

In the 1950s I used to go, every fortnight, to watch my favourite football team, Manchester United, and an average home gate of around 53,000 spectators was got to the ground from all parts of the enormous conurbation by Manchester Corporation Transport in a large fleet of special buses, which were organised like clockwork. In a very short time literally all of these were delivered to the ground, and then removed, just as efficiently, at the end of the match. It was both cheap and vastly more efficient than private cars could ever be, and being a Local Authority Service NO profit was involved. Each and every double-decker bus was packed, and the flexibility of tailor made routes (only used for this purpose) was unachievable by any other means. Indeed, such an effective and wide-ranging transport system was largely self-financing and economical for its users.

But now, after 60 years of “progress” no such system exists. The bus companies are privately owned, and work to a very different imperative, instead of being an efficient and economic service, they now must make a profit as well – without which they simply wouldn’t exist.

NOTE: Imagine how different hospitals would be if they too had to make a profit!

For example the evident virtues for both passengers and transport workers of the old Driver and Conductor arrangement have finally been completely dispensed with after privatisation was finally established as the universal method of provision. Such things as helping old people and mothers with children, on and off the bus were, to say the least, “not conducive to making profit”, so they were dispensed with. And the advantages for speed of service made possible by the collection of fares while on the move, has been replaced by the driver doing all that himself at every single stop and for every passenger, which, it has to be admitted, did wonders for the profit margins now available to the new owners.

Indeed, for a very long while, a significant part of the transport systems were entirely electrically driven in either Trams or Trolley buses, with vastly superior environmental effects than occur with present systems.

The care and maintenance of all these vehicles was undertaken by Council owned and run facilities – again a service with no profit involved. Both my uncle and my brother-in-law worked as bodybuilding specialists in one of the main garages, and were highly trained and well paid, having had apprenticeships, along with Tech-College linked courses. I worked for 10 years in such a College, and the quality of the lecturers and instructors, as well as the qualified engineers that they produced were second to none (I know this because I employed such people as technicians and they were a valuable contribution to the department).

NOTE: By the way, these Colleges were also a service, run by the Council, and, of course, non-profit making.

Funnily enough, all sorts of other, seemingly unconnected things declined too. For example the Public Service Vehicle licence (PSV), which all public service vehicle drivers had to gain before they were allowed to drive such vehicles, were then clearly superior to what they are now. I wonder why?

Also behind the scenes in Public Transport mechanics, with similar rigorous training, kept the engines and safety systems up to scratch, while a large army of cleaners kept both the insides and outsides of the vehicles at an acceptable standard.

I’ll leave the reader to consider what has happened to all these aspects too, and for the very same reasons!

Whatever criticisms there were of Public Transport, there is also little doubt that the imperatives involved were for Service rather than Profit, and usually the workers unions were given much better access and facilities than are ever provided in most private companies.

Even local and national regulation was vastly more efficient, for one visit of an inspection team to the enormous garage where my relatives worked could cover far more and far better, than could be achieved in innumerable visits to multiple small transport companies, and their sub-contracted support firms too, as is the case now. Finally, the economies of scale also made the large publically owned organisations superior to tiny shoestring alternative: there would be the right kit and an appropriate range of trained operatives, from those with years of experience down to apprentices constantly monitored and instructed in best practice.

All this is indeed a taster of Socialised Services, better 60 years ago than they are now!

Yet, the directing of these services was NOT directly in the hands of the populace, or of their elected representatives in Local Government.

The people did not elect the managers of these vast undertakings. They could vote off their known, local and available councillors, and could change the councillors in office at regular elections. But, such a system wasn’t naively bottom-up controlled and run. It required specialists to do that. But, nevertheless, if truly democratic control was in place, the electorate could act at the ballot box. The job of elected councillors was to establish the Service Ethos in their employees, from bottom to top. And even way back in my youth, there was ample evidence that this was achieved in many such organisations. To judge appropriately you merely have to compare then with now.

Do you really think that modern transport firms are run with the service approach? They wouldn’t last long today!

This brief visit to the past was not meant to define some Golden Age. It was never that. But, it showed here and there how Services should be run and most important of all BY WHOM!

Education

Now, Public Transport may not be considered the most important area that involves services to the people, and I would agree.

In a long career in Education, with posts at every level from Junior Schools to Universities, I can speak authorativly about these services, as by far the most important.

Now, it is in schools and colleges of all kinds that Local Democracy has a major role. And, once again, the differences between how this totally non profit making and countrywide service is delivered, and how it contrasts with organisations dedicated primarily and predominantly with the production of profits for those who have no other necessary qualification or general knowledge, but can extract profit, and hence do have the money to invest, is remarkable.

Once again, the quality involved in how such a service as Education was delivered to the Community, is vastly better than in any profit-making concern.

Indeed, there are no bonuses for teachers, and none desired, or expected. The calibre of those who choose such a demanding and worthwhile career is uniformly superior to any other organisation, if your criteria are to do with what is delivered to the community served, and for what reasons.

And, for some considerable time, now, whenever they got into power, the Tories, would make yet another assault upon State Education, while, of course, sending their own children to private, fee-paying schools, where they would receive, primarily, the appropriate social connections and command training for their future ruling roles in society.

For, the mass of the population are, in their eyes, only educated in such ways, and to such levels, to service the current economic system, Capitalism, and its essential role of producing ever-larger profits. Unless what was done in such institutions was limited to such ends, such places would only foster discontent with the Natural Order.

Such totally unproductive educational content must be actively swept away, to produce the ideally prepared workers for this, “the only possible system”.

Indeed, it had been coming to their notice that in certain areas pupils were being educated in such a way that they would have happy and fulfilling lives, and that could certainly only “lead them astray”1

What is clear to these traditional rulers, is that educational institutions must be, primarily, to fit all their products to the needs and wants of their future employers, and concentrate all learning upon only what they will need in their assigned-for roles in society. Education that encouraged them in any other prospective futures was both unkind to them, and destructive to an ordered and healthy economic future for Society. Crucially, thinking for themselves and being creative, artistic or maybe politically active would be well beyond the Pale.

And, we must see all their changes in Educational Policy in this light.

Even the current attacks upon Birmingham Council, under the guise of attacking Moslem extremists, is basically yet another attempt to wrest this jewel of real Social Service out of the hands of Local Democracy, and into the hands of people who agree with their pro-capitalist policies. 

Indeed, in a recent news programme on TV the ministers in Parliament, and even the newscasters, themselves, steadfastly refused to either ask, or answer, the Key Questions, and, in fact, purposely misled ordinary people as to both what was actually going on in 21 Birmingham Schools, who was responsible for them, and what their own agendas were for Education in particular, and Local Democracy, in general.

Clearly, Education should never be in the hands of those who don’t really care about anything but making a profit, and should demonstrate the most democratically controlled service of all!

The Unsolvable Problems of Capitalism

 The Answers are NOT within it!

On what economic basis can a society be constructed and maintained?

My western country is a capitalist society, which is based upon investment, by people with the reserves (wealth) to do it, into enterprises both big and small. The incentive for doing this is that the investor will “own” a piece of the company that has been invested in, and will therefore receive a proportion of its dividends (profits) annually. Also, the holder of the “share” can sell its investment to someone else via the Stock Exchange, and if your (i.e. the investor’s) company is doing well, you can make a profit on that too!

There is NO alternative to this method within capitalism. And, the problem always is, “How does the investor come by the wherewithall to invest?” Well, the present day answer is that they got it from other, prior investments – both in dividends (profits), or in selling other investments for more than they paid for them (profits). Capitalism feeds upon itself, but only, ostensibly, via private entrepreneurs, who fund its development, and thus “kindly provide jobs" for the working classes.

In the modern world the old small-scale production is simply not good enough. It is too expensive! Large-scale production will produce cheaper goods, but will necessarily also require large amounts of initial investments to even get started.

Now, of course, the question of where the very first investments came from before sufficient was available in profits or dividends was, indeed, a major problem. It was called Primitive Accumulation, and has been dealt with very well in a prior SHAPE Blog posting (February 2012), as well as in SHAPE Journal Special Issue 22 (in July 2013)

But, we must also address today’s ever-present problem, of sufficient available investment to keep the “immense pantechnicon moving”. For, it gets harder and dearer to set a new production in train, while at the same time older companies are less and less able to compete with those equipped with the latest facilities.

This is unavoidable due to the Declining Rate of Profit – recognised in the 19th century, and still in evidence today! It is, of course, caused by the incessant necessity for technical advance, in order to be cheaper than your competitors. So, not only in new start-ups, but also in updating and improving your equipment, the need for more investment is always arising.

Indeed, the demand actually outstrips the supply, so companies have also to borrow money at high rates to fill the gaps, and this takes the rate of interest that has to be paid OUT of the hands of the borrowers, and into those of the lenders. And these could only be the Banks!

The source of the Banks’ funds will be the wages and savings that they hold for literally everybody. The lender’s main criterion will be, “Will the borrowers continue to be able to pay the necessary interest?”, while a secondary one will be, “Will they, in the end, also pay back the loan?” If the lenders are satisfied with the answers, they will lend the money, sometimes even if the chance of a full repayment isn’t totally assured – but, of course, in such circumstances, the interest rate charged will be upped accordingly!

Now, usually, when a loan comes up for repayment, the loaned-to company simply borrows elsewhere to pay off the past loan, and the new lenders use the same criteria of ability-to-pay in deciding to forward the necessary amount. BUT, this method is NOT based upon true intrinsic values!

More money is loaned than will ever be repaid at the equivalent value, so the debts are extended ever further into the future. The consequence of this is Inflation!

Money values actually continually decline. In fact, it is a very important part of maintaining the capitalist system: for it affects the different classes selectively. As will be shown, it is very advantageous to the capitalists, as their financial mechanisms keep their values in an advantageous balance, but it is quite the reverse to workers, for the latter only lose by inflation.

NOTE: Good indicators are House values! My current home has risen in value from when I bought my first to now by a factor of 100. Is that mostly reflecting intrinsic value, or is it Inflation?

Now, think what this means in terms of loans and investments! What was borrowed and the interest payable will inevitably SHRINK due to inflation, for it involved borrowing at old values, and is increasingly paid off (with interest) at the new decreased values. So, capitalism depends upon Inflation to keep going!

NOTE: Indeed, the opposite possibility, that of Deflation would mean that both interest and even the final repayment value would be much more that what was initially borrowed. Capitalism would collapse!

Also, without the rich investors Capitalism also couldn’t work!

So let us inspect some downright lies.

How does inflation affect Working People? Looking at the current situation we see inflation going up much faster than wages: it makes them constantly poorer, while their masters pay old dues at the new lesser values. They actually gain doubly! For their loans decline in current values, while their workforce becomes ever cheaper! The situation fulfils their needs perfectly: they can overcome the devastating, if temporary, reinstatement of real value, in a depression or slump, by making the Working class pay for the subsequent re-build!

Now, if you think about the past and present methods of Imperialism and Globalisation, it is clear that they were all followed in order to pay less! For, what they were doing was exporting their problems to what was called The Third World would certainly enable that saving. But, in the end, even that was to some extent terminated as the Third World rose up and Empires melted away! 

The biggest and most recent solution was to bring the Socialist countries back into the capitalist fold by showing sections of those populations (those who could, in the right conditions, become rich) just how well they would do under capitalism. And it worked - for a while at least!

China is the best example. It provides goods cheaper because its workers are paid less. But now, both Russia and China are becoming not only markets and sources of cheap labour, but competitors in the capitalist stakes. Why do you think capitalist Russia is such a bogey?

The Arab Spring and current upheavals in the Middle East are other examples of the exploitation. And, in consequence, local populations are correctly blaming Western capitalism for their problems, and not only rebelling against their imposed, dictatorial leaders, but also increasingly mounting an assault upon the real behind-the-scenes manipulators – the western capitalists. It is no wonder that the current alliance against the Islamic State, as well as the USA, also significantly includes the reactionary regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Jordan. What an amazing mix! Are they really in it for humanitarian or moral reasons? You know that cannot be true!

Yet, the Sunni version of Islam, which is claimed to be the Islamic State’s motivation, is the same as that in Saudi Arabia, and of the rulers of Bahrain, regularly acting against their own Shia people. Why would these reactionary regimes line up with the capitalist west?

By the way, it is interesting who does the work in these oil-rich Arab countries? It isn’t the indigenous inhabitants, but brought in labourers from elsewhere without any legal or representational rights.

So, who or what can oppose these collections of parasites?

It isn’t this or that religious group, or anyone else on moral grounds, but only the committed socialists who are for the Workers in all countries, and fight for the End of Capitalism, and its worldwide exploitation and even interventionist wars but only in their constant pursuit of even more Profit! 

What Next For Turkey?

Yet another country in the Islamic world is in crisis. Perhaps the biggest country in the Middle East - Turkey - has also toppled into a state of crisis, seemingly over a park being earmarked for development into some sort of mall. Yet, of course, it is much more than that.

The discontent is country-wide, and the usual tactic of the ruling class, a turn to an Islamic state, is again coming to the fore. But though the peasants feel it will help them, the city-dwellers are sure it will take away what they have gained, and instead of the future they envisaged, there could be a retreat to a deprived past. Turkey is truly at a crossroads.

The dictatorial and religious tendencies of the current Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, are clearly opposed by the rising middle class, educated workers and city-dwellers generally, and it looks like another pulse in the so-called Arab Spring - the general move towards revolution for an entire civilization.

Listening to the various political commentators, even those on Middle Eastern TV stations such as Al Jazeera, you would think that the threatened uprising could never happen. Turkey is a democracy, we are told. Half the population are rural peasants that back the Islamist Prime Minister, we are assured, while the other (roughly) 50% live in cities, the workers and the middle class, who are lead by disaffected students, who know what they want, and it isn't an Islamic State! This impasse cannot be traversed! This is what we are told, but, of course, they are mistaken.

A Revolution is always an alliance of differing groups who come together with a unifying common purpose. The red flags in evidence at these various demonstrations are not all Turkish flags, some are emblems of the socialists and communists - the appearance of 'hammers and sickles' proved it. Clearly there is some culture of socialist ideas evident within Turkish society, and hence there may be real revolutionaries amongst them, who can correctly interpret what is emerging on a national scale. 

In Russia in 1917, with a successful defeat of the 1905 revolution behind them, the general consensus seemed to be that with the forced abdication of the Czar, enough was enough, and the vast preponderance of peasants would ensure that no social revolution could occur to take things further. Yet, the Russian revolutionaries knew what was necessary, and they knew that they must win the peasants to their cause, by including their most heartfelt demand in their battle cries. The demand became "Peace, Bread and Land!" - wedded to the demands of the working class there would be a turning over of private farmland into the hands of those that worked it - the peasants. They would own their own plots, and the vast majority of the national army were peasants - they not only were for peace, but would own their own land, and had the arms-in-hand to achieve it.

The leadership of the Turkish people must be won by those who understand revolution, and can present the appropriate demands to unify the peasants, workers and middle class to eject the reactionary government, for a just society.

Victory to the Turkish People!

What Next For Syria?

How can we characterise what is going on in Syria?

It was correct to see it initially as part of the Arab Spring - then the capitalist predators finally got their acts together, to (in some way) intervene, in an attempt to turn the situation to their own advantage, and are now playing an increasingly determining role.

Their first effort in Libya certainly didn't work out as hoped, so the second effort in Syria had to be more circumspect, and the genuine nascent popular revolution had to be distorted into something very different.

Of course, it has all happened before in the case of the Russian Revolution, with devastating failure as the result. First of all, there was support for the Monarchists and White Armies of the ensuing civil war, which was then followed by the invasion of armies from 14 different nations, with the sole purpose of defeating the revolution. But they failed completely and had to switch to a very different long-term objective, latterly termed the Cold War, to undermine the revolutionary regime. 

So with the Arab Spring things had to be different - and considerably cheaper! Nevertheless, the results, so far, have been, if anything, a great deal worse.

For, who are those who are interfering, what are their intentions and how are they doing it? 

First of all you have the reactionary monarchies of the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, who pour money and arms into Syria, but pick and chose who gets it - primarily Islamic fundamentalist groups intent upon establishing an Islamic State. 

Then you have the western capitalists states, which pretend that they only have humanitarian motives, which is clearly untrue! 

Indeed all sorts of individuals from all sorts of countries associated into many different kinds of groups (including terrorist organisations) have poured into Syria. The result has been a multiplicity of armed groups fighting the regime, with looting the only way of financing their actions and maintaining their forces, and these are rapidly turning the situation into total chaos.

But what of the other side - the supporters of President Assad? They will be those who benefit from his largesse internally, and from his buffer-state role externally. 

In this melee there is no revolutionary party armed with the essential Marxist theory to correctly interpret what is going on, and organise a secular alternative to both sides of this conflict, based upon the mass of the population. 

For the interventionists have no understanding of the dynamic of a revolution: and only know about the ebbs and flows within a stable society, and the single alternative of repression and war to re-establish their required hegemony. In a revolution everything they do only makes things worse, and their methods (particularly the local monarchies) have been repressive for centuries. 

Indeed, if you want to characterise the process, there are many exemplars throughout history. Whenever a particular stability became undermined and began to collapse, the positive outcome via Revolution to a new and higher Level, was never guaranteed. And with powerful, but uncomprehending forces smashing against one another, for their own interests only, the most likely outcome was always what we term a Dark Age. Only losses of a major nature could possibly result with Mankind taking a giant step backwards. 

While the capitalist powers are arranging conferences to decide the kind of future they require for Syria, where are the revolutionary parties worldwide doing the same? Even humanitarian interventions can be achieved better than the symbolic gestures of the western charities. Does anyone remember Workers' Aid in Bosnia Herzegovina?